Dear friends, I followed your excited discussions about HH and other
alternative fuel options and would like to refer to my presentation in
Seattle, where I pointed out that the fuel age will be over very soon for
obvious reasons: low thermal engine efficiency, pollution, health hazards,
logistics, cost, resource depletion etc. - all thermal machines belong to
the technical museum for good, except maybe for space propulsion. Forget any
fuels including hydrogen, hydrogen peroxide, fossil derivates, bio fuels
(stealing fertile soils from food production of a growing and hungry
population) etc. We live in the electrical age for the remainder of
humanity - remember my speech "Energy in the next 1000 years" !! See also
www.uniseo.org > Clean Transport.
Kind regards Gustav
Gustav R. Grob, President
International Clean Energy Consortium ICEC
Gewerbezone 3d, CH-6315 Morgarten-Zug
T: +41-41-754-4090 F: +41-41-750-9020 E: grob@icec.ch
Chairman of ISO/TC203/WG3 Energy Systems Analyses & Statistics
Founder-Chairman of ISO/TC197 on Hydrogen Energy Technologies
Board Member of the International Energy Foundation IEF
Executive Secretary of ISEO, Geneva
POB 200, CH-1211 Geneva 20
T: +41-22-910-3006 F: +41-22-910-3014
E: info@uniseo.org mailto:info@uniseo.org
I:
www.uniseo.org <http://www.uniseo.org/>
-----Original Message-----
From: Feng Hsu [mailto:Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV]
Sent: Montag, 24. September 2007 23:15
Paul,
"Deciding or making assessments on better energy or any technologies" does
not have to be "deterministic". In fact, it should be probabilistic-based or
use of both approaches. I agree that we can take full advantages of the
market forces (same as making use of full advantages of the positive side of
the human nature) while avoiding allow the market force to drive everything
to the realm of unknowns. Because in doing so, it makes no difference from
allowing the use of all attributes of human nature to drive the future of
our own fate. Again, it is a choice that human must make. If we allow the
commercial force to drive our economy, then there is a price to pay and a
risk to take. If the risk is too high, in terms of self-destructions and
man-made planetary ruins, then such risk level is simply unacceptable to
humanity!
The Russians and the Chinese style planning economy in communist forms were
extreme forms of the so-called planning socialist economies. The failure of
their planned economies was in their anti-democracy and anti-human nature
political system. Just to the contrary, under such corrupted political
system, the intelligent members of their society, the well-educated folks
were largely oppressed and even eliminated for the sake of fooling the mass
public just to try to hanging on to their power at whatever costs.....
Yes, there is also some price to pay for the consumers in adapting to a
clean energy source (hopefully for a short period), as far as such price is
relatively much lower: like what the German government is doing to their
consumers by charging a few cents extra per kilowatt to subsidize their
solar energy R&Ds, and like the states of California (or Nevada and Utah)
are charging a bit more from their citizens to subsidize the solar energy
development, and like what China is doing to require all public buildings 4
or more floors to install solar power systems. I am talking about things
like such government guided human creativities, and these are obviously the
right thing to do, in stead of curving to the pressures of the current
market (or political) forces that are primarily driven by industrial
establishments and by human greedy!
Best regards,
Feng
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Werbos [mailto:pwerbos@nsf.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:07 PM
To: Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV; 'Global Energy Network'; 'Richard Godwin'; 'Paul J.
Werbos, Dr.'; BobKrone@aol.com
Subject: RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general
At 03:30 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>I realize and understand the needs and reasons why people doing all
>businesses for the conveniences of the consumers, therefore for
>maximizing profits of the established industries given the present
>market-driven (or
>money-driven) political systems. However, there is an issue of choice
>for humanity, as to whether mankind should always allow existing
>commercial market force to drive the future of our economy, or should
>we doing things
a
>bit smarter to allow sound & promising technologies driving our future
>economy? Professor Marty H. of NYU and I brought this issue for
>discussions at the FFF's Energy conference in Seattle and we both felt
>very strongly that the future of mankind will be much better-off and we
>will be encountering much less "troubles or unknown human disasters" if
>we choose the latter, meaning to allow sound and better technologies
>(especially energy technologies) to drive the future of humanity.
It is not at all a cheap shot to say that many very intelligent people in
Russia took a very similar position circa 1920 -- why do we not decide on a
better plan in advance, and stick to it? And if oil lobbyists get in the
way, why not do what was done recently to the Yukos guy?
It really worked to some extent for awhile... but as technology became more
and more complex, deterministic planning in advance from the center became
less and less viable. It collapsed. There comes a time when honest,
competent people need to admit that NO ONE ON EARTH has enough knowledge to
mandate such a fixed blueprint, defining the "winners."
DOE (having many folks who think a bit like some of those wise folks) has
discovered how it is possible to MAKE technology X the RELATIVE winner, by
simply starving all competent or high-potential alternatives. Space solar
power is not on their list for funding.
Furthermore -- those of us who fully understand the mathematics of trying to
find an optimal strategy of action in a nonlinear stochastic world
understand how the optimal strategy is typically just too complex for
planners to understand, or for the political process to handle. It is simply
a lot more efficient to WORK WITH NATURE, as they say in classical medicine,
rather than neglecting what it offers.
We don't need to let the market decide EVERYTHING, in order to get great
advantage from it.
Until this month, I thought that the new China government really understood
that.
I do not see China doing as well as the US, even, in following up on serious
possibilities for energy from space.
Whatever the reasons and whatever the excuses -- "by their fruits you will
know them."
Though I hope that both countries (both sets of people) have a lot more hope
to do things that are genuinely useful in the future.
In the case of car fuel, the lowest COST of generating liquid fuels is a
legitimate factor in making the future decision, as are consumer
preferences. The market tells us real information much better than any other
way to get the information. We will probably be able to improve on market
information later, ONCE WE HAVE IT as a starting point -- but we need to
have it first.
I do not see China passing laws requiring GEMH fuel flexibility OR global
progress on plug-in hybrids either.
Also.. the optimal strategy will involve an adaptive MIX of fuels over time,
different in different market segments and in different parts of the world.
One meataxe solution developed in Washington or Beijing would not fit the
whole world at all times! Because oil dependency is SO dangerous and growing
SO quickly, we cannot afford a less than optimal strategy which does not
mobilize ALL WE HAVE to make our world safer.
Best of luck, Paul
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:global-energy@mp.cim3.net Msg Archives:
http://mp.cim3.net/forum/global-energy/
Dear ACC Maelstrom II cast, crew, consultants, and friends,
\Nuance\NaturallySpeaking10\Program\web_ie.dll/QMARK.GIF)
