The American Freedom Network

Agreement in Principle? The best solution is what people want

I agree with the comments on Well Put to a degree and if some additional context is applied.

Who should be “funding” the technologies mentioned. “We” is awfully broad. We as individuals? Investing in businesses pursuing these technologies? I agree, unless they can’t realize any return in our lifetime. People, given freedom, tend to not put good money after bad.

Comparisons to technologies in India illustrate future possibilities wonderfully. Unfortunately, the demographics, culture and infrastructure of the U.S. (or Canada or Europe) don’t support effective comparisons such as this beyond illustration of possibilities. The “SmartCar” is a fascinating enterprise. Unfortunately, it is losing money consistently. They are successful in India too as well as European Cities but still lose money.

I want a hydrogen fuel cell. I want renewable power as far as scientific physics allows. I’d love to fill up my vehicle with water. Americans however don’t wish to sacrifice their lifestyle, mobility and productivity to some statist energy coercion scheme. A Smart Car or compressed air vehicle (how do they compress that air?) are great for an urban dweller who does no extended traveling but not practical for most people in the U.S. Any person who is smart wants a more efficient and accessible energy supply over time.

The problem is that “dependence” on hydrocarbons for fuel, energy and chemical industries is often overstated and is very grossly misrepresented by most media. Our dependence is self-inflicted. Purposeful or not, we are forced to use foreign sources for oil. This is because our oil driven economy provides enough prosperity and comfort for people to militate against supplying our own hydrocarbons in favor of unfounded “environmental” worries. Nuclear power is similarly attacked by enviro-militants. Conservatively (very conservatively) the United States has enough of its own hydrocarbons to be completely independent of foreign sources and at current usage to be supplied for several (2-5) hundred years. Untapped oil, oil shale deposits, Canadian and other Tar Sands and Coal are alternatives but have to be cost effective. Not there yet. Also the U.S. refusal to exploit its natural gas supplies and utilize nuclear power for electricity generation contribute to this self inflicted “dependence”.

Of course it is smart to explore and try to develop or invent alternative energy sources. They need to be cost effective and something that people WANT. It certainly can’t be successfully dictated by government. Government never fixes anything. They make it worse and/or take longer.

Given, say only a hundred year domestic supply, we have time to develop the solutions needed. The artificial high price of gasoline has little to do with “dependence” on foreign oil. It has primarily to do with a lack of refining capacity (another environmentalist and government obstruction) and not exploiting the VAST resources withing our own country’s bounds.

People will buy that which they need at a price they deem they can afford. As alternative sources become economically viable and cost effective to consumers, they will be adopted. People who think such research isn’t going on aren’t paying attention.