Quote:
Originally posted by Cam
... but I remember someone saying that instead of fighting a far with Iraq, the US should put it's resources into a "Manhatten Project" to discover some form of energy other than Petroleum.
Just think what would happenen to all the Middle Eastern Countries of they suddenly had all this Oil and nobody wanted it.
|
This concept and its following cited article are classic of MBA mentalities. They advocate creating innovation by throwing money at it. How many times every year must we suffer another corporate disaster or government solution because of this myopic mentality. Did anyone learn from Perot who described a difference - solve problems either by throwing money at it like a grenade or use the money as a scapel.
Money does not create innovation. Innovation requires money. But too much money (the grenade) can even stifle innovation. Does anyone remember all those robots promoted by Roger Smith of GM - that only raised GM's costs and reduced product quality? Those trained in the MBA schools have problems understanding the concept - because like the article's author, they are the problem.
Strategic objective was to eliminate petroleum as an energy source. Fine. What will carry more energy per pound than petroleum - and with simple containers? At least the Manhatten Project was based upon some fundamentally proven theories. No such alternative exists theoretically to match the energy per pound of fossil fuels.
The following article claims, as a solution, distributed energy generation. The problem is not energy generation techniques. The problem is a massive shortage of intelligent knowledge among the masses. That silly article completely avoids basic numbers in order to draw conclusions absurd. Instead, maybe a Manhatten Project is needed to educate brains such as the article's author? There seems to be a serious deficiency of first learning how things really work.
For example, the article implies that 66% of the energy consumed is wasted as heat. Yes, when you use inefficient energy generation technologies. So we burn fuel and heat houses simultaneously - as if this were some new, radical solution not implemented in major cities such as Philadelphia and New York for at least 1/2 a century. So we install electric generators with 35% thermodynamic efficiencies in homes and use the residual energy as heat - forgetting most electricity is consumed during summer heat - just a few minor facts forgotten when numbers are ignored.
Did the author ever bother to read real news or is he another product of the local gossip - Action News and Daily News? If he first bothered to even read read non-fiction articles, then he would have learned of, and for example, two natural gas fired plants being installed in Limerick and Cromby that are almost 70% efficient. 70% (not 33%) because existing and proven technology is being used. Numbers - that last paragrahs not reported in the Daily News and Action News results a completely different conclusion. Numbers must be understood before wildly advocating a solution.
Then there is the little thing called addressing major wasters of energy. The poster never once mentioned the SUV and its 1960 based technology - used because companies like GM fear to market innovation until absolutely forced to do so. Why should they when 'we' will buy obsolete technologies based upon emotion rather than facts. What is the thermodynamic efficiency of the SUV? 10%? 15%? Not only does the article ignore what is a major source of energy waste, but it furthermore fails to advocate solutions using proven technologies to advance mankind. We have understood and used hybrid technologies since before WWII - and the technology is still not available in vehicles from anti-innovation companies such as GM.
Do we throw billions of dollars at GM to create a hybrid car? Nonsense. We buy Toyota and Hondas - and suddenly stifled innovation appears even in GM products to pollute less and create greater energy efficiencies.
So what is the real problem? The real problem is too many people who waste the world in fiction - who fear numbers - who cannot even both to first learn how things work.
Some classic examples of consumers who advocate world degradation by advocating unproductive products. Are you on the list? Such consumers purchase low performance SUVs, Listerene, daily vitamins, and plug-in surge protectors. It does not take much knowledge to see through the problem. These products would be rare, unnecessary, or irrelevant if consumers first learned facts and then voted those unnecessary products out of existance. In the meantime, we still have those MBA mentalities who advocate solutions by throwing money at them.
How often does the expression "We have met the enemy and he is us" have relevance?