I didn't' mean to sound high-handed so let me state my point more calmly ;-) What I mean is the following. Suppose that, for some reason, the US Department of Defense wanted to implement the plan stated in this article. They would mow down the remaining technical issues and most of it would be in place in ten years. That's because the DoD is focussed on what it wants and uses it's considerable influence to get stuff done. That sort of approach would easily put a better energy system (and probably a new grid) into place. It bothers me a lot when people cite the need for technical breakthroughs. The engineering and science is there. We're like smokers: we kind of know we are damaging ourselves health wise (and in this case in terms of security as well) but it's too hard to quit.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Daniel J. Matyola <[email protected]> wrote: > That indeed is the problem. > Dan Matyola > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Paul Stenquist > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> And a vast majority of those who want clean energy don't want to pay for it. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
