Not to introduce politics but . . . A Clinton campaign spokesperson is quoted in the news today: "We think that she came into Michigan with a very strong economic agenda and message about how she would create jobs and put manufacturing sector around clean energy . . ."
I think people in both parties are starting to say this. They are justified. Alternative energy is labor-intensive. It now employs more people than coal mining. That is one of the reasons wind and solar remain more expensive than coal-fired electricity. (They are arguably less expensive when you take into account the cost of pollution and global warming, but the immediate costs are higher.) >From our point of view, the problem with this is that cold fusion will not be labor-intensive. On the contrary, it will wipe out all jobs related to energy. It will take only a few thousand people to implement. Most of them will be researchers, who are seldom paid much money. Cold fusion will wipe out an entire sector of the economy. Whether it will add new sectors remains to be seen. This means that cold fusion will have yet another built-in enemy as soon as it emerges from the laboratory. Yet another vested interest will be opposed to it. Not only will it face opposition from fossil fuels, wind solar and other alternative energy, but also from organized labor and politicians in both parties who want to "preserve jobs." My guess is that in the long term cold fusion may create new industries, but in the first twenty years it is used, it will mainly reduce expenses. When you save money, someone else loses income. You may spend that money elsewhere, but in the meanwhile someone, somewhere is hurt. In the case of fossil fuels, many of the people who will lose income are in Saudi Arabia and Russia. I do not feel sorry for them. - Jed
