Jed, Why do you think it is OK that people in Russia and Saudi loses job. I could accept your idea 100 years ago as an egoistical stance. Today it does not even have that excuse. We live in an interconnected world. Now I think there will be transfer of work due to introduction of LENR. Reality is that the 'winners' will have to support the 'losers'. This transfer will create jobs just in the transfer. Then you will find that what was not so plausible before will now be very much an option. For example with very low energy cost we here in CA would rather build desalination plants in South CA then try to import water from far away. Thus creating development jobs, construction jobs, maintenance jobs etc. I have said it before it is not a zero sum game. On the contrary lower cost, more effective solutions opens up new ways to do things. I do think you are right in that many (particularly trade unions and the political establishment) will cry over what might be lost, because they cannot see outside there own little box. Everything outside is unknown and scary.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
