Skip to main content

Add new comment

Anonymous_Engineer (not verified)    March 12, 2012 - 1:29PM

In my first point, I claim that the author makes some comparisons which are questionable. Comparing the push for “clean energy” to Sputnik, and the Apollo response is perilous. The Apollo program was not plagued by as many competing and contradictory goals as is the current clean energy attempted revolution. Some decry and some embrace technology, as is suitable to what ever the clean energy goal may be; cleaner energy, or severe limits to technology. There are more examples. One only has to look for them.

This illuminates my second point; that of confusing a primary energy source with technology. Batteries are not energy, but a way to transport energy inefficiently. Saying, “Do we want to wean ourselves from a dependence on foreign oil to only develop a dependence on foreign batteries?” is a good example of this kind of thinking. A primary energy source is utilized by technology, not created by it. He may be good at arithmetic, but needs to revisit exactly what energy is and where it comes from, IMHO.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Comments_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <ul> <ol'> <code> <li> <i>
  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.