Monthly Archives: February 2014

LENR – Replacing the fossil fuel oligopoly

I have a tenuous set of ideas to put forth here. The linkages I’ve outlined are frail if not ghostly, yet I offer them as a meager meal for thought.

$12 million seems a cheap price to pay for the future of humanity.

I remember when Steorn came out. I recall debating it on the forum there and my general hope but overall incredulous position that Steorn’s invention couldn’t possibly exist for the simplest reason that any such device would threaten the existing energy industrial complex machine dominated by the U.S. government and its underlying currency, the dollar. The same, I believe, applies to LENR.

LENR and the E-cat may never have been compared to atomic weapons but LENR’s potential impact on society might be just as formidable, just as disruptive. Atomic weapons were developed in the deepest of secrecy by the smartest of people available. Had anyone else been trying to develop such technology, the Russians for instance (who were and did), the U.S. government would have been trying their damnedest to discover, subsume or suppress any parallel efforts. The bomb was that important.

The advent of the atomic weapon forever changed the way society developed. The cold war, all of the constant espionage, the development of advanced submarines and the entire space race were due to changes atomic weapons wrought on society. It might even be said that many of the wars fought between democratic ideals and communist ones were due to the threat that nuclear weapons had on society.

If atomic weapons were so disruptive with regards to nation state security then, in turn, there is no way, in my opinion, LENR would be allowed to disrupt the fossil fuel oligopoly. I’ll elaborate. The entire world runs on oil. And the world’s oil supply passes through one currency, the U.S. dollar. Oil and the dollar are intricately linked. Threaten oil and you threaten the dollar. Threaten oil and you threaten world stability. (The UK’s DOD fleeting mention that joined LENR to OPEC state instability was fanciful nonsense if only because such a condition would never be allowed to develop.)

If we, for the time being, assume that the quick, broad adoption of a new, oil replacing energy source would be just as disruptive, and mostly likely more, than atomic weapons, then one would have to theorize that such a potential disruption would be thoroughly monitored and if found viable, subsumed or suppressed. Such a disruption would be catastrophic and would scarcely be left to toddle along without curtailment. Picture the disruption terrorism has confounded the world with. Threats to oil and its reserve currency would be a thousand times more shocking.

The NSA has been monitoring state security for decades. They’ve gone so far as to suspend the U.S. Constitution and invade citizen’s rights. This all in the name of the war on terror. Only through Edward Snowden do we know that such a supervision infiltration has persisted. This could be said to be excellent evidence of the government keeping constant tabs on all potential threats. As noted, the risk of terrorist activity pales in comparison to the menace an alter-energy source would have on the country’s oil supremacy. If so many billions of dollars were spent just to monitor potential terrorist activity, imagine the money spent to maintain the constant flow of oil. (Two Iraq Wars and countless military actions in oil supply states.)

If LENR is a threat to world stability its leading candidate, the E-cat, should have been worth a sight more than $12m.

Global warming doubters aside, humanity is in for a sequence of serious challenges if we don’t find another energy source aside from oil. The world needs LENR or a LENR like fossil fuel substitute now. The world needed it decades ago in fact. All ideas of threat aside, the economic potential of LENR, of the E-Cat, extends so far beyond anyone’s understanding that to make estimates is to invite shear conjecture. A hundred trillion dollars? 500 trillion over the next 100 years? It’s silly to guess. All estimates can’t possibly extrapolate the impact of a nearly free energy source on the world.

And this breakthrough, these technologies were all touted to be the savior of humans and planet alike. COPs greater than 2 or 5 or 10 or … were a godsend right? Indeed, thank the stars above. I mean, this cliff we are headed toward, or backing up against – being pressed to the edge, is looming disastrous. And the likes of Rossi, DGT, Brillioun, Blacklight, and others, their discoveries are going to save us. Right? Well, they all proposed that their devices would be our salvation. And that they would reap the rewards, and rightly so. They would be replacing the fossil fuel energy complex, that enormous expensive beast and I’m sure that would be worth a pretty penny. Rossi et al were going to be the seeds of that destructive creativity.

And so, for less than the cost of a mansion in Malibu I could have owned the premier alternative energy source that was going to save the world. A source more disruptive than atomic energy. An energy revelation that even the U.S. government failed to suppress or subsume. A tumultuous chaos rendering revolution in energy production that would topple Aramco, Gazprom, PetroChina and the others without a wimper. For $12 million dollaroonies. Such a deal.

Advertisements

Colonizing Mars – two things first.

Two points on Mars colonization: bigger rockets are not the solution. And solar and galactic radiation is not your friend.

Getting stuff into space should be done using maglev/startram style shots with scramjet boosts at the apogee for the final push into LEO. High G, extreme velocity shots. People have to go slow, fragile as we are, so rockets are the only way there sure. But not for stuff. And most of the material we need in space to begin being a space faring species can take very high G. Quit building bigger rockets and build a smarter LEO launch system Musk!

Once there on Mars we need to tunnel. Where did the first mammals live when they evolved all those millions of years ago? Burrows. Get underground and you’ll be safe. Same goes for Mars. But on Mars the bad stuff isn’t going to eat you it’s going to poison you with radiation. Only dirt and rock (and water) will protect you from the massive radiation influx Martians will have to endure. So send tunneling machines first. Build the tunnels that will be the only true protection for humans once there.

So, yes, get humanity cached off planet on Mars (and the Moon), just in case you know. But get smarter about what really has to be done to do it.


Bitcoin’s apparent stability

Bitcoin’s apparent stability is, well, unstabilizing.

There is no way that bitcoin could go from the wild volatility of months past to this, this barely blipping beat of this bubble. Someone, or some group, has taken it upon themselves to stabilize the price of BTC. Sell it hard when it gets above the 30 day MA and buy it harder when it drops below the 30 day MA (plus or minus half a standard deviation).

Winklevoss, Andressen, and the rest are afraid for their investment. The KNOW they have to artificially inject stability into BTC or the world will dismiss it out of hand. So, they’ve systematically agreed to work the price such that it floats at ~$950 for months if need be. Expect that this artificial flatness to the volatility of BTC to continue for many more months.

Image


It’s all about expectations

In reply to:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/monetarism.asp#comment-1115675527

It’s all about expectations.
.
Central banks fail at setting them, maintaining them and then end up destroying them with capricious changes in policy. Will the FED ease or tighten? Will it raise or lower interest rates? Will the ECB do the same? Everywhere there is a Keynesian focused central bank there is mistrust in the monetary system. If Monetarism attempts to nullify the actions of central banks with policy designed to set and maintain expectations (interest rates and monetary supply) then government, business, and consumers will all be able to plan their futures to a much greater accuracy than what is available today.
.
How can anyone estimate what will happen to their money in a year or three in such current (2013) economic uncertainty? Savings? Non-existent. Treasury returns? Empty. If MV = PT, and the FED/ECB continue to increase M, then its obvious that the V will continue to shrink. And that is in fact exactly what has been happening. Banks continue to refrain from lending, hoarding the quantitative easing dollars that are continuously being injected into this lopsided equation. Will this ever stop? How can this end gracefully?
.
Keynesian directed central banks are always playing catch up, and are always one beat behind. The only result is that the expected rhythm gets so out of sync that the whole monetary musical machine comes crashing down around us.