Sunday, June 29, 2008

The Energy Question: A Solution

I'm wondering if something like this made by these nice people here might not be "the answer" to the worlds future energy needs when coupled with a scaled down version (on the order of a 10 kwh capability, say) of one of these to augment the solar component?

The Hyperion unit could be incorporated into a single structure (buried or not as seems best) along with the other external-to-the-living-structure components of a modern dwelling, air circulation and conditioning, water filtration and heating and cooling, sewage treatment, etc. There's no inherent requirement that any of these technologies necessarily be a stand-alone entity, despite that being the result stemming from the historical development of each process.

If we were to include this technology (to electrolize and store fuel for an emergency generator as well as a vehicle) as part of the combined energy development system as well, then individual energy semi-independence would seem a realistic and near-term objective. I qualify that statement because I foresee an ongoing need for periodic servicing of all this technology that an individual home owner isn't likely to want/be able to do for him/herself in any sort of economical fashion.

Please take note, this particular proposal would not adequately address the continuing need for commercial demand for electrical power; we would still need the electrical distribution grid to power commercial enterprise for the foreseeable future. What this would do is to relieve existing residential demand and projected increased future non-commercial demand to energise the ever expanding selection of electrically powered equipment available to individual electrical energy consumers. The effect of which would be tantamount to an expansion of our grid and centralised power generation capabilities, allowing a more gradual expansion process or for further technological development to meet increased future needs.

How do we pay for it all? Basically, the same way we pay for any other growth of a market, we let the rich go first! :)

In fact, we do everything we reasonably can to encourage them to do so. Who else can better afford to finance a newish industry to the point of development that sufficient economies of scale and product refinement are achieved to permit greater depth and width of market penetration? Such that decidedly blue-collar me can afford to adopt them too.

Lack of a piece of paper that says I'm smart doesn't automatically equate to my being stupid, you know.

That bold claim having been asserted, I can't help thinking I'm missing something obvious about all this though. At least one obvious thing is the current lack of a unifying force.

Basic rule of strategy (one of several, actually); individual advancement always takes precedence over group advancement absent some unifying force to keep group advancement more profitable to the individual then s/he could expect to achieve working at odds to all others.

If such an inclination were a natural condition of business, it seems reasonable that these demonstrably intelligent people would already be making efforts to do something very like meeting this widely recognised, and demonstrably unmet, market demand. Since that doesn't appear to be the case, I speculate that someone with sufficient bucks to command attention will be needed to convince the component companies that a portion of a virtually unlimited market (see here or here for some existing limitations) is a better alternative to seeking a profit from none of an unmet one.

Any thoughts? What else am I missing?

No comments: