4 ms·

Because if we do have the capability to create lots of cheap energy, it could have been applied to various other sectors and improved the quality of life for bi

Because if we do have the capability to create lots of cheap energy, it could have been applied to various other sectors and improved the quality of life for billions of people. Instead of constraining us to the whims of oil barons.

krapp 4y ago
Assuming this for the sake of argument, it might not be cheap. Maybe we're talking about small portable fusion engines that cost half a trillion dollars a piece to make, and have a very short, single-purpose shelf life. Remember the Area 51 lawsuit where workers sued over being exposed to toxic fumes and chemicals, and as a result the facility was exempted from all environmental laws? Maybe the byproducts of creating this energy are more toxic and dangerous than spent nuclear fuel, but it's the government and the government doesn't give a damn, but there's no feasible (much less legal) way to mass produce the technology.
Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago
I totally get it, the way in which these objects manoeuvre may suggest a high capacity, portable power supply. And this may in turn let us generate lots of energy, which may also be cheap. However, say all these suppositions are true, that there is a technology in existence now that can solve our energy generation and environmental difficulties. Someone will rightly ask whether making that technology public, and hence available, to near-peer militaries would be worth the risk of it being turned against us. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the assessment that may happen. Our military are very risk adverse, and very twitchy when it comes to credible foreign military threats - see the missile gap in the 60's when we had 10x the Soviet capability but still felt vulnerable. Unlike the UK government in the 50's who actually gave jet engine designs to the Soviets that were used against them, our military and government would by nature play that particular clean-limitless energy card very close to our chest. Think what would happen to those tin-pot dictatorships that are propped up by oil sales. Their revenue streams would collapse immediately, and they themselves would undoubtedly be swept away in the aftermath, potentially to the detriment of our foreign policy aims. That's not even thinking about the impact on the markets when the big oil and gas suppliers are put out of business overnight. I'm not arguing against releasing this technology, if it's within our purvue to do so, but to think long and hard before doing it.
mikewarot 4y ago
What if this cheap energy also made it very easy to make, or even store a PetaJoule in a briefcase sized package? I could see very strong national security reasons to keep that very tightly controlled. Imagine a 1,000,000 Farad capacitor charged to 50kv

krapp 4y ago

Assuming this for the sake of argument, it might not be cheap. Maybe we're talking about small portable fusion engines that cost half a trillion dollars a piece to make, and have a very short, single-purpose shelf life. Remember the Area 51 lawsuit where workers sued over being exposed to toxic fumes and chemicals, and as a result the facility was exempted from all environmental laws? Maybe the byproducts of creating this energy are more toxic and dangerous than spent nuclear fuel, but it's the government and the government doesn't give a damn, but there's no feasible (much less legal) way to mass produce the technology.

Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago

I totally get it, the way in which these objects manoeuvre may suggest a high capacity, portable power supply. And this may in turn let us generate lots of energy, which may also be cheap. However, say all these suppositions are true, that there is a technology in existence now that can solve our energy generation and environmental difficulties. Someone will rightly ask whether making that technology public, and hence available, to near-peer militaries would be worth the risk of it being turned against us. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the assessment that may happen. Our military are very risk adverse, and very twitchy when it comes to credible foreign military threats - see the missile gap in the 60's when we had 10x the Soviet capability but still felt vulnerable. Unlike the UK government in the 50's who actually gave jet engine designs to the Soviets that were used against them, our military and government would by nature play that particular clean-limitless energy card very close to our chest. Think what would happen to those tin-pot dictatorships that are propped up by oil sales. Their revenue streams would collapse immediately, and they themselves would undoubtedly be swept away in the aftermath, potentially to the detriment of our foreign policy aims. That's not even thinking about the impact on the markets when the big oil and gas suppliers are put out of business overnight. I'm not arguing against releasing this technology, if it's within our purvue to do so, but to think long and hard before doing it.

mikewarot 4y ago

What if this cheap energy also made it very easy to make, or even store a PetaJoule in a briefcase sized package? I could see very strong national security reasons to keep that very tightly controlled. Imagine a 1,000,000 Farad capacitor charged to 50kv