@Michael Pickett posted:But seriously, Stan, it kinda sounds like what you're saying is "If I can't figure it out, then no one else can."
I don't buy that for me (and I have a healthy respect for me) and I'm not sure we have the kind of expertise (elitist, idiotic or otherwise) on this particular forum to definitively claim that all of this this isn't a good idea.
Like you, I'm scratching my head on how you might pull off the power generator in Phase II. It seems like they're pretty confident about the Phase I stuff based on the reactions they're getting from the Road Shows.
Because I can't solve the generator problem for them doesn't mean it won't get solved. Or maybe it won't...
We got opinions for sure, but let's not get carried away with predicting the future.
I don't know, Mike - I'm pretty confident we're not going to have a "zero-emission portable generator" ready to go in 5-1/2 years. I could be wrong, but I'm not. I'll buy you a steak dinner at the place of your choosing if there is a "zero-emission portable generator" commercially available by 2028.
We play the cards we've got, not the cards we wish we had or hope to have. Every time we have this discussion, you and I come to the same sticking point - you talk about rockets, and about the Wright Brothers, and about how technology has always saved the day and I operate in with the tools I have in front of me. It's not that you and I can't solve it. It's that it's breathtakingly arrogant (and yes, "elitist, Utopian, idiotic nonsense") to say, "we'll have a perpetual-motion Mr. Fusion generator in 6 years".
The grid is precarious, and getting more so. Wealthy white people can afford solar arrays and battery walls and 26+ hp generators. Telling the rest of the world that they can eat cake when a rolling blackout takes out their power for a week in the middle of a fire seems... elitist.
As for our sticking point - it's true that technology has accomplished some amazing things. But we hadn't outlawed hot air balloon travel in 1900 because we were just sure some bicycle mechanic was going to invent the airplane soon, and we didn't kill all the scribes in 1400 because the Gutenberg press was imminent. The inventions and discoveries came first, and the old ways and technologies were laid aside because they were obsolete. To my knowledge, the process has never worked in reverse.
For every rocket to the moon, there have been at least an equal amount of times when the science of the time didn't save the day - when the breakthrough being counted on just never came. Alchemy was "science" for at least 1000 years. Ponce de Leon was sure he'd find the fountain of youth. Bloodletting was medicine. The vaccines were going to "beat Covid".
Smart people working really hard fail all the time. I fail all the time. Thinking we can solve any problem within a legislated timeframe if we just put enough intellectual horsepower to the task is hubris of the highest order. This is our fundamental point of disagreement.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying. I'm saying that politicians mandating what science will look like in a certain timeframe ignores everything I've seen in my lifetime.
So yeah, "elitist, Utopian, idiotic nonsense" is strong language, but it's not hyperbole - at least to my way of looking at it.
Your mileage may vary.