Inventor wrote:
For all the choices he has talked about, this one, the Smart Grid, saves existing energy with little effort. It is a smart play, mostly knowledge. He did his research and invested in where it had to happen.
Tesla saw the same, he wanted long distance transmisssion underground through supercooled pathways. The investors went with cheaper wires, and the power loss is no longer cheap.
The grid is where the largest savings could happen, and they are cheaply built.
As a general approach, conservation of energy (i.e. using it more efficiently) is the cheapest source of power. If we can get one third more mechanical work done on the current budget of fuel, it is like discovering a large new oil field.
I am all in favor of non hydrocarbon sources of heat energy (primarily nuclear generation of electricity) but practicing conservation and making smarter generators and networks would buy us some time in making a transition to non hydrocarbon energy sources.
My main concern is cost and getting our energy from an area of the world where the politics and economics is more reliable and predictable. I do not lot the idea of the U.S. being beholden to Muslim thugocracies for vital fuel supplies. It is a national security problem.
Environmental concerns rank lower in my estimate of importance than out of pocket costs and national security. Not that I oppose clean air, mind you. I breath the air and drink the water. I prefer clean and health to dirty and unhealthy.
ruveyn