Putting companies out of business

[rj40]

Should the US Government be funding something that would put companies out of business? If it works as hoped, Polywell would most likely put coal companies out of business. What is the constitutional authority for doing this? Even if unintended.

[Diogenes]

Should the US Government be funding something that would put companies out of business? If it works as hoped, Polywell would most likely put coal companies out of business. What is the constitutional authority for doing this? Even if unintended.

"Provide for the common defense." It's a Navy project you know.


As for putting Coal companies out of business, not immediately, and probably not at all. If it works, it may eventually cut into the business quite a lot, but I don't think it will totally stop it.

Technology such as this needs to be developed for it's benefits to the US and mankind in general. Time marches on, and businesses evolve to fit the new conditions. Some industries disappear, never to return. That is simply the way things are and always have been.

[chrismb]

Should the US Government be funding something that would put companies out of business? If it works as hoped, Polywell would most likely put coal companies out of business. What is the constitutional authority for doing this? Even if unintended.

That strikes me as a truly feeble question. Is it right to look for alternatives to a resource that we're using up so fast that at this rate it will not be economically viable to extract it in 60 years time? Are you kidding? Why not simply argue that no cars are permitted to have engines less that 12 litres so as to increase fuel consumption, and that all electronics must be made as inefficient as possible. Perhaps, government departments will be legally obliged to run at least 10 kW of heating in every office, and if that makes the office too hot then it should be cooled down by air-conditioning. So the converse of your question is that by doing these things, the gov could boost workers in fossil fuel sectors and should be constitutionally obliged to do so.

There is a reasonable question to ask "how will fossil fuels be phased out, and what would the future of industry workers be?".

But to even suggest that workers have some sort of right to persist with an obsolete technology, merely for their own benefits, is very misjudged. And to suggest that Governments should not invest in making advanced technologies come about is also misjudged.

You very question suggests to me that you do not particularly care if our grandchildren have to go back to medieval subsistence because there will no longer be enough raw materials and energy to maintain a technological civilisation.

We need 100% nuclear energy RIGHT NOW! We're burning raw materials for energy that we absolutely and desperately need to preserve for the manufacture of goods into the future. We are literally burning the very building blocks of 22 century chemicals' industries for no damned good reason. Nuclear power; WE NEED IT, 100%, RIGHT BL**DY NOW, YOU DIM-WIT POLITICIANS!!!! Frikin' wake up to the reality!!!

[rj40]

Should the US Government be funding something that would put companies out of business? If it works as hoped, Polywell would most likely put coal companies out of business. What is the constitutional authority for doing this? Even if unintended.

"Provide for the common defense." It's a Navy project you know.


As for putting Coal companies out of business, not immediately, and probably not at all. If it works, it may eventually cut into the business quite a lot, but I don't think it will totally stop it.

Technology such as this needs to be developed for it's benefits to the US and mankind in general. Time marches on, and businesses evolve to fit the new conditions. Some industries disappear, never to return. That is simply the way things are and always have been.

So the common defense is something that allows the government to develop something that might put existing businesses out of commission? Is there anything else?

[chrismb]

So the common defense is something that allows the government to develop something that might put existing businesses out of commission? Is there anything else?

NO. There is nothing to defend. Businesses that cannot compete with a new reality go bust, if they have not wound up in time. If you want to discuss the rules of the commercial game, then recognise the rules!

Should gov do it? They have to do it before another State does it, or a business that holds the IPR, and prevents them operating freely to protect their people.

[rj40]

Should the US Government be funding something that would put companies out of business? If it works as hoped, Polywell would most likely put coal companies out of business. What is the constitutional authority for doing this? Even if unintended.

That strikes me as a truly feeble question. Is it right to look for alternatives to a resource that we're using up so fast that at this rate it will not be economically viable to extract it in 60 years time? Are you kidding? Why not simply argue that no cars are permitted to have engines less that 12 litres so as to increase fuel consumption, and that all electronics must be made as inefficient as possible. Perhaps, government departments will be legally obliged to run at least 10 kW of heating in every office, and if that makes the office too hot then it should be cooled down by air-conditioning. So the converse of your question is that by doing these things, the gov could boost workers in fossil fuel sectors and should be constitutionally obliged to do so.

There is a reasonable question to ask "how will fossil fuels be phased out, and what would the future of industry workers be?".

But to even suggest that workers have some sort of right to persist with an obsolete technology, merely for their own benefits, is very misjudged. And to suggest that Governments should not invest in making advanced technologies come about is also misjudged.

You very question suggests to me that you do not particularly care if our grandchildren have to go back to medieval subsistence because there will no longer be enough raw materials and energy to maintain a technological civilisation.

We need 100% nuclear energy RIGHT NOW! We're burning raw materials for energy that we absolutely and desperately need to preserve for the manufacture of goods into the future. We are literally burning the very building blocks of 22 century chemicals' industries for no damned good reason. Nuclear power; WE NEED IT, 100%, RIGHT BL**DY NOW, YOU DIM-WIT POLITICIANS!!!! Frikin' wake up to the reality!!!

He-he-he. Got kind of board. I'm just asking questions, I didn't say I thought it was a good idea or a bad idea.

And maybe doing a bit of fishing.

I got one! I got one! Get the net!! <water splashes, fish wiggles>

[chrismb]

He-he-he. Got kind of board.

Maybe you got bored as well?

I got one! I got one! Get the net!! <water splashes, fish wiggles>:-)

Well, I'm glad you got me, then, because it is right to raise it as an issue and I am keen to raise it as such.

The human race is in a very precarious state right now. This must sound really 'grandiose' and silly, but it is right on the button; the technological human race [by which we now understand to mean the human race] will die out in a century or a few if we rely on burning fossil fuels for energy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these types that say it'll all run out in 10 years or so. There will always be fossil fuels to burn, but they are already getting harder to locate and exploit efficiently.

Sure, the usual prospect is that oil co.s leave a well with as much oil in it as the took out, because it gets to the point of being inefficient to extract. But, so what. Let's say there is 10 times as much energy left in wells as we took out - that still adds up to less than 1000 years supply.

I'm thinking of what happens in 10,000 years time. And I say that if we don't get nuclear in right now [fission to start with, of course, followed by fast breeders then fusion] then the human race WILL die out in the same period for which it has been around so far. If that doesn't bother people, then I wonder what motivations they have to keep on breeding and having children.

[rj40]

Ha! I get bored too; stupid Microsoft, changing my spelling. I also blame society.

[chrismb]

I also blame society.

One might suggest that you are as much 'society' as anyone else is. So you blame yourself?

[Betruger]

Chris do you really think it'll take more than a couple of centuries to develop a handful of substitute technologies as robustly as fossil fuel techs are (robust) today? I'm asking this keeping in mind that the rest of the energy picture will evolve during those couple centuries. E.G. more efficient technologies elsewhere in the big picture so that ceteris paribus they require less energy.

I think the critical period will be much shorter - more like a hundred, hundred-fifty years tops. Assuming no other issue emerges.

If that doesn't bother people, then I wonder what motivations they have to keep on breeding and having children.

Something like bread and circuses, and they'll definitely vote in energy programs as they've voted massive welfare programs, once energy issues really start to squeeze their welfare and bread and circuses.

News is that China has started a Thorium development program.

[rj40]

So there are constitutional (in the US anyway) ways that government can do things that would end up hurting businesses?

1. If it is in the interest of national defense
2. Anything else?

[chrismb]

Chris do you really think it'll take more than a couple of centuries to develop a handful of substitute technologies as robustly as fossil fuel techs are (robust) today?

...and, incidentally, it is currently looking like no other substitute technologies will ever be developed - fusion has had 60 years of focused effort and has yet to show any net Joules.

Making things more efficient just means one century of remaining energy will be eked out to two. Big deal.....

Divide zero by 60 years, and that is the rate of progress.

Then think of the amount of energy the human race needs, divide that by the rate of progress [from the last line] - what number do you get?

[Betruger]

I don't know about that zero. Gonna have to read up for specifics first, rather than argue based on vague recollection.

[kunkmiester]

Well the gov also lacks the power to stop a private company from doing the same without federal funding, and I'd imagine without a lot of the gov funding, we'd have a number of private foundations helping/hindering technologies like this and providing the same affect as that gov spending.

Logically, the coal unions should be setting up trust accounts to pay for moving younger workers out of the industries and allowing for retiring older workers who can't retrain early, fully funding their pensions. The new fusion market would be perfect for these people to move into as operators and maintainers . This probably isn't going to happen, they'll probably continue squandering union dues and when the first layoffs start to happen, they'll go crying to the gov for a bailout, provided the current system still exists at the time.

[choff]

What's happening in the middle east right now is about food and consumer prices as much as freedom and democracy, and it's not going to improve much any time soon for replacement governments. Bottom line, we need nuclear righ now.