Last week President Trump took the United States out of the Paris Accord on Climate Change. I reacted in two ways.
First, I shared in the general outrage that our country could so shamelessly ignore science to further special interests and political posturing. And I mean "our country." The responsibility for this is shared with the voter. We elected this man. He was very clear on his position.
Second, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter. Despite how super villains are portrayed in the film industry, evil is often incompetent. It is impulse reactions by blind men flailing their arms as they self-destruct.
Whether republicans like it or not, there are a number of technological trends that are carrying us inevitably toward a sustainable future. In the video below, watch Tony Seba explain why there will not be an internal combustion engine car manufactured anywhere in the world after 2025. And how solar technology is now on parity with a cost per kWh of most central power sources, and will eventually be on parity with any central source, no matter how inexpensive, that requires high-voltage transmission.
Even without the maturation of hydrino power technology, these trends envision a future in which we significantly increase our reliance on clean power.
One of many reasons that I have been interested in understanding and communicating MIlls's work for so many years was because it would be able to "save the world." But after watching Seba's predictions, the thought occurred to me: the world just might save itself.
In Chapter 19 of my book, I remain skeptical of the ability of renewable sources coupled with battery storage to truly eliminate our reliance on fossil, hydro, and nuclear power sources, because it would require a combination of technological advancement, political will, and the ability to curb our excesses. Even if a new technology is on parity with the old, the new must absorb the costs to transition the infrastructure.
In contrast to other available sources, hydrino power will be a clean, decentralized power source that will easily economically outcompete all other forms of power generation (with the possible exception of thin-film solar). It will easily absorb the implicit costs of transition, and effectively bulldoze the fossil fuel economy.
But what's more, hydrino power will represent not just a repair of the system, but an elevation of humanity's technological plane. It will enable somewhere between a hundred-fold and thousand-fold increase in power production per dollar spent; without impacts on the landscape or climate. Which makes it more than about saving the world; it is a step forward for mankind.
Meanwhile, those who cling to the fossil fuel economy, either politically or economically, will find that they are self-destructing. All we really need to do is pull our money out of the fossil fuel industry, and funnel it into emerging technologies. Let the blind man drown.
As a society, however, we also need to get better at communicating science. We need to plan for the next moment of scientific cultural weakness.
Previously on this blog I have mentioned what I perceive to be a similarity between climate denial and hydrino denial. In both cases, there is a lot of good science out there that isn't being communicated well.
With climate denial, most of the deniers are non-scientists. But with hydrino denial, most of the deniers are actually scientists, who maintain their position the same way a non-scientist would, by simply ignoring the scientific evidence.
Although a goal of my book was to make this evidence easier to digest, I have found that only people who are open to new ideas read my book. Skeptics or potential critics don't bother. However, I have found that the book arms others with a wealth of understanding that enables them to become advocates.