Arnold,
Not at all. I think it may be a part. An energy strategy needs to include lots of different solutions. Not just "Pond Scum". LOL
Flexible, renewable, cheap.... All good things.
"Outside the box" thinking is a good thing. Of course, not all will be accepted or be efficient enough. But it IS a good thing to at least be thinking of another solution. Whatever that may be.
To stay topical and not get deleted I applaud Harry and his team for trying to be part of the solution.
Technologies are leveraged. Often times they may not fit in there current iteration but are adopted later for great successes. Many times this leverage is not even considered at conception for what it may be ultimately used for.
For instance,
I am currently working with a defense contractor. There power plant is diesel. They are "definitely" (there words) going to look at Cyclone's power plant as a solution versus diesel because a low heat signature and simplistic design fits there value add proposition to the Military.
In this case efficiency is not the "primary" concern, its just a handy by-product.
I go back to Alvin Toffler's comments on deep fundamentals in any company.
TIME
SPACE
KNOWLEDGE
It is up to the individual investor to find this value in an investment. I would submit that "Pond Scum", wind, hydrogen, ethanol, and even nuclear all fit this model currently. But TIME will march on.......
Regards,
FrazDog
There are no rules here! We are trying to accomplish something! "Thomas Edison"