Why oil and coal consumption is growing day by day?

Greed may explain many of the incongruous things that humanity tends to do. With complete certainty in the caves there were some Mr. Scrooge and all kinds of people trying to take advantage of the work of others or no interest in community affairs. But it would be simplistic to think that our problems come from selfish attitudes, all things considered many of the mistakes and atrocities in history were made thanks nice people with good intention added to ignorance, and record of stupid actions has that was making for love. But surely the little of selfishness that we all have, which individually doesn’t affect because most people behave when it is the moment honestly and generously, acts collectively producing really disasters that historians of all times trying to analyze and understand. However there are the most important elements that produce much more damage in my opinion, and we don’t usually deal with because they are part of our normal functioning, at the same time we believe that we are in fact doing the opposite. Today faced with the challenge of the economic debacle and especially climate change, it seems incomprehensible obstinacy that in one side it was trying repeatedly solutions that have demonstrated their disability, and on the other increasing the extraction and consumption of oil, gas and coal, when we are committed, not only to reduce CO2 emissions, but to reduce the amount itself.

We are predators. Unlike plants they owe their lives to the energy coming from the Sun, animals must eat living beings. If we would be vegetarians or carnivores depend on the nature around us, and from which we get the food, and we simply take whenever we can. Our cells were indistinguishable from the plant for several billions of years ago and since then it has been our modus operandi and other animals on this planet. Less than 6,000 years, since the Neolithic Revolution, we were become farmers. But is this activity so different from the depredations? Not. The predators are territorial and they have controlled their territory especially other potential competitors; from other hand the great herbivores collectors always cover the same pastures, and to different degrees control their food source; is to say our agriculture and livestock is only the sophistication of the basic predation. Furthermore activities such as mining, fishing and silviculture (woodcutters) are still pure predation activities. The basis of the human economy, for a lot and sophisticated are the curses of economist career, doesn’t differ much from that of a chimpanzee in Africa studied by Jane Goodall. In this sense the big mining companies, and including the oil and coal, pursue their prey minerals across the globe regardless of demand because they need to extract to live, and when they finish a source, they start another then.
Predation has a component of indifference towards the consequences of this. One of the classic tasks of archaeologists is to find lost cities. Typically these cities have been abandoned because of a resource dependent, usually water, which depleted. Agriculture and livestock is an attempt to control food resources in the sense that we take care of living beings which feed us, but we assume that magically water welling up forever; or scare the birds because we think that it eat planted grain, also this’s causing the panic of birds that eat parasites what kill the plant that gives us the grain. Currently kilometers square of forest are burned to cultivate, but the forest rich is in trees, the result is that new field becomes wasteland in two years, so they are continuing to destroy; now they are verified rainfall that has fallen from the jungles, it’s logical, that immense sea of green is at the same time a lake that floats in the air which the equatorial sun evaporates every morning and adiabatic expansion to lower returns as rain; final result is the end of rainforests. The mining companies do the same, no matter the consequences of their actions, the most important is to get the resource and sell it.
To think a new solution produces stress. Uncertainty is something extremely annoying to humans. On the other hand whenever you try something new there is the risk to do a mistake. In principle we should not worry about to lose, because of the defeats is where we learn, but we are living of the victories, and nobody wants to be the wise person of the cemetery. For this reason everyone chooses known solutions, although they are outdated, partial or inadequate. In the world of engineering are true atrocities that can be explained by the need to guarantee the result for bad that is being. We also think that the predators can not indefinitely fail to achieve food, when we more fail less possibility have to guess right, and nobody wants that pressure. 
So in the business world everyone wants to make sure. Although currently we lament the excessive risks taken by the managers, this is just a story invented to hide a criminal activity; managers haven’t taken any risk, simply it has been a strategy to seize money of investors, the demonstration is in that none has been ruined. The business world invests in oil and coal because they know that is a resource for at least 200 years, at the same time it has market and distribution channel. Obviously the business world protects this source of profit as much as possible.
Associated with uncertainty also avoids the complication. The complication has two penalties: the possibility of mistake and power consumption. Our brains to face challenges need a good structure, knowledge and agility; but this is expensive energy so our brain tends to optimize forgetting data and reducing structure, for this reason when we get older our brain loses, simply it optimized itself about our activities as our muscles doing; luckily when it is necessary it can regenerate itself, as demonstrated Rita Levi, but more slowly which makes that novelty what involves an effort is rejected as a first option. Moreover the possibility of mistake scares us, and new things and complicated are easily mistakable, consequently we avoid. It’s demonstrated that successful products are those that their assimilation doesn’t involve any effort or at least it seems us.

Luckily we have the adventure in our genes. Humanity would not be where it is if it were not for this. The problem is that only a few really just embarking on the road. The adventure has an element of uncertainty, as I explained in the previous section and this produces stress not to say panic. Only the brave or foolish are thrown away to this work, and few succeed, so most fail; and thanks to this effort now we aren’t poor monkeys in the Savannah waiting for to be the meal of lions. However it seems that we have forgotten and with the excuse of the crisis cut money for research. When known solutions are failing it like’s a total absurdity that they try to end the search for a solution at least different; in this sense I ignore why they don’t do, if they are so obtuse or simply they fear that it will find a solution that put them in evidence.

The key to any good business is to buy good, nice and cheap. This means known product. A new energy source can be very interesting but if somebody must add money for the investor wants guarantees: profitability, market, distribute and future. Profitability is an incognito because it’s still researching, we don’t know if it will be competitive towards other energy therefore ignore its market, obviously has yet to make the distribution network and that means long time forward reach consumers, and it has future? will it be able to resist the demand when it comes time or it will die succeed? Currently car brands seem to want to invest in electric car, but consumers don’t buy it. It is normal, as most urgent action is loading it is not possible, unless you're convinced of a cause and you know how you get it alone. But normal consumers want to consume without stress, so she/he doesn’t buy a car which will represent extra effort, just remember the reluctance at selective pick.

In short into the free market renewable energy sources aren’t alternative at petroleum and coal, essentially because they have won the position. For over 200 years we consume oil and coal and we are accustomed to their way of consuming it, a new type of energy must be consumed differently and humans don’t like changes. On the other hand the alternatives are very immature and money invested in them today is part of the foundations of a new industry that coal and oil already have, to invest in oil and coal is direct benefit while to invest in renewable energy is still very recoverable. Without a strong renewable energy policy action will remain second term, and this will not happen because the coal and oil lobbies are working to maintain the current status. 
Simply oil or coal are here and as we can make money, we will not stop until it will be exhausted. And they will exploit until it will be exhausting because we will continue consuming, it is the easiest way for consumers and it does not involve any effort or change habits. And the money intended for investment continues to oil and coal because they are a safe bet. You might ask for political will and commitments, well the electoral campaigns should pay someone, we can’t stop industries even they squander energy, and who is brave impedes fill the fuel tank with the current social-economic crisis.

Fracking, I can’t understand anything?

Today have we faced an energy crisis? No

Today are we in front of climatic crisis? Yes

So, do we must extract energy at any cost? NO, NO and NO

Why we have this obsession to extract oil, and other hydrocarbons, from anywhere and at any price? No there are deeper see, higher mountain or sacred site where if it has one drop of oil exits one company that want to take it. Doesn’t matter how deeper they must drill or how many square kilometers will need raze of forest, fields or villages, for oil is allowed all. 

Night light of gas burning in air

Not too long ago, in time of financial debauchery, when oil was very close to peak, prices of it rose to levels unseen and demand seemed that had unstoppable. In this context, with renewable energy in its early stages and people in the midst of madness of wasted energy, among others, Fracking might seem a solution because higher prices of oil turned it into cost effective. But today when oil producers reduce their extraction due to they do not want to lower prices, this practice hasn’t any economic sense, and only we can understand its persistence for two reasons: first the need for governments to get money for to pay the huge debts that accumulate, second the need to recover an investment costly. In this sense, investors are doing extortion both governments that see it with a kind of give work at people and source of money, and people of the area who don’t look good an activity that destroys the landscape, pollute air and poisons water, as the guardian denounced. 

We are installed in real madness nonsense. Economist that have plunged the World into the hole where we installed thanks to his inventions, we have delivered them the governance after they demonstrated their incompetence. People are clamoring for the rights that are lost every day, but they ignore the dramatic living conditions suffered by workers in so-called emerging countries so close to slavery (for example dramatic downing of building in Bangla Desh). So it is not surprising when people often said to be concerned about environmental and climate issues, at same time they are increasing domestic energy consumption thanks to the large amount of electronic toys for both children and adults. While industrial activity plummets, electric or fuel consumption falls slowly, which shows the large amount of energy consumed in form spurious. However consumption has dropped, and it’s completely incomprehensible, not only the exploitation of existing fields, but a number of new fields much higher than existing now; especially by the proliferation of projects of traditional extraction.

Any one would say that Kyoto conference has never been. Much of the world agreed to reduce CO2 emissions and this means reducing the consumption of oil and other sources that implies to burn. Today oil extraction should be reduced in the same proportion that CO2, but we all know that hasn’t happened. However, even in this included in this undesirable scenario in which we are still in, fracking must be stopping.

Fracking is a expensive system of extraction where we destroy geological layers. This thing isn’t different that any mining exploitation that drill large galleries, in fact fracking is only a sophistication of oil extraction by blowing air with bombs (usual landscape of Texas fiels), but this doesn’t mean current mining is specifically clean. It doesn’t necessary to list the environmental disasters caused by mining. Fracking has been adding, in addition to the pollution associated with mining, a problematic inherent to it.
Basically Fracking is an oil drilling. For careful handling of the product that makes, its condition of fluid causes that with time penetrating his dirty way around. Obviously with careful, without it we can see the delta of Niger or the black tides. And all oil drill has an aerial burner that used to remove the product cannot handle. When I say “can’t handle” I’m referring a dangerous product, because oil and gas are a dangerous products. We know that life is a dangerous site but near at oil facility more. The current lucky is in that oil fields are big and far of us, this allows a concentration in transportation and manipulation to minimize the risk. In short the oil wells are dangerous and polluting, but the fracking up the commitment level.
Fracking at difference of current oil drilling takes oil and gas with geological layers with low concentration of product. This is summarized in that not only does not have enough pressure to raise, in fact there aren’t enough pressure for open path if we put external pressure. The solution of its problem is destroy the geological layer but at difference of other drilling methods that only affect the drilling zone (at the moment, the hold and the weight make down the land), it uses water in higher pressures that break the layer and its neighboring. As the product doesn’t raise itself, the same water that crushed stone drag the product, and anther things that they don’t want. 30% of product extract must be burned, high productivity, with a consequence of a pollution (nobody knows what burn really) and increase of CO2 in atmosphere for nothing. And to top the list of misfortunes, we can add the cost of water for both conventional mining jobs and the huge amount needed to drag the product and make sensational pressures. Water dirtied for both the chemicals used to enhance performance and the remains of the extracted product that cannot be removed. But not only the superficial water is surface water is contaminated, aquifers also. Remember that crush all kinds of layers in the process aquifers and the consequences upon finishing bust.
The other characteristic of it is the little the fragmentation of the facilities. The system can cover large areas round the site of extraction, so they don’t make any great installation because it would be very expensive for the product to extract, and we don’t expect great pipelines, all will carry in tracks. And not believe that there will be heavy security either.

And my question is Why?
Why fracking continues to expand when its expansion will finish dropping prices make it uneconomic?
Why governments bet on a model and they try to sell to the society so it isn’t?
Why, front the excuse of an energy crisis, governments sell it as the solution to all problems? Including environmental.
And when governments have committed to reducing CO2 emissions; Why, at the same time, they encourage and allow a short-term activity that will become useless? Maybe don’t they think to fulfill their commitments?
Fracking doesn’t give jobs because its activity is highly mechanized. But instead probably it will destroy farming around it. And even in a world where has only oil with energy, why Fracking if we have enough conventional oil drilling both exploitation and reserves. This can be understood in a desperate situation where fracking is a last resort, because all kind of energy source is less expensive. Frankly only madness and ignorance make it understandable.

The Perfect Storm

Title of a movie that was the union of three storms at once and fishermen who need the money makes them be more convenient to the sea, which pays for life. But this isn’t the reason for my writing today. What I talk about is the storm that comes close to humanity and as figured ostriches don’t want to see (topic of Ignoring the Evidence).

 

We are currently undergoing the rigors of a crisis that leaves millions of unemployed people around the world. Our politicians are still stuck in their useless solutions. Neoliberals postulate remove regulations and protections, conservatives savings until the last consequences, ansd socialists to spend all money that we haven’t. Tested all three things separately and at the same time and the result was the same: we have gone worse. They don’t realize that the paradigm they knew is gone (or was a lie), but they are still stuck because that's all they know.

But back to the storm, or three storms converged to be exact,which fools who rule the world ignore completely. Rather obviate, replacing all the successful management to the recovery of sustained growth. It may seem simplistic to say that everything reduced to growth, but you only must see TV news where the magical word is positive growth tax. That’s all.

The first storm that comes upon you to do with the crisis, this is the reason because a put first. The economic crisis is the sum of market saturation, overpopulation and replacement of workers by machines. Everybody has of all kind of thing, this goes us to not be able to sell stocks and must stop factories; overpopulation increases agricultural prices due to higher demand and reduction of cultivable land that is needed for housing, this requires the expansion of wilderness and reduces the weight of nature (is what maintains us) with consequent environmental problem what also reduces food production; and the need for more and better cheap production replaces expensive, slow and imperfect human of tasks currents, and mechanization is ever increasing. Obviously there isn’t immediate solution.

The second is climate change. Regardless of where this goes, a climate change will change land useful distribution. If it becomes a glaciation sea-level will fall disabling coastal towns, useful land disappear under the ice, and crops must being transferred from their usual areas. If he becomes warm climate sea level rise and flood coastal towns, also reduce useful land swallowed by the sea and crops also need to change area. This is an acceptable distortion if it were not for people living mainly in coastal and otherwise this is the area economically richer, and aside from racking regimes rain and temperatures, we have changes in biology and mutations of viruses, bacteria and change of predominant species that affect media production and public health. Economists have addressed this variable, so when obviously it directly, and local changes in climate have historically led to economic disaster in the area that it occurs; today China imports most of its food due to old faulty agricultural policies that have devastated large areas of the country, and this is economically quite remarkable to ignore it.
The third is the optimization until the last consequences. You will say that this is not a desirable problem and this is the reason why we promote and converges towards it increasingly faster. Conifers are one of the largest existing DNA, obviously most of it is redundant, but continue dragging, on the other hand the pine trees we see today existed in the Carboniferous period 360 million years ago, and they are species that take longer to Earth with the means to adapt to various climates. In fact I saw fir trees, what lives in cold climates, survive transplantation to a dry and warm sites very well. Having a diverse DNA allows adaptability, if it’s an optimized DNA we would only know them as fossils. Really optimization is only promoting unique thought. Optimizing is the maximum adaptation to the environment but if the environment changes this adaptation is a handicap for survival. How many more ways of seeing things there, including errors, more opportunity to succeed, but all focus on optimizing resources and more profitable and as these fail, all fail. It can’t be ductal and optimal at same time.

These three storms glimpsed on the horizon but no voice their proximity. It isn’t an apocalyptic prediction, humanity out of the impasse in one way or another. The question is how, and we can do it in two ways: ordered or as always. Orderly problem is to find real solutions to real open mind and forget, not what we have learned, but so far it is not working. Or as always: God will give luck. Usually this crisis is comparing as crack of ’39, but I seem that is more close to down of Occident (Imperial Roman) extended to the entire World. Like all crises and as our economists expect, they end one day, but the crisis of the Occident lasted a thousand years and called Middle Ages.

 

Who holds the smoking gun?

The Guardian has reported about conclusions of US summer drought where NOAA will publish an inform that dissociate Climate Change of this catastrophic event, but after others news say contraries and it insists in a bad interpretation of inform that it’s very ambiguous in its conclusion. The controversy appears that the attribution is a conjunction of normal causes that occurred simultaneously and catastrophic. In other words, drought must have been anyway without Climatic Change.

 

Climate Change couldn’t be the guilt of summer drought, it’s possible. In fact climate determines weather but it doesn’t do the weather. Weather has own dynamics, not only it’s due to climate but it’s modeling by local and regional boundaries.
There is a think that climate change will change the weather but this will not be happening exactly. Tomorrow it will rain similar as today or yesterday. The different will be frequency, intensity and geographical distribution. Today it can snow in Sahara desert, but it’s more improbably, in fact there are sites of Israel where didn’t rain in decades but after Gulf War snowed. After Gulf War temperatures decreased due to great quantity of smock produced by oil drills in fire, this is an artificial cause and an extraordinary item that makes extraordinary weather; in the same way a conjunction of natural events can produce an extraordinary consequence, independently of the existence or not of Climate Change.
Climate doesn’t make weather, meteorology evolves following the thermodynamics and statistics laws which are modulate by boundaries conditions as geographical or what it made before. What is climate doing? Climate only gives probability of one meteorologist event occurs. And what does it mean? When we talk about continental climate, for example, we define a winter cool and dry which translates as a high probability of dies with temperature under mean and low probability of dies with rain; climate means this how we hope it will be weather. Obviously weather can do anything always that is physically possible.    
In this context is reasonable to think that the drought may not be attributed to climate change. In fact all extraordinary meteorological phenomena that happened during 2012 can be attributing at current phenomena. At last droughts there has always been as hurricanes, wildfires or blizzards. And this is the main point of confusion, one and isolate meteorological phenomena doesn’t characterize climate, it’s the sequence of events which makes up the climate.
The skeptics are normally played with this ambiguity. The raising of temperatures always was answered by the normally of meteorological phenomena. Obviously we can find melting punctual at the poles or mountain glaciers in other epoch even historical. Thus they can generate discuss about if we are going to new global climate or we only are living a simply fluctuation of current climate. Global climate fluctuates in all history of world but its fluctuations are between Snowball Earth and Cretaceous and I think these are the fluctuations that they say.
Article from The Guardian is into the line of normal climatic. Of course, other authors’ more environmental activists filled and commented the news scoring that Climate Change the cause of the drought. Unfortunately both points of view are true, but if climate change we can consider or not responsible for drought the fact is that climate are changing. Last year and current we can see that exceptional meteorological phenomena in all the world increase in frequency, and frequency is precisely what characterizes the climate.
Making a resemblance with the problem of weapons, the presence of weapons in streets doesn’t mean that people kill persons, and without weapons there also are murders; but in societies armed the number of murder is higher than societies without. Obviously killer is who has the smoking gun in his/her hand but possibility of to have a gun facilitates the use of this. Climate change couldn’t have the gun in its hand in the case of drought but it sold the gun to the guilty.

Cyprus European Union and the return of the Middle Age

A week was passed but we are stupefied with the events happened in Cyprus. Euro-group wants to pay Cyprus citizen part of rescue of their banks from their bank deposits. Today (25/3/13) at last there are a solution of problem, or so it seems. BCE pressure with to close credit line at Cyprus banks, Cypriot parliament refuses to make pay citizens the bankruptcy, Cyprus's government tries to sell the soul in Russia if UE turns back, and Euro-group saw that it just jump by a precipice where the end of which there is always a crash. Final solution tries to maintain alive Cyprus and getting hurt in the attempt, but it could avoid the markets down and capital flee.

 

Cyprus is failure. This was evident a year ago where its banks, over-dimensioned for the size of the country, experienced the pardon of a portion of the Greek debt. This may be a perfect excuse but not so sure if the Greek state can pay what it owe, even the pardon of part of the debt; so certainly the end result would have been the same or worse without reducing. Finally like all the states within the EU have failed due to the rescue. But to get the ransom money should be put guarantees, but Cyprus only has a weight of 4,800 M €, including natural gas deposits, and the rest to 10,000 M € has to provide other one. Public debt when state is rescuing is discarded, and the only solution that thought EU is to take the money from savers bank deposits.
Cyprus is a peculiar land. Even to belong to the Eurozone, it still having a glamorous as financial paradise. It having banking exaggerated by the size of the country due to foreign deposits that they are the majority of the money that this measure would take. Switzerland also has an oversized banking sector; but unlike Cyprus, this is a country with a strong agricultural sector, a powerful industry, quality tourism consolidated, energy sources and the seat of multinational global icons. In Switzerland a bank shock would do hurt, but behind there is a country that can reverse the situation, which Cyprus without their banks would be Greece in poor. We should not be surprised that in this unusual decision to take the money of savers has played an important role the fact that most of the money is foreign; which makes it even more stupid decision, because the day that banks reopen foreign money remaining will move to safer places becoming in spurious the sacrifice do it today.
But more worrying is the decision itself. EU guarantees deposits up to 100,000€. They hadn’t to do it, in fact it has the power to tax the money on deposit, and not only that they can impose a tax of 100% of the assets and income. But you cannot do is change the rules in middel game and less legislate in form retroactively.
Let me give an example: Suppose that some people consider opening a public park and decided not to charge entry in it. But when a year has passed, they realize that the costs are unsustainable and decide to put post, something logical. So one morning put a poster at the entrance warning of to start to pay for entry. But what isn’t done without notice to put the ticket office and forced who is into to pay the ticket or fine if they haven’t; and less they search everyone who has entered and they charge them or their heirs in case of death, the entry every times that they are entered.
All people act in accordance with the rules in force at the time. If these savers had said that money was not insured they might have spent on other things or hidden under a tile, and who knew the money had been exposed. We are in a clear case of defenseless law. And just so you can get a tax retroactively who says tomorrow decide to charge a tax on car that has had the last three years, or cancel pensions who hasn’t contributed fifty years despite being currently retired. I'm not talking acquired rights, I'm talking about a practice that starting today it is a crime don’t punish those who practiced it before to be a crime; you might be fine for smoking in a public place but they can’t fine for smoking before the rule was imposed.
This practice brings us back to the dark period known as the Middle Age where the fickleness of the feudal lord could ruin anyone. Sometimes to know a little history would be fine for decision makers. For some strange reason people associate the French Revolution with thirst for freedom when in fact in face the Bastille had only hunger for bread. They demanded freedom because absolutism arbitrary generated a series of stupid rules that changed as the monarch who spoke on and that paralyzed the economy. Not knowing rules of the game does not take risks, knowing that perhaps all your effort disappeared to legislate against shakes you don’t try and know that nepotism and bribery can change things makes you don’t to commit. First EU and the governments that support it favored fraudulent practices by economic forces that have led us to the current crisis, later it has imposed unfair laws and measures to combat the crisis and then it’s directly plundering its citizens like mere medieval tax collectors when it fails in its economic policies.
EU has passed a border that can cost it very expensive. Final agreement has saved the savings of small depositors but oppose an effort by major. To steal savers Cypriots until become a Somalia or European Middle Age there are a long path, but every path for more along that would be always must start by the begin.

The dream is far away today

Space the last border

With this phrase start all the episodes of a low budges series called Star Trek that will slim three seasons, but forty years later it has generated one cartoon series, four spinoff, twelve films and more of eight video game; without to think about the millions dollars wined with its merchandising. In fact it was a science fiction series born at the culmination of the space race; and like others of that time has an improvement technology respect to the 50 years but the approach was the same: new worlds, monsters, dangers and final victory of dominant specie what is humans (of course). However, its success will be in place all its action in a new and different context. Enterprise is a spacecraft that belongs to an interplanetary fleet, Earth is a planet confederate with others planets which have other smart life forms with biology independent of us; the relationship between humans and aliens is on equal terms, with alliances and enemies these can change according to the political dynamics interplanetary, in short the world is no longer the land as to be the galaxy. Star Trek imagines a future world without the premises of the present and consequent with its context that is life in a world extended in the galaxy with interaction of other cultures without connection with humans, inner a tech environment. A dream situated in a far future that hasn’t any correlation with depressing present of late twentieth century.

 

Since the seventies science fiction was divided into two groups: which shows the world derived from contemporary, which wasn’t the fantasy world of spaceships or way still life of The Jetsons, but real hells where humanity had fallen; or temporal far away worlds, like Star Trek, with people live their life with normality according with world that they live, tech world and psychological borders higher than a planet. Current adults grew up dreaming of these worlds which contrasts with the deaf world of late century crisis.
In this context it does not really help anything. The spatial expansion plans were thwarted just reach the moon. Mars was the next target but was stopped sine die, and we never return to the Moon. The excuse of no return has been the economic and current people seem that space exploration is idling, but this isn’t true. Space exploration has continued with estimates similar to the time of travel to the Moon, that is the continued colonization (which never started), and it doesn’t transported physically human in space. Occasionally leaves a world leader promises budget for a hypothetical trip to Marts or return to the Moon, but they are nothing more than words because they aren’t space agency (except the Chinese) have any plan in motion to do any of these things. The generation that grew up imagining interplanetary cultures, surely he will die seeing the unique human trip to another world as a history of past.
Some of these dreamers have revealed. They try to make up for that public institutions not doing. It has started a sort of private space race, where one of the examples is the use of space tourism, as the spacecraft SpaceShipOne and others involved in the AnsariX Prize contest. However there are those who go beyond the commercial. These new adventurers look beyond targets like the Moon or Mars.
There are several initiatives but one of the most interesting is to make a Reality about trip that finances it as shown in this article for the NY Times. The project is named MarsOne and it attempts to carry a little colony to Mars which is financed by a TV-show about life of astronauts. It is already looking for candidates and the project is spectacularly advanced who want to implement the 2023. In the same vein we have a private foundation Inspiration Mars Foundation, who is scheduled to fly over the planet with a manned space craft in 2018, as write SEN, they already have to the design of the spacecraft and they are running to recruit crew.

 

This is all very nice but really that hasn’t done government agencies can do the private sector. The answer is no unfortunately, and less on the terms imposed. The problem is not financing. The real obstacle is the knowledge that we have of space. As I said before, budget in space research hasn’t decreased in recent years but this has led to progress toward human colonization of this. The answer to this contradiction is when started the race they had completely unknown of space. Currently robotic research is allowing us to acquire knowledge necessary to achieve the in situ exploration by humans.
At the beginning of the space race we had premises that now are obsolete. The arrival of humans on the moon showed a series of insurmountable dangers and obstacles, even today, that only luck was that the adventure should come with success and it didn’t end with a painful failure as happened in the USSR. The premises used in the beginning of the race are largely used by the stories of science fiction, and another literary license or invention to make a better agility, as to run over light velocity (nothing can run faster than light) or have inexhaustible energy; among many things that are not physically possible, but without them the world described by these narratives is unsustainable.
Moon is too far away to us, we must cross a hostile region where are among of objects fly a very high speed (several times faster than bullets), and completely outdoors cosmic ray and solar wind. In the same way the amount baggage (food and energy) that can be carried is very small and consequently limited maneuverability, a small setback could mean the death of the entire crew. However the trip to the moon is very close compared to Mars, the trip to Mars involves two years of flight without comeback in the middle path, more time compared at two weeks of travel Moon. We might think that getting to Mars at least we're on a planet and there can survive somehow, but the answer is that we only survive with the provisions brought from Earth; Mars under current conditions is not possible the life of a mammal like us, so we don’t get much solves the problem, to understand Mars isn’t an island in the middle of the space as Earth.
Although the dream is at the heart of these intrepid entrepreneurs, this is still a dream. Behind the intrepid adventures usually there is a lot of ignorance where they go in, and I’m sure that in private space exploration has amount of ignorance. If at present we don’t leave the shelter of the Earth's magnetic field isn’t due to financial problems but security. At present neither the human presence in the planets or satellites give us any added value that justify the risk. Surely humanity attains sufficient knowledge to be able to leave the earth and even the solar system but at the present, and possibly during the current century, we have to make when traveling around our planet.

Nuclear fusion between energetic solution and dream

¡Que toda la vida es sueño,
 y los sueños, sueños son!

Calderon De la Barca

Traslate

For all of life is a dream,
And dreams, are nothing but dreams.

There had been a time when the future was seeing as a world full of light and spatial engines. That world showed us a peaceful people in houses with automatic doors, kitchens working order by our voice, car flying over cities and all kind of electric tools what would make every our dream. But this time was finished in 1972 when oil began its particular ascension to sky and after then energy left to be a cheap resource. Before energy had been a very cheap thing, most of it we could obtain by a natural sources (as a wind, river water or animal strong) and also was free. The industrial revolution increased the consumption but the introduction of mineral coal supply the insufficiency of natural, that item was increase the price of energy because it’s Necessary was the use of labor (mining), however mechanization arrived to mina too and it reduced the price of extraction.  But generalization of the use of oil as a source of energy, cheaper than coal extraction and easier of manipulation than it, opened the door in the age of mass consumption of energy.

Obviously everybody thank in the time when oil will end, but they has been thinking that before to arrive we would find a better new source what would substituted oil and coal. This new magical source would be the nuclear power and specially Fusion Nuclear Power.
As often happens in stories where speculation about the future, an unexpected event broke on the scene: the prix oil crisis; and the long time that they believed to have disappeared. The time of cheap energy was over, but things if can be worse they will be, massive use of fossil fuels also destroys the environment and changes climate.
The energy urgencies knock the door and we don’t take some alternative to afford the challenger. After verifying that renewable energy can’t achieve the standards required by the current rate of consumption, industry fixes its eyes on the Fission Nuclear Power as alternative wile it awaits the arrival of Fusion energy. But its election isn’t easy because on the one hand this energy is highly polluting and dangerous (there is a little example), and in the other said the oil and coal industry have a massive amounts of expensive oil and coal for sale which will give trillion dollars of benefit. Nevertheless they don’t contemplate the possibility of reducing consumption because the new dial because new era of inexhaustible energy is all ready to get.
What is this magical source of energy that will solve all energetics problems in future?
Nuclear fusion is energy that comes from the difference in mass converted into energy between hydrogen atoms which become for junction in helium atoms. This is spontaneous reaction because helium atom is more stable than the hydrogen atom, and this reaction is what gives the life in our planet so it’s the main source of energy of Sun. If we think that hydrogen is a second component of water and water is the main mineral of earth's crust, it isn’t silly to think that we have an almost inexhaustible resource, even we can think in large terms about of universe abundance of Hydrogen which is higher (75%). On the other hand the fusion reaction is relatively clean as basically emits radiation usable for energy, and little radiation in particles.
In the end of the day we find at last with the solution of all problem. But that marvelous challenger has a problem: it’s only a project and we don’t know how we can do it. We arguably have achieved fusion reactions in the form of nuclear weapon (H-bomb). Logically in nuclear explosion it liberate significant amount of energy but this energy aren’t usable because it’s liberate in a short time (this is the objective of a bomb) and its amount we haven’t any kind of way to collect, nuclear explosion destroy cities completely and nothing making by human can resist it. The solution of course is doing very small reactions that may be manipulated for us. And searching this challenger they are several teams of research to find a form to make nuclear fusion reaction usable (report of The Guardian).
Today there are two ways of research: inertial confinement and magnetic confinement. Second way is lead an international project called ITER, but the first there are only a national projects (sometimes with more budget than ITER) because in these are a secret military goal hidden of energy research. Both try to create the boundary conditions that allow the reaction in Sun. ITER is the better project but the most difficult to do and inertial confinement has most possibilities to success but its probabilities of profit are the same of H-Bombs.
Why are the difficulties that research find?
The main problem is that Earth and Sun are completely different. Sun is a million times higher and weight than Earth and in its boundary conditions isn’t possible to have life. Fusion is possible there because the higher pressure and temperature make possible it. Pressure and temperature are consequence of the huge weight that must support the core of the star, however this weight is what makes possible to maintain confined the reaction and it prevents to explode the star; this is named gravitational confinement. Inner Sun where the fusion is doing there aren’t solids, all material are in plasma phase and only the gravitational trap confines it.
The projects to profit fusion energy want to emulate this trap. The Magnetic confinement would use the eclectic charge of plasma phase to confine it within a toroidal field or magnetic bottle; the main advantage of the system is with how to harness the energy and have control over hydrogen burning, is equal to the current power plants; but its problem is the great quantity of energy that it needs to create the boundary conditions and after maintain the reaction once begun within the confinement, apart when subjected these materials to high energy its consistency mechanical, electrical and thermal response suffers, just look at the large particle accelerators and their problems, considering they don’t work continuously and they are alone of the reactor, but they are the most close it. The Inertial confinement has better prognostic about achieve a controlled reaction, but nobody conceives how to use it because inertial cheap is the same form which we can explode weapons but without a fission bomb what creates the boundary conditions; in fact this system consist in to make controlled explosions; the main problem is the great quantity of neutrons that would generate, apart of course that how profit.
Nuclear fusion is a beautiful dream but today we haven’t yet. Surely one day will achieve a nuclear fusion reaction sustained and controllable but this this will not in the near future. For this reason is important that we begin to think about how to reduce energy consumption because the current sources of energy deteriorate by leaps and bounds the habitability of our planet. The dais of energy in abundance must end because rest a long time to arrive nuclear fusion and planet can’t hold more time the current pressure above it.
Industry has a dream for continue its way of life but its dream are a long time and perhaps when we will achieve it the valance between energy needed and energy obtained couldn’t be cost effective. The dreams seam the reality but as told by Calderon de la Barca the dreams are only dreams.