So with all of these plans, what are my conclusions. I think it is pretty simple basically we need to combine all the plans into a comprehensive solution. Just a random question, what the heck is comprehensive, it seems to show up in every political speech given by anyone about anything, thus I naturally had to throw it in. Anyway, I digress.
So this comprehensive solution must contain both a stimulus for research and also a stimulus for applications of existent technologies. So essentially it would be a combination of the Manhattan Project and the TVA. First we need to pass Forbes’ bill to begin the process of stimulating research. Secondly we need to make R&D spending tax deductible to get businesses on board. Third we need to set up a more extensive grant program for something like 100 billion dollars over 5 years.
On the “TVA” side we need to start create governmental policy that reflects a logical look at environmental issues. We need to repeal the tariff on sugar cane ethanol and start developing the infrastructure to support biofuel. I think all cars that are sold within the United States in 5 to 10 years should be flex fuel. Again we can use the government’s taxing power to make this transition less economically damaging. Furthermore we need to streamline the process for approving nuclear power plants like they have in France so that we can have new nuclear plants coming online within the next 10 years. We must also implement other forms of alternative energy that can be built relatively quickly such as solar and wind so that we can start mitigating this crisis now.
I believe that any loss of income that the government has now will easily be offset by the economic growth that this combination of research and construction would stimulation.
I must say that I am sorry that this post does not contain my usual thoroughness but I am in the process of preparing my house for a move so I have been really busy.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
How about a New Manhattan Project?
Recently Rep. Randy Forbes, a republican from Virginia, released an energy policy that I believe has great potential and even espouses many of my ideas, which I have outlined previously. His bill, H.R. 6260 entitled, New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, I believe will begin the process of shifting toward a more environmentally friendly and economically beneficial energy solution.
There are several main steps, which the representative outlines to achieve the ambitious goal of becoming energy independent within 20 years. While I would prefer a more environmentally minded goal, effectively I think that this bill will drastically reduce emissions while also gaining conservative support with its aim of energy independence.
First he would create a prize program, similar to the X-Prize foundation, which would grant prizes for the successful fulfillment of 1 of 7 categories. These prizes would range from 250 million to 10 billion dollars, which are much greater than any prize program that I know of. These prizes will stirrup innovation and lots of investment into these new technologies. The Ansari X PRIZE was a 10 million dollar prize for launching a private spacecraft, which was won by SpaceShipOne in 2004, however over 100 million dollars was invested by 26 teams in the competition. Therefore, the 14 billion dollars in prize money could easily produce 140 billion dollars in investment into these technologies. These are the goals for the program:
1) A Vehicle that costs no more than 10% more than a normal car that has equal performance, can travel 750 miles between refueling and get at least 70 MPG if it is gasoline powered.
2) A Green Building that uses 50% of the energy of a similar building and can be reproduced anywhere and costs no more that 15% more than a traditional building.
3) A solar power plant that generates 300 megawatts of power at a cost of 10 cents/kilowatt-hour.
4) A biofuel that when mass produced costs only 105% as the energy equivalent of gasoline.
5) A carbon sequestration system that only ads 15% to the cost of the power and will store the CO2 for 5000 years
6) A nuclear waste solution, which will remediate the waste so that it will not be harmful for at least 5000 years.
7) A sustainable fusion power plant that can produce 300 megawatts.
The other steps, which are outlined, are more traditional and include a 10 billion dollars grant program, and the development of a summit to discuss the various technical problems and solution dealing with energy independence. He also wants a commission to be established to develop recommendations to fulfill the goal of energy independence.
I have some minor criticisms of the bill like I think that 750 miles between refueling is unreasonable. I also am not a fan of carbon sequestration because I do not think capturing all the CO2 coming off a coal plant and then storing it in the ground is a good idea in the long run. Also I wish there was an emphasis on nuclear waste reprocessing. I further think there should have been a prize for developing an economically effective way of developing hydrogen. But overall I really like this plan as a start toward a greener energy solution.
There are several main steps, which the representative outlines to achieve the ambitious goal of becoming energy independent within 20 years. While I would prefer a more environmentally minded goal, effectively I think that this bill will drastically reduce emissions while also gaining conservative support with its aim of energy independence.
First he would create a prize program, similar to the X-Prize foundation, which would grant prizes for the successful fulfillment of 1 of 7 categories. These prizes would range from 250 million to 10 billion dollars, which are much greater than any prize program that I know of. These prizes will stirrup innovation and lots of investment into these new technologies. The Ansari X PRIZE was a 10 million dollar prize for launching a private spacecraft, which was won by SpaceShipOne in 2004, however over 100 million dollars was invested by 26 teams in the competition. Therefore, the 14 billion dollars in prize money could easily produce 140 billion dollars in investment into these technologies. These are the goals for the program:
1) A Vehicle that costs no more than 10% more than a normal car that has equal performance, can travel 750 miles between refueling and get at least 70 MPG if it is gasoline powered.
2) A Green Building that uses 50% of the energy of a similar building and can be reproduced anywhere and costs no more that 15% more than a traditional building.
3) A solar power plant that generates 300 megawatts of power at a cost of 10 cents/kilowatt-hour.
4) A biofuel that when mass produced costs only 105% as the energy equivalent of gasoline.
5) A carbon sequestration system that only ads 15% to the cost of the power and will store the CO2 for 5000 years
6) A nuclear waste solution, which will remediate the waste so that it will not be harmful for at least 5000 years.
7) A sustainable fusion power plant that can produce 300 megawatts.
The other steps, which are outlined, are more traditional and include a 10 billion dollars grant program, and the development of a summit to discuss the various technical problems and solution dealing with energy independence. He also wants a commission to be established to develop recommendations to fulfill the goal of energy independence.
I have some minor criticisms of the bill like I think that 750 miles between refueling is unreasonable. I also am not a fan of carbon sequestration because I do not think capturing all the CO2 coming off a coal plant and then storing it in the ground is a good idea in the long run. Also I wish there was an emphasis on nuclear waste reprocessing. I further think there should have been a prize for developing an economically effective way of developing hydrogen. But overall I really like this plan as a start toward a greener energy solution.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
If the G8 won't help how about an Oil Tycoon
This week T. Boone Pickens announced that he has a plan for increasing our energy independence and thereby beginning to help the environment. I applaud him for using his money to promote this cause and actually give a plan, unlike the G8. I was surprised to see that he actually purchased TV spots for his plan, which is a great step in the right direction. So in terms of what he has done to promote this issue, he is beginning to do great things and hopefully more will follow his lead.
However I must be more critical of the plan itself, which does not have helping the environment as a primary goal but seeks to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. While this is a great goal I think that we can advance both aims with the same economic inputs that he seeks. His plan can be summed up as lets replace the 20% of our energy that we get from natural gas with wind power and then use that natural gas to run cars off of so that we can reduce our consumption of foreign oil by 1/3. He estimates that it will cost about 1.2 trillion to get 20% of our power from wind turbines. He already has substantial investments in West Texas in wind, including a 4000 mW plant that cost about 12 billion dollars. First of all, you all know I am a great proponent of Nuclear Power and I believe that 1.2 trillion would be better spent on the nuclear industry. This amount of investment, using the metrics outlined by the World Nuclear Association, could create around 200 new plants, which might get us to where 60% of our power came from nuclear. Also, according to those metrics, nuclear power has a lower operating cost than other forms of power, including wind. Also another issue I see with his plan is that it does nothing to combat the great evils of coal fire power plants. This is because the US has a lot of coal so there is no incentive from the people who want energy independence to get rid of coal, yet it releases most of our CO2 and other pollutants. Third, natural gas would be a good temporary fuel for our cars as according to Pickens’ Plan it release 30% less CO2 than gasoline. However, I believe that by the time the infrastructure is developed to support natural gas as our fuel of choice, we will be ready to switch to hydrogen. Thus I think that because biofuels require much less change in the current infrastructure they are a much better temporary solution.
So overall I applaud him for taking a step in the right direction. But I wish that his plan would do more for the environment and see the potential of other more effective technologies.
However I must be more critical of the plan itself, which does not have helping the environment as a primary goal but seeks to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. While this is a great goal I think that we can advance both aims with the same economic inputs that he seeks. His plan can be summed up as lets replace the 20% of our energy that we get from natural gas with wind power and then use that natural gas to run cars off of so that we can reduce our consumption of foreign oil by 1/3. He estimates that it will cost about 1.2 trillion to get 20% of our power from wind turbines. He already has substantial investments in West Texas in wind, including a 4000 mW plant that cost about 12 billion dollars. First of all, you all know I am a great proponent of Nuclear Power and I believe that 1.2 trillion would be better spent on the nuclear industry. This amount of investment, using the metrics outlined by the World Nuclear Association, could create around 200 new plants, which might get us to where 60% of our power came from nuclear. Also, according to those metrics, nuclear power has a lower operating cost than other forms of power, including wind. Also another issue I see with his plan is that it does nothing to combat the great evils of coal fire power plants. This is because the US has a lot of coal so there is no incentive from the people who want energy independence to get rid of coal, yet it releases most of our CO2 and other pollutants. Third, natural gas would be a good temporary fuel for our cars as according to Pickens’ Plan it release 30% less CO2 than gasoline. However, I believe that by the time the infrastructure is developed to support natural gas as our fuel of choice, we will be ready to switch to hydrogen. Thus I think that because biofuels require much less change in the current infrastructure they are a much better temporary solution.
So overall I applaud him for taking a step in the right direction. But I wish that his plan would do more for the environment and see the potential of other more effective technologies.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
The G8 can they help us
The G8 is meeting this week and some of the major things that they are talking about are environmental and agricultural issues. They just set a target of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050. Well this sounds great I think it is a an empty statement by the G8 as it does not hold any of the current governments accountable for decreasing emissions and also the Kyoto protocol set ambitious goals also and very few countries have lived up to their promises so far. Like I have continually stated, the answer lies with encouraging the growth of green technologies not with making empty promises to score political points. They must actively pursue this technology and implementing the great technologies that we already have, like nuclear power plants. I would have loved to see them outline an ambitious research and development plan like they would a foreign aid plan. If I would have heard them say that they will devote at least 100 billion dollars over the next 5 years to develop abundant and clean energy sources that would have been a step in the right direction.
We will see how they tackle the food issue; they already affirmed a 50 billion dollar foreign aid package including 25 billion for Africa. I hope that they realize that they must identify the base problem and solve that and not just paper over the cracks by giving out handouts, which will never adequate help the people. A couple years ago Popular Science had a small insert about some of the major environmental problems facing the world which was really interesting which can be found on this site. These are the problems that need to be addressed in order to truly help people. In Jared Diamond’s book Collapse he outlines how one of the major contributors to societal collapse are environmental problems, and I think he is quite correct.
We will see how they tackle the food issue; they already affirmed a 50 billion dollar foreign aid package including 25 billion for Africa. I hope that they realize that they must identify the base problem and solve that and not just paper over the cracks by giving out handouts, which will never adequate help the people. A couple years ago Popular Science had a small insert about some of the major environmental problems facing the world which was really interesting which can be found on this site. These are the problems that need to be addressed in order to truly help people. In Jared Diamond’s book Collapse he outlines how one of the major contributors to societal collapse are environmental problems, and I think he is quite correct.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
More People, More Ideas
Many have seen population growth as the bane of environmental stability as people continue to over consume resources and expand into new environments. However as I have eluded to previously I believe that technological advancement is the solution to this problem not a decrease in population growth.
Population growth is directly correlated with technological and intellectual advancement. The link is very simple as populations grow they have more people that think and communicate with each other so they can collectively advance ideas more quickly. But two factors must exist for this to occur: people must be educated and people must be able to communicate. That is why I see the distribution of growth throughout the world as problematic. Not only are the areas with large population growth those that can not support many more people e.g. Africa, but also those areas are the places where those two conditions do not exist. In contrast the areas with the least population growth, western countries, not only have the economic conditions necessary to sustain growth but also have the intellectual conditions to have that growth translate into the advancement of humanity.
Thus we need to not look at the solution to our environmental problem as ending population growth but first of all making it distributed over areas which can support that growth, places with decent economies and also a low ratio of persons to acre of arable farmland. And second of all creating practices to increase the carrying capacity of all regions, that is to increase the amount of people the world can support, essentially through increasing the output of agriculture and decreasing its global foot print, like with my favorite hydroponics. We must also expand the eduction and communication systems throughout the world, but this task first requires the economic development of the third world. I do not suggest that we force certain people to have children or not have children as in China, but that we must make modern society more conducive to families and also that people must become aware of why population growth is important, I believe that our future is rooted in a continued exponential increase in population and advancement.
Population growth is directly correlated with technological and intellectual advancement. The link is very simple as populations grow they have more people that think and communicate with each other so they can collectively advance ideas more quickly. But two factors must exist for this to occur: people must be educated and people must be able to communicate. That is why I see the distribution of growth throughout the world as problematic. Not only are the areas with large population growth those that can not support many more people e.g. Africa, but also those areas are the places where those two conditions do not exist. In contrast the areas with the least population growth, western countries, not only have the economic conditions necessary to sustain growth but also have the intellectual conditions to have that growth translate into the advancement of humanity.
Thus we need to not look at the solution to our environmental problem as ending population growth but first of all making it distributed over areas which can support that growth, places with decent economies and also a low ratio of persons to acre of arable farmland. And second of all creating practices to increase the carrying capacity of all regions, that is to increase the amount of people the world can support, essentially through increasing the output of agriculture and decreasing its global foot print, like with my favorite hydroponics. We must also expand the eduction and communication systems throughout the world, but this task first requires the economic development of the third world. I do not suggest that we force certain people to have children or not have children as in China, but that we must make modern society more conducive to families and also that people must become aware of why population growth is important, I believe that our future is rooted in a continued exponential increase in population and advancement.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Cultural Diversity
In less than a week I have been through 20 states ranging from California to Maine and it amazes me how little people change in such a large geographic area. This is a wonder of modern society as we are united by modern communications. Unlike many places, like Africa, were a geographic area the size of the US would have thousands of languages the US speaks one dominant language without much change in dialects, with the exception of in Alabama but I do not think that even qualifies as a language. This type of unification, which has been experienced throughout the modern world, makes one wonder about how long it will take the world to be united by a dominant culture with little variation due to location.
When we develop the technology to allow us to travel to any part of the globe in an hour what will happen to culture? And also this generates the question of how important cultural diversity is. I understand how biodiversity is necessary in a group of different species but within a species is it important to have different subgroups that only differ in language and customs. Customs used to have importance like telling people when to plant crops but now they just serve to united people and make them feel like they are part of a community. This is important but we do not need the thousands of different cultures to make people feel like they belong. So do we let cultures die and naturally evolve into one world culture or do we actively try to save them by limiting technology’s impact or making people participate in them. How important is cultural diversity, what do you think? Emotionally I think it is important but intellectually I do not know why.
When we develop the technology to allow us to travel to any part of the globe in an hour what will happen to culture? And also this generates the question of how important cultural diversity is. I understand how biodiversity is necessary in a group of different species but within a species is it important to have different subgroups that only differ in language and customs. Customs used to have importance like telling people when to plant crops but now they just serve to united people and make them feel like they are part of a community. This is important but we do not need the thousands of different cultures to make people feel like they belong. So do we let cultures die and naturally evolve into one world culture or do we actively try to save them by limiting technology’s impact or making people participate in them. How important is cultural diversity, what do you think? Emotionally I think it is important but intellectually I do not know why.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Lessons from Berlin
Sixty years ago this week the Berlin Blockade began and America and her allies came together to confront the evil of Soviet aggression and refused to see West Berlin fall behind the curtain of communism. In beginning the Berlin airlift, America and her allies accepted the risk of sparking another war so that they could saver the Berliners. In a speech that I saw on C-SPAN 3 from 1998, Reagan Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger posed the simple question of whether a similar action would be taken today in response to such an injustice. I believe that the answer is no as we to often use weak diplomatic actions when strength is require, out of fear of upsetting the world order.
I do not advocate that we use military force without discretion but we should go toe-to-toe with any hard line government and show them that we will not stand idly by as they commit terrible assaults on freedom and human rights. Why has the international community stood idly by as Myanmar and Zimbabwe refused international aid for their starving and ravaged populations in order to gain increased control over their people. Whenever we give into these dictatorships we just encourage others to behave similarly. I order for evil to be displaced we must take bold actions to show that we will not stand to negotiate with it or turn a blind eye toward it. We easily could have airlifted in supplies to these countries at little risk but we chose to respect their “sovereignty” and in doing so indirectly recognizing the legitimacy of their government.
As a note, I will be traveling over the next week and a half so my postings may be sporadic.
I do not advocate that we use military force without discretion but we should go toe-to-toe with any hard line government and show them that we will not stand idly by as they commit terrible assaults on freedom and human rights. Why has the international community stood idly by as Myanmar and Zimbabwe refused international aid for their starving and ravaged populations in order to gain increased control over their people. Whenever we give into these dictatorships we just encourage others to behave similarly. I order for evil to be displaced we must take bold actions to show that we will not stand to negotiate with it or turn a blind eye toward it. We easily could have airlifted in supplies to these countries at little risk but we chose to respect their “sovereignty” and in doing so indirectly recognizing the legitimacy of their government.
As a note, I will be traveling over the next week and a half so my postings may be sporadic.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
R&D and Money
Ok, so assuming we have the talent that is required to pursue the research and development of new technology, how do we provide institutions with both the finances and the incentives to do so?
This to me is a much more difficult question that I do not have a fully developed solution to, yet I have a few ideas mostly dealing with private companies. First, I would create a system of tax write-offs for corporations where they can write-off the money that they spend on research so that they can reduce and amount of tax that they pay, this would drive companies to commit more of their profits to research instead of corporate bonuses. This system in the long run would create more profit for the company as they would develop more products, which intern would create increased governmental revenues through sales and income tax.
The second idea that I have is a little more interventionalist so the conservative in me is kind of frightened by it, but I think that it could help companies a lot in areas which some politicians want to nationalize. I actually came up with this idea when having a discussion about healthcare and pharmaceuticals but I think it could be extended to other industries. One of the major problems with healthcare is that drugs are real expensive within the United States because patent law does not allow for the manufacturing of generics for several years. Because drugs cost billons of dollars to develop the company needs to charge high prices in order to reclaim much of the cost before the generics come on the market. In contrast, many countries do not have as strict a patent system as the US so companies can manufacture generics right away, thus while costs are lower there is no incentives for new drugs to be developed so most of the innovation comes from foreign companies, namely US companies. Thus the question becomes how do we reduce drug costs and still strive to innovate? I think that this may be a time that government can act because unlike other products people have to have medications. Thus I would start by giving out small grants to companies to pursue research in a drug so that they can get their feet wet. But after they actually develop the drug I would have the government reimburse them for around 75% of the cost. This will drastically reduce the cost toward the consume and save Americans billions in healthcare costs which then will create more productivity and better lives. This increase in productivity again would grow America’s economy and thus the government’s income. Secondly I would tax international sales which would recuperate much of the cost to the prime investor in the business, the government.
I do not know if this is a cost effective maneuver that would keep our budget balanced on the long term, but I have to think that it would greatly benefit the world and is much better than the existing system.
This to me is a much more difficult question that I do not have a fully developed solution to, yet I have a few ideas mostly dealing with private companies. First, I would create a system of tax write-offs for corporations where they can write-off the money that they spend on research so that they can reduce and amount of tax that they pay, this would drive companies to commit more of their profits to research instead of corporate bonuses. This system in the long run would create more profit for the company as they would develop more products, which intern would create increased governmental revenues through sales and income tax.
The second idea that I have is a little more interventionalist so the conservative in me is kind of frightened by it, but I think that it could help companies a lot in areas which some politicians want to nationalize. I actually came up with this idea when having a discussion about healthcare and pharmaceuticals but I think it could be extended to other industries. One of the major problems with healthcare is that drugs are real expensive within the United States because patent law does not allow for the manufacturing of generics for several years. Because drugs cost billons of dollars to develop the company needs to charge high prices in order to reclaim much of the cost before the generics come on the market. In contrast, many countries do not have as strict a patent system as the US so companies can manufacture generics right away, thus while costs are lower there is no incentives for new drugs to be developed so most of the innovation comes from foreign companies, namely US companies. Thus the question becomes how do we reduce drug costs and still strive to innovate? I think that this may be a time that government can act because unlike other products people have to have medications. Thus I would start by giving out small grants to companies to pursue research in a drug so that they can get their feet wet. But after they actually develop the drug I would have the government reimburse them for around 75% of the cost. This will drastically reduce the cost toward the consume and save Americans billions in healthcare costs which then will create more productivity and better lives. This increase in productivity again would grow America’s economy and thus the government’s income. Secondly I would tax international sales which would recuperate much of the cost to the prime investor in the business, the government.
I do not know if this is a cost effective maneuver that would keep our budget balanced on the long term, but I have to think that it would greatly benefit the world and is much better than the existing system.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Education and R&D
The question of how to get more people innovating as scientists and engineers has plagued us since we started to lose our competitive advantage that we gained during World War II. We are still the world’s greatest innovators and still have the world’s best university system, however it is become increasingly strained and the demand for solid technical people has never been higher. I believe that the root of the problem lies in the US pre-college education system. People have always said that we need more qualified teachers and more money, while this is mostly true, I think that there are more drastic changes that need to be made. First I believe that we need a tracked education system in which people are separated according to ability. I know this sounds like a heresy but not everyone has to go to college, we will always need tradesmen and their role is society is very important as they contribute unique hands on skills that many of us do not have. So therefore we should have different levels in education starting probably in middle school, if not earlier, to prepare the kids for there different careers, which of course would not be set in stone, this is not the USSR. Leveling will allow everyone to be challenged, we all have known students who have great ability but only did the bare minimum to pass through because they did not find the work interesting.
After we have gone to a leveled system, we can greatly improve the efficiency of education so that everyone is constantly learning. Also we can introduce material to one level of students much more quickly than to the others, particularly in mathematics. While in other classes it seemed like we learned new stuff every year in elementary school, in math class we constantly learned the same arithmetic over and over because they did not believe that we were ready for Algebra until eighth grade. I think that this is totally incorrect; I believe that average smart kids can probably learn Algebra at sixth grade if not sooner. Even if this process is slower and we have to spend sixth and seventh grades devoted to algebra concepts, it will enable students to begin studying real science and technical fields. Up until high school most science that we were exposed to was just facts, like history. But once we incorporate real mathematics it becomes much different, where you have to find your own answers. This mathematics becomes important in science not necessarily because it enables kids to be introduced to science more quickly but because they can be introduced to the methods of science and analysis. With not to much more than algebra and elementary trig I can do almost any high school science experiment and that is where the true learning begins.
We must introduce kids to research and experimentation sooner. I know that most people hate doing high school science fair projects but I think that is mostly because they can not find an interesting topic for they do not possess the mathematical and scientific background to carry out an interesting experiment. More generally, I think that modern education in general does not develop skills which are useful for analysis that is why when we have a class which helps us develop these skills we love it for it is challenging and allows us to think and dive deeper into the world. That is where all school must go, while I am partial to science, all subjects must tend toward that realm. I think that every kid in the advanced level in high school should have a mandatory for term research project. This could range from my research interests in muon flux trends to looking at how cultural collisions in pack a society’s literature. Regardless of the specific type of research, it prepares students the think in ways which reflect real world thought. I did not go to school to learn how to do problem sets I went so that I can learn how to learn.
After we have gone to a leveled system, we can greatly improve the efficiency of education so that everyone is constantly learning. Also we can introduce material to one level of students much more quickly than to the others, particularly in mathematics. While in other classes it seemed like we learned new stuff every year in elementary school, in math class we constantly learned the same arithmetic over and over because they did not believe that we were ready for Algebra until eighth grade. I think that this is totally incorrect; I believe that average smart kids can probably learn Algebra at sixth grade if not sooner. Even if this process is slower and we have to spend sixth and seventh grades devoted to algebra concepts, it will enable students to begin studying real science and technical fields. Up until high school most science that we were exposed to was just facts, like history. But once we incorporate real mathematics it becomes much different, where you have to find your own answers. This mathematics becomes important in science not necessarily because it enables kids to be introduced to science more quickly but because they can be introduced to the methods of science and analysis. With not to much more than algebra and elementary trig I can do almost any high school science experiment and that is where the true learning begins.
We must introduce kids to research and experimentation sooner. I know that most people hate doing high school science fair projects but I think that is mostly because they can not find an interesting topic for they do not possess the mathematical and scientific background to carry out an interesting experiment. More generally, I think that modern education in general does not develop skills which are useful for analysis that is why when we have a class which helps us develop these skills we love it for it is challenging and allows us to think and dive deeper into the world. That is where all school must go, while I am partial to science, all subjects must tend toward that realm. I think that every kid in the advanced level in high school should have a mandatory for term research project. This could range from my research interests in muon flux trends to looking at how cultural collisions in pack a society’s literature. Regardless of the specific type of research, it prepares students the think in ways which reflect real world thought. I did not go to school to learn how to do problem sets I went so that I can learn how to learn.
Friday, June 20, 2008
R&D, It grips my soul
As a researcher I think that a little experimentation and a lot of data analysis can find the answers to solve the world’s problems. Therefore in our quest to solve our environmental crisis and other crises, I believe that there is only one real solution and that is new technology. I know that most environmentalist groups push for energy conservation and stuff like that, but lets be realistic here people like to use things and do not take to kindly to expending effort to conserve. While yes I believe that we should conserve, I think most people will not expend this effort. I hate to say this but I like to think that I am a rather big proponent for the protection of the environment, but I unfortunately do not take the extra two minutes when leaving to house to turn off the lights or schedule my trips so that I do not have to drive as much. Therefore if we want to start a conservation effort it has to be effortless, such as recycling has become in most areas. But more importantly I think that new technology can allow us to continue our natural tendency has human beings to conserve only energy, recall simple physics. If I have an electric car that does not pollute and an energy source which is always in abundance, then what does it matter if I do not schedule my trips most efficiently.
So then the problem becomes how we develop this new technology. Currently there are two main sectors for innovation, the public and the private. There is quite a bit of mixing between them based on funding but essentially they can be broken down that way. Private institutions are primarily driven by a quest to develop marketable technologies which can advance the aims of the company, but there is still some room for personal research. However because they do not get that much direct funding it makes it more difficult to take risks which may or may not produce a product. That is why most of the cutting edge research is done by publicly funded institutions, which can do research without the aim of making a product just a publishable discovery. Unfortunately government money and donations are not floating around it an abundance which would allow every great idea to be tested and also there are not enough scientists to adequately explore everything. Therefore our approach I think needs to be two fold, first increasing the number of scientists and engineers that are committed to research of new ideas and produces. Secondly we need to increase the amount of funding available for all institutions, both public and private, so that they can explore more ideas.
How can we solve those two problems? I will give my input tomorrow but do you have any ideas or am I missing some other piece of the puzzle?
So then the problem becomes how we develop this new technology. Currently there are two main sectors for innovation, the public and the private. There is quite a bit of mixing between them based on funding but essentially they can be broken down that way. Private institutions are primarily driven by a quest to develop marketable technologies which can advance the aims of the company, but there is still some room for personal research. However because they do not get that much direct funding it makes it more difficult to take risks which may or may not produce a product. That is why most of the cutting edge research is done by publicly funded institutions, which can do research without the aim of making a product just a publishable discovery. Unfortunately government money and donations are not floating around it an abundance which would allow every great idea to be tested and also there are not enough scientists to adequately explore everything. Therefore our approach I think needs to be two fold, first increasing the number of scientists and engineers that are committed to research of new ideas and produces. Secondly we need to increase the amount of funding available for all institutions, both public and private, so that they can explore more ideas.
How can we solve those two problems? I will give my input tomorrow but do you have any ideas or am I missing some other piece of the puzzle?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
E=MC^2... Part II
If we develop a means to produce a great abundance of energy, we can solve many of the world’s problems ranging from increasing agriculture production by making to cost of owning equipment negligible to decreasing our involvement in the Middle East. But first once we attain that level of energy production we need to develop a way to store and transmit this energy more effectively. There are many proposed solutions to this challenge, but the most discussed are ethanol, hydrogen, and batteries.
Ethanol has already been used effectively and has proven to be rather economically viable when the correct crop is chosen to produce the ethanol. Currently in the US we use mostly corn ethanol which is a highly subsidized industry and also protected by several tariffs against foreign ethanol. However corn is actually not a very good crop to produce ethanol with as it only gets 1.3 times as much energy out as we put in to produce the ethanol. In comparison Brazilian sugar cane ethanol gets 8.3 times the energy. You can read more on Brazilian ethanol from the New York Times here. Ethanol is ok for a short term solution as it is carbon neutral, meaning that all the carbon that is released by the combustion came from the air when the crop was growing. However it does have the draw back that it is increasing food cost and also that we would expand our agricultural areas which would further destroy native habitats, but this could be mitigated if we switch to more efficient plants which would not require as much area.
The hydrogen economy is an intriguing idea. Currently it is not practical because of the amount of energy required to produce the hydrogen gas, but with an abundant source of energy it could become viable. One of the most interesting methods which could be used to produce cheap hydrogen is Artificial Photosynthesis. The chemical process of photosynthesis is actually a two step process, first the water molecule is separated to produce hydrogen and oxygen and then that hydrogen is combined with CO2 to produce sugar. If we can stop the photosynthesis process at this first step we could harness an efficient cheap and clean source of hydrogen. There are many approaches which are being tried; most do not involve plants at all but use homorganic molecules like titanium dioxide. There are two interesting programs first is at Penn State and the second is an organic system at Australian National University. There is a problem with the storage of Hydrogen as it requires really high pressure and low temperatures, but I believe that this is just an engineering challenge which is almost worked out. If we can develop a cheap way to manufacture H I think it could be the answer for our mobile energy needs, most likely first through combustion and then with fuel cells.
Another important area of research that I do not think gets the credit it deserves is batteries. This is something that I think we should devote a lot of research money to as technology is moving toward being totally wireless and thus efficient batteries are going to be essential very soon. Electric cars are also a very possible solution, but they are currently limited by their batteries. There would not have to be many infrastructure changes with electric cars as all of us have electricity at our home, unlike hydrogen, and thus they could very quickly be phased in once we develop great batteries.
Overall I think all of these are part of the solution, we begin with flex fuel cars using efficient ethanol and migrate toward electric cars. Then as we develop the infrastructure for the hydrogen economy it gradually gets implemented over the next half century.
Ethanol has already been used effectively and has proven to be rather economically viable when the correct crop is chosen to produce the ethanol. Currently in the US we use mostly corn ethanol which is a highly subsidized industry and also protected by several tariffs against foreign ethanol. However corn is actually not a very good crop to produce ethanol with as it only gets 1.3 times as much energy out as we put in to produce the ethanol. In comparison Brazilian sugar cane ethanol gets 8.3 times the energy. You can read more on Brazilian ethanol from the New York Times here. Ethanol is ok for a short term solution as it is carbon neutral, meaning that all the carbon that is released by the combustion came from the air when the crop was growing. However it does have the draw back that it is increasing food cost and also that we would expand our agricultural areas which would further destroy native habitats, but this could be mitigated if we switch to more efficient plants which would not require as much area.
The hydrogen economy is an intriguing idea. Currently it is not practical because of the amount of energy required to produce the hydrogen gas, but with an abundant source of energy it could become viable. One of the most interesting methods which could be used to produce cheap hydrogen is Artificial Photosynthesis. The chemical process of photosynthesis is actually a two step process, first the water molecule is separated to produce hydrogen and oxygen and then that hydrogen is combined with CO2 to produce sugar. If we can stop the photosynthesis process at this first step we could harness an efficient cheap and clean source of hydrogen. There are many approaches which are being tried; most do not involve plants at all but use homorganic molecules like titanium dioxide. There are two interesting programs first is at Penn State and the second is an organic system at Australian National University. There is a problem with the storage of Hydrogen as it requires really high pressure and low temperatures, but I believe that this is just an engineering challenge which is almost worked out. If we can develop a cheap way to manufacture H I think it could be the answer for our mobile energy needs, most likely first through combustion and then with fuel cells.
Another important area of research that I do not think gets the credit it deserves is batteries. This is something that I think we should devote a lot of research money to as technology is moving toward being totally wireless and thus efficient batteries are going to be essential very soon. Electric cars are also a very possible solution, but they are currently limited by their batteries. There would not have to be many infrastructure changes with electric cars as all of us have electricity at our home, unlike hydrogen, and thus they could very quickly be phased in once we develop great batteries.
Overall I think all of these are part of the solution, we begin with flex fuel cars using efficient ethanol and migrate toward electric cars. Then as we develop the infrastructure for the hydrogen economy it gradually gets implemented over the next half century.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
E=mc^2, Energy is really at the base of it all
Ultimately pretty much everything these days condenses down to energy. This problem of energy takes on two forms, first the production of energy and secondly the storage and transmission of energy. Tonight, as I am kind of lazy and want to go bake some bread, so I think I will spare the latter tell tomorrow. As you know we get most of our energy from fossil fuels, which cause many problems not only Global Warming and the release of pollutants but also the fact that we are burning something that chemically can be used for a lot more. Many alternatives have been listed toward producing energy that is clean and efficient. My favorite currently is nuclear power because it is actually very environmentally friendly and with nuclear reprocessing we can eliminate almost 95% of the waste and that which remains has a much shorter half-life than traditional nuclear waste. Nuclear makes up an overwhelming majority of the energy production of France and Japan and they have had no significant accidents which caused environmental damage. Also the amount of regulation and safety in plants makes the probability of meltdown minimal.
The other energy solutions I think should function as a secondary role to help produce peak usage electricity and electricity for remote areas. Solar is ok, it has some problems because the materials which produce it are toxic so they cause some pollution but with the proper processes it can be mitigated. Wind is decent but it also has some problems because it is not very efficient and also because it has some adverse affects of bird populations. Geothermal and tidal energy are great because they do not have any major environmental impacts that I know of but they are limited in their scope. Iceland has very effectively implemented geothermal to the point that they have a great excess of energy so they can do manufacturing which is energy intensive like Aluminum production very cheaply. Hydropower in the form of dams is very detrimental to aquatic ecosystems and thus should be avoided.
But what about the future of energy? Fusion power is a great concept and if we ever get it implemented it will be great, but the technological complexity of the task make me wonder if it is viable in any the time frame of the next hundred years. Also even it requires inputs such as tritium and deuterium which are hard to produce. Therefore I see another possibility for the long term future of energy that is organic solar energy. I think that we should invest a lot in trying to harness the process of photosynthesis to produce very clean energy which requires inputs which are common and nonpolluting.
My ideal energy policy would be similar to what John McCain released today in that it wants to drastically increase the number of nuclear plants; he wants 45 more plants by 2030. I would also create a Manhattan project to develop new more efficient and clean forms of energy production, how exactly this would work I think may be the subject of another entry as this one it way to long.
The other energy solutions I think should function as a secondary role to help produce peak usage electricity and electricity for remote areas. Solar is ok, it has some problems because the materials which produce it are toxic so they cause some pollution but with the proper processes it can be mitigated. Wind is decent but it also has some problems because it is not very efficient and also because it has some adverse affects of bird populations. Geothermal and tidal energy are great because they do not have any major environmental impacts that I know of but they are limited in their scope. Iceland has very effectively implemented geothermal to the point that they have a great excess of energy so they can do manufacturing which is energy intensive like Aluminum production very cheaply. Hydropower in the form of dams is very detrimental to aquatic ecosystems and thus should be avoided.
But what about the future of energy? Fusion power is a great concept and if we ever get it implemented it will be great, but the technological complexity of the task make me wonder if it is viable in any the time frame of the next hundred years. Also even it requires inputs such as tritium and deuterium which are hard to produce. Therefore I see another possibility for the long term future of energy that is organic solar energy. I think that we should invest a lot in trying to harness the process of photosynthesis to produce very clean energy which requires inputs which are common and nonpolluting.
My ideal energy policy would be similar to what John McCain released today in that it wants to drastically increase the number of nuclear plants; he wants 45 more plants by 2030. I would also create a Manhattan project to develop new more efficient and clean forms of energy production, how exactly this would work I think may be the subject of another entry as this one it way to long.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Wiki's Wonders
I figure that since I will probably be linking to it a lot I should discuss my views of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great example of Web 2.0 in which the users manage content and interact to create a dynamic webpage which grows at a very fast rate and hopefully self-corrects.
When I do research Wikipedia is my starting point so that I can get a usually very strong overview of the subject. Then Wiki’s best attribute reveals itself, its links and references. I can follow these links to get a very detailed look at the subject and much of the time it even links to academic sources.
In Don Tapscott’s and Anthony Williams’ book Wikinomics, they state that the accuracy of wikipedia is equal or superior to a standard encyclopedia, yet it has some trust issues because anyone can edit it. I have been trying to figure out to what degree we should trust wiki. Most of us would not cite it in an academic paper, but is it reputable enough to settle a bet about the population of the UK or would you go to the WorldFact Book about that? Were do we draw the line? I would like your comments.
When I do research Wikipedia is my starting point so that I can get a usually very strong overview of the subject. Then Wiki’s best attribute reveals itself, its links and references. I can follow these links to get a very detailed look at the subject and much of the time it even links to academic sources.
In Don Tapscott’s and Anthony Williams’ book Wikinomics, they state that the accuracy of wikipedia is equal or superior to a standard encyclopedia, yet it has some trust issues because anyone can edit it. I have been trying to figure out to what degree we should trust wiki. Most of us would not cite it in an academic paper, but is it reputable enough to settle a bet about the population of the UK or would you go to the WorldFact Book about that? Were do we draw the line? I would like your comments.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Organic Foods
For all those who know me, I hate organic foods and resist eating them. This is not necessarily because I am a great supporter of modern production techniques, but because of the ideas that organic farming represents. Organic food resists progress on the very grounds that it is a departure from the comfortable “natural” practices of the past. I have to admit that there are a plethora of modern farming practices which are harmful to the environment and to the quality of the food, yet the solution is not to eliminate all modern farming techniques. The solution to the world’s current environmental crises and food shortage lies not with ancient techniques themselves, but with the analysis of these “natural” techniques and their modification to increase productivity and quality.
One of the most interesting techniques is the replication of natural environments to create a kind of self-sustaining agricultural system, which is embodied through the practices of Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) and Aquaponics. For more information you can read about them on their wiki and related links.
In traditional aquiculture, fish are kept in large netted regions within a bay or estuary where they are fed and grow until they are ready for harvest. One of the major problems of this is that the fish feces and decaying fish feed create a nitrogen rich environment, which then causes growths of certain algae which results in environmental damage. This process also occurs when nitrogen rich fertilizers leach into streams stimulating rampant growth. In Aquaponics, the fish are raised in a closed system meaning that their waste water, which is rich in plant nutrients, is filtered through some simple biological filters and then used as the nutrient rich water for the hydroponic growth of plant eliminating the waste and environmental impact. A simpler application of this idea is IMTA in which several trophic levels of organisms are combined so that beneath the fish pens are sea-plants and shellfish which consume the fish waste so that it does not pollute the water and the plants and fish can be harvested.
This is just a simple example and I only gave it a brief explanation. It is just one instance of how the solution to our agriculture problems is not to retreat to the past but to learn from the billions of years of evolution and mix in some of our modern technology and ideas to produce real results and solve problems.
One of my favorite quotes about progress comes from Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg:
One of the most interesting techniques is the replication of natural environments to create a kind of self-sustaining agricultural system, which is embodied through the practices of Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) and Aquaponics. For more information you can read about them on their wiki and related links.
In traditional aquiculture, fish are kept in large netted regions within a bay or estuary where they are fed and grow until they are ready for harvest. One of the major problems of this is that the fish feces and decaying fish feed create a nitrogen rich environment, which then causes growths of certain algae which results in environmental damage. This process also occurs when nitrogen rich fertilizers leach into streams stimulating rampant growth. In Aquaponics, the fish are raised in a closed system meaning that their waste water, which is rich in plant nutrients, is filtered through some simple biological filters and then used as the nutrient rich water for the hydroponic growth of plant eliminating the waste and environmental impact. A simpler application of this idea is IMTA in which several trophic levels of organisms are combined so that beneath the fish pens are sea-plants and shellfish which consume the fish waste so that it does not pollute the water and the plants and fish can be harvested.
This is just a simple example and I only gave it a brief explanation. It is just one instance of how the solution to our agriculture problems is not to retreat to the past but to learn from the billions of years of evolution and mix in some of our modern technology and ideas to produce real results and solve problems.
One of my favorite quotes about progress comes from Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg:
“The modern technological world appears overwhelming to many people. It
drives some to pessimism and despair. It makes others doubt the future of
mankind unless we retreat to simpler lives and even to the ways of our
ancestors. What these people fail to realize is that we cannot go back to those
ways and those days. Furthermore, for all our difficulties, life today is far
better for more people and the possibilities for the future can be brighter than
ever if we develop not only new knowledge, but a greater faith and confidence in
the human mind and spirit.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)