I really hate to do two posts, Tom Friedman on the line, but I plan to respond every time he writes one of the columns in its terrible power. The last was 12 October op-early in the New York Times titled "build them, he come." Ironically, Mr. Freedman shows this column by reference to his conversation with Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the school of Luk Yu Li and public policy at the National University of Singapore. Singapore is Mr. Friedman a cup of tea: trendy modern, high tech, autocratic. Once, wit and observed all in Singapore is mandatory or prohibited. Only, you can achieve this laudable properly when a country ruled by people who know everything.
Mr. Friedman is aglow over the Secretary of energy Steven Chu proposal for eight 25 million in energy innovation hubs – mini-projects "Manhattan" solve all our energy problems. The idea is national universities, laboratories and companies in their store privacy best scientific talent to compete with $ 25 in value annual grants in the areas of smart grid solar power, carbon capture, storage, extreme materials, batteries, energy storage, energy efficient buildings, nuclear energy, initiatives from the Sun.In other words, just get some smart guys together over a cup of beer, anything is possible. Mr. Friedman refers to this concept as "quality shot of the Moon".
The problem here is not Mr. Friedman might be wrong, but he might be right. Consider for a moment, let's what "Moon shot" means. In the 1960s and 1970s, in the United States fell 12 astronauts on the Moon for the total cost (in dollars) of around 150 billion or 12½ billion each astronaut. Apollo program was a exciting, but what exactly it achieve? We currently have retail space, available to the average citizen? Not exactly. Three people rich uber (Greg Olsen, Dennis Tito, Mark Shuttleworth) to buy their way to the international space station for a reported $ 20 million each.All of us, however, are still quite a lot of Earth bound. Richard Branson virgin Atlantic talks about people that offers a 15-minute suborbital flights at any point in the future for the mere $200,000. I remain a strong highlight of the space program for reasons of national security, but do not have the same proposed a hundred much the average person (except of course Tang, powdered drink Orange preferred by astronauts).
Smart transportation technicians together under the auspices of the Government can help resolve some technical issues. The world, however, this approach has produced a commercially viable technology. For example, consider a supersonic flight. In 1947, Chuck Yaeger of u.s. air force plane broke the sound barrier rocket Bell X-1 – great technical achievement by bright, very brave people. We are currently producing our fifth generation of supersonic aircraft, military. Some commercial airliners are currently plying the sky? No one.Why?, because this capability, so critical for the army, is expensive, not very much to civilians. How many people are willing to pay the extra $ 5,000 airports from New York to London 3½ hours instead of six hours? Technical problem solution does not resolve the issue trademark.
There is a question not great minds that can come together in a meeting with some cool ideas, but ideas are not commercial technologies. If we want to build huge solar power, we do not care what we can do so now. In fact, we are. Americans, however, you don't have power that costs 50 ¢ kilowatt-hour when integrated cycle of natural gas is clean, efficient power can be generated at 7 cents.
In the 35 years since the "energy crisis" of the 1970s, the u.s. Government has spent on approximately 125 billion research and development of energy without producing anything any commercial value. Some people have the capability, hard work have made some good science, but we wouldn't know the difference if the money it had never been. Innovation does not come under the Government think tanks. In the real world, a very small number of powerful commercial technologies emerge from thousands of ideas developed by individuals, sometimes in organizations, sometimes in garages. Just like the lottery, most ideas never pay, even if they are really nice and at the beginning.
The Government is uniquely to play this game. when private investors make money, they tend to focus on success and is difficult to be a very hard-just about commercial options. If they don't their idea, and they work out or run out of money. Not the Government. If Congress were foolish Fund innovation hubs of energy, giving energy Secretary Chu doesn't advance to the smartest people or ideas likely to be successful. Money instead of going right to the districts of Senators support preferred volume and congressmen.One time, instead of these programs will be very hard to turn off, even if they could produce something year after year.
Mr. Friedman suggests several millions of dollars to provide incentive for bhammshla finance people to work on new technologies of energy.The global market for energy supply is on the order of $ 5 trillion year commercial Prize for good ... really new energy technologies – these could provide consumers with improved performance and lower costs – is enormous.Bill Gates have assessed in 54 billion, mainly from the development of Microsoft Windows.Fruit of the low cost, high-capacity battery is enormous – billions of dollars.This is true for solar energy, carbon capture, storage and other idea how energy of millions of dollars the Government Award "Silver" will create incentives for it even does not exist is a fool.
If we create technology by whiz kids sit around the table, why bother with solar energy and smart? Let's go right transporter beams, a faster-than-light, anti-telepathic communication of shoes.
My brother Ted Everett, Professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Geneseo, used to have a pet of a Guinea pig. He wondered aloud one day if he or she can teach his pig Guinea fly when when it was in the air, punishing him when he was on the ground. sounded just like ideas Mr. Friedman. why not set up a hub of innovation of the year and give it a try and rodent?
No comments:
Post a Comment