"Internet Time" is the concept that time moves faster or events compress in time on the Internet much faster than they do in "real life." An interesting event occurred yesterday that brought this home: the YouTube domain was registered on February 15, 2005, making yesterday the third anniversary. In that time, YouTube was purchased by Google a year and a half later (October 16, 2006) for $1.65 Billion (which represented a capital appreciation of $6.8 Million PER DAY by the way); now serves more than 100 million videos per day; has changed the way police departments identify criminals (alleged criminals); has changed the way politicians communicate and are questioned in debates; and has become the 4th most visited Web site in the Internet.
That's hard to compete with using traditional business models.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Alternative Energy--A Clash of Cultures?
As wind farms and solar farms sprout up around the world, there is an increasing chorus of complaint about the impact that whirling wind generator blades will have on birds, and about the impact that large areas covered with solar cells or solar concentration mirrors will have on animals. While it is a valid question that should be asked, those protesting this move to renewable energy seem to lose sight of a larger picture.
Sure, these installations will have some impact on birds and animals (let's not forget the little bugs either). However, continuing to rely on carbon-based fuels and continuing to spew hydrocarbons into the atmosphere will also have an impact on the birds and animals--and one of those animals is us.
Personally, I believe that propagating switchgrass across the mid-west is a great idea. It basically begins the process of reintroducing native plants back into the ecology, not to mention controlling erosion on marginal lands. It also offsets the dependence on corn for ethanol production which is a good thing considering that corn is a primary food source for the world. Introducing this one "crop" back into the ecology creates an improved environment for a variety of native mid-west animals and birds. That's not a bad thing.
Introducing wind farms and solar arrays offsets the need to generate energy through coal-powered plants, one of the most polluting machines in use today. Substituting birds who can't fly certain routes for birds who can't breath seems like a fair trade off.
Substituting electric power from solar for gas burning engines in cars seems like a fair trade off to me. I imagine that many of these same arguments went on when there was a move from horse power to steam power and then gas power. I'm sure the lantern fuel providers had a problem with the "environmental" impact of electric lights. The point is that any new technology has its advantages and disadvantages. The determiner of whether that new technology will be adopted depends on demand. If there is suitable demand, it survives and thrives. If it doesn't, it dies. Adam Smith's laws of economics are still valid.
The fact is that wind energy and solar energy are taking hold simply because the cost is rapidly approaching that of traditional energy production. The difference this time is that even the individual can get in on the action. That is, the individual land or homeowner can be a power generator--either by installing their own energy sources or though leasing a energy production capability.
I suspect that it is this individual control over energy production that is the real issue, not the environmental issues.
Sure, these installations will have some impact on birds and animals (let's not forget the little bugs either). However, continuing to rely on carbon-based fuels and continuing to spew hydrocarbons into the atmosphere will also have an impact on the birds and animals--and one of those animals is us.
Personally, I believe that propagating switchgrass across the mid-west is a great idea. It basically begins the process of reintroducing native plants back into the ecology, not to mention controlling erosion on marginal lands. It also offsets the dependence on corn for ethanol production which is a good thing considering that corn is a primary food source for the world. Introducing this one "crop" back into the ecology creates an improved environment for a variety of native mid-west animals and birds. That's not a bad thing.
Introducing wind farms and solar arrays offsets the need to generate energy through coal-powered plants, one of the most polluting machines in use today. Substituting birds who can't fly certain routes for birds who can't breath seems like a fair trade off.
Substituting electric power from solar for gas burning engines in cars seems like a fair trade off to me. I imagine that many of these same arguments went on when there was a move from horse power to steam power and then gas power. I'm sure the lantern fuel providers had a problem with the "environmental" impact of electric lights. The point is that any new technology has its advantages and disadvantages. The determiner of whether that new technology will be adopted depends on demand. If there is suitable demand, it survives and thrives. If it doesn't, it dies. Adam Smith's laws of economics are still valid.
The fact is that wind energy and solar energy are taking hold simply because the cost is rapidly approaching that of traditional energy production. The difference this time is that even the individual can get in on the action. That is, the individual land or homeowner can be a power generator--either by installing their own energy sources or though leasing a energy production capability.
I suspect that it is this individual control over energy production that is the real issue, not the environmental issues.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Security versus Privacy
I saw this quote in the "Good Morning Silicon Valley" newsletter and I found it interesting in light of the events that have occurred over the last eight years and the lasting impact that those events will have on the future. The quote is by security expert Bruce Schneier:
"We've been told we have to trade off security and privacy so often ... that most of us don't even question the fundamental dichotomy. But it's a false one. Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don't have to accept less of one to get more of the other. ...
Since 9/11, approximately three things have potentially improved airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing they have to fight back and -- possibly -- sky marshals. Everything else -- all the security measures that affect privacy -- is just security theater and a waste of effort.
By the same token, many of the anti-privacy 'security' measures we're seeing -- national ID cards, warrantless eavesdropping, massive data mining and so on -- do little to improve, and in some cases harm, security. And government claims of their success are either wrong, or against fake threats.
The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control."
In this political season, his perspective is certainly food for thought.
"We've been told we have to trade off security and privacy so often ... that most of us don't even question the fundamental dichotomy. But it's a false one. Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don't have to accept less of one to get more of the other. ...
Since 9/11, approximately three things have potentially improved airline security: reinforcing the cockpit doors, passengers realizing they have to fight back and -- possibly -- sky marshals. Everything else -- all the security measures that affect privacy -- is just security theater and a waste of effort.
By the same token, many of the anti-privacy 'security' measures we're seeing -- national ID cards, warrantless eavesdropping, massive data mining and so on -- do little to improve, and in some cases harm, security. And government claims of their success are either wrong, or against fake threats.
The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control."
In this political season, his perspective is certainly food for thought.
Friday, January 18, 2008
What's Next? Take Two: The Future and You
During the course of a week, I read numerous articles, numerous blogs, and listen to numerous podcasts on a great variety of subjects ranging from iPhones to general technology, to renewable energy, to science fiction and the future. While any one of these subjects is interesting, it is when they are juxtaposed that interesting concepts develop. Some of these portend the future.
For example, with increasing petroleum prices and the threat of global warming, there is much discussion about destroying our environment. However, when one steps back from the subject, it becomes obvious that one cannot destroy the environment--the environment is what it is. As such, we may destroy environmental CONDITIONS that are suitable to sustaining human life, but will not destroy the environment. If the Earth becomes a smoking, waterless cinder, it still has an environment. It will just happen that it is not an environment that will sustain us.
Therefore, let's be honest with ourselves: We are not trying to save the environment--we are trying to save ourselves. In that context, it becomes a trade-off of cost versus benefit and the cost is extinction; the benefit is survival. As Lester Thurow of MIT observed years ago, this is a zero-sum game. If that is too intellectual for you, then perhaps a reference to the late Peter Drucker will suffice. He stated that there is no such thing as a profit--profit only represents the deferred cost of doing business. In this case, "profit" is staying alive. If that is still too complex to get your brain around, then I will reference the Fram oil filter advertisement from years ago, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."
The point is, a lot of the resistance to cleaning up our environment (translated to mean making the environment more suitable to sustaining human life) is that it is economically cost prohibitive. However, from a zero-sum point-of-view, the deferred costs will only get higher. From a futuring viewpoint, that means that those countries investing in renewable/clean/green/sustainable energy will have an economic, competitive, and survivability advantage over those that do not do so. Based on this measure, the US may be rapidly moving to a disadvantaged position.
Your thoughts?
For example, with increasing petroleum prices and the threat of global warming, there is much discussion about destroying our environment. However, when one steps back from the subject, it becomes obvious that one cannot destroy the environment--the environment is what it is. As such, we may destroy environmental CONDITIONS that are suitable to sustaining human life, but will not destroy the environment. If the Earth becomes a smoking, waterless cinder, it still has an environment. It will just happen that it is not an environment that will sustain us.
Therefore, let's be honest with ourselves: We are not trying to save the environment--we are trying to save ourselves. In that context, it becomes a trade-off of cost versus benefit and the cost is extinction; the benefit is survival. As Lester Thurow of MIT observed years ago, this is a zero-sum game. If that is too intellectual for you, then perhaps a reference to the late Peter Drucker will suffice. He stated that there is no such thing as a profit--profit only represents the deferred cost of doing business. In this case, "profit" is staying alive. If that is still too complex to get your brain around, then I will reference the Fram oil filter advertisement from years ago, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."
The point is, a lot of the resistance to cleaning up our environment (translated to mean making the environment more suitable to sustaining human life) is that it is economically cost prohibitive. However, from a zero-sum point-of-view, the deferred costs will only get higher. From a futuring viewpoint, that means that those countries investing in renewable/clean/green/sustainable energy will have an economic, competitive, and survivability advantage over those that do not do so. Based on this measure, the US may be rapidly moving to a disadvantaged position.
Your thoughts?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
What's Next? Take One
The end of every year brings 1) a retrospective of accomplishments and failures in the current year; and 2) a look ahead to expected developments in the coming year and the longer-term future. Herewith is my review of the past year and prognostication for the coming year.
The movement against global warming reached critical mass:
Going back to the early 1970s, issues of ecology have been discussed, debated, and slowly evolving. Anyone remember Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1962)? How about The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich (1968)? These books had a profound impact on me, but concern about the environment has been slow to develop. Indeed, the current administration discounts much of the concern even today. However, over the last year, it would appear that a critical mass has been reached where individuals, institutions, and governments now understand the dire consequences and have taken steps to remediate the damage already done. Whether it will be too little, too late remains to be seen. However, from Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize to the accords signed in Bali, action appears to be gaining strength.
Central to the environmental discussion is carbon emissions. Combustion, whether coal in a power plant, gasoline in an automobile engine, or propane gas in our bar-b-que grills, they all generate carbon emissions into the atmosphere. When released, they combine with the free oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide (CO2). It's great for dry ice, but bad for global warming. The reason is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere creates a barrier much like the glass in a greenhouse. The result is the same as a greenhouse, increased warming. Therefore, global warming is all about CO2.
Today, the passions around reducing carbon emissions take many forms. First is a movement to make it no worse than it is today. These are the people pushing "carbon credits." Since countries are in the process of committing to limiting carbon emissions, their approach is to continue doing what they have always done, but trade their "excess" carbon emissions to a country that emits carbon at a rate less than they are allowed by treaty. These are usually underdeveloped nations where there are high levels of agriculture and free forests. The deal is that developed, carbon spewing countries will pay money to underdeveloped countries in exchange for their excess carbon credits. The approach is doomed over the long-term as underdeveloped countries become developed and need their carbon credits for themselves. The rich countries keep spewing carbon, only the they feel better about it because they can point to the offsets they have bought at the expense of some underdeveloped country. Unfortunately, this seems to be the U.S.'s approach.
A second approach is to recapture the CO2--remove it from the atmosphere. On paper, this sounds good. The problems are 1) how do you recapture it; and 2) what do you do with it? Recapturing CO2 takes energy. Most likely, that energy consumption emits carbon. Recapturing CO2 is like creating an infinite block of dry ice. It takes up room. Therefore, one solution is to bury it. Evidently, there is plenty of room for excess CO2 dry ice blocks underneath the numerous trash landfills, but above the buried spent nuclear fuel that is also being buried. Does anyone else see a problem with this?
A third approach is being investigated at Sandia National Laboratories. This one is to break down CO2 into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen. In turn, the CO could be reprocessed into burnable fuels, thus emitting the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Nowhere in the discussion is it mentioned how much energy will be needed to break down the CO2, but something tells me that it will involve more CO2 than will be reprocessed.
The fourth approach is evidently the least attractive--decrease CO2 emissions. This one does not require more energy. This one does not require reprocessing CO2. This one does not take the lazy path of buying off poor countries in exchange for their carbon credits. All that is required is simply don't emit CO2 in the first place. So committed are we to petroleum, internal combustion engines, coal-fired power plants, and industrial-age manufacturing processes, the U.S. evidently sees this as the least attractive option. Who knows, if we play our cards right, all our manufacturing will move overseas and we will once again become an agrarian economy. The only problem is no one will need our excess carbon credits.
The movement against global warming reached critical mass:
Going back to the early 1970s, issues of ecology have been discussed, debated, and slowly evolving. Anyone remember Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1962)? How about The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich (1968)? These books had a profound impact on me, but concern about the environment has been slow to develop. Indeed, the current administration discounts much of the concern even today. However, over the last year, it would appear that a critical mass has been reached where individuals, institutions, and governments now understand the dire consequences and have taken steps to remediate the damage already done. Whether it will be too little, too late remains to be seen. However, from Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize to the accords signed in Bali, action appears to be gaining strength.
Central to the environmental discussion is carbon emissions. Combustion, whether coal in a power plant, gasoline in an automobile engine, or propane gas in our bar-b-que grills, they all generate carbon emissions into the atmosphere. When released, they combine with the free oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide (CO2). It's great for dry ice, but bad for global warming. The reason is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere creates a barrier much like the glass in a greenhouse. The result is the same as a greenhouse, increased warming. Therefore, global warming is all about CO2.
Today, the passions around reducing carbon emissions take many forms. First is a movement to make it no worse than it is today. These are the people pushing "carbon credits." Since countries are in the process of committing to limiting carbon emissions, their approach is to continue doing what they have always done, but trade their "excess" carbon emissions to a country that emits carbon at a rate less than they are allowed by treaty. These are usually underdeveloped nations where there are high levels of agriculture and free forests. The deal is that developed, carbon spewing countries will pay money to underdeveloped countries in exchange for their excess carbon credits. The approach is doomed over the long-term as underdeveloped countries become developed and need their carbon credits for themselves. The rich countries keep spewing carbon, only the they feel better about it because they can point to the offsets they have bought at the expense of some underdeveloped country. Unfortunately, this seems to be the U.S.'s approach.
A second approach is to recapture the CO2--remove it from the atmosphere. On paper, this sounds good. The problems are 1) how do you recapture it; and 2) what do you do with it? Recapturing CO2 takes energy. Most likely, that energy consumption emits carbon. Recapturing CO2 is like creating an infinite block of dry ice. It takes up room. Therefore, one solution is to bury it. Evidently, there is plenty of room for excess CO2 dry ice blocks underneath the numerous trash landfills, but above the buried spent nuclear fuel that is also being buried. Does anyone else see a problem with this?
A third approach is being investigated at Sandia National Laboratories. This one is to break down CO2 into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen. In turn, the CO could be reprocessed into burnable fuels, thus emitting the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Nowhere in the discussion is it mentioned how much energy will be needed to break down the CO2, but something tells me that it will involve more CO2 than will be reprocessed.
The fourth approach is evidently the least attractive--decrease CO2 emissions. This one does not require more energy. This one does not require reprocessing CO2. This one does not take the lazy path of buying off poor countries in exchange for their carbon credits. All that is required is simply don't emit CO2 in the first place. So committed are we to petroleum, internal combustion engines, coal-fired power plants, and industrial-age manufacturing processes, the U.S. evidently sees this as the least attractive option. Who knows, if we play our cards right, all our manufacturing will move overseas and we will once again become an agrarian economy. The only problem is no one will need our excess carbon credits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
