I don’t know what to think about the threatened financial collapse. Cringley likens it to putting out all the forest fires over a one hundred year period. Eventually the forest will catch on fire, and the longer you keep putting it out, the worse it’s going to be when it does go up in flames.
On the one hand, I really don’t like the message it sends to investors: “Go ahead and make risky investments! If they blow up, the taxpayer will bail you out!” This cannot be good for our future, as it will only encourage more of what Alan Greenspan termed “irrational exuberance.” On the other, it really will be a bad thing if it causes the economy to tank, but maybe that would be temporary, and maybe we could ride it out.
I don’t remember where I read this, but it was a while back, and I think it makes even more sense now. The new president should make a Kennedy-esque announcement that the United States will achieve energy independence “before this decade is out.” And to do this, we will develop clean, renewable sources of energy. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard? No, because it would be the right thing to do. This would have several beneficial effects.
First, it would be a way better use of $700B. That’s $2,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. That’s $10K from my family.
Second, it would help with the greenhouse effect if it’s not already too late for that (and yes, I think that’s a real problem). That’s why we must insist that the energy be clean and carbon-neutral.
Third, a research program like that would create thousands, or maybe even millions of high-paying jobs and put the U.S. firmly back in the technology leadership position.
Fourth, the tech could be exported to places where it is needed most by the world – India and China. Those two places want to be new Americas, and they are on track to do it with oil. That adds additional stress to the oil supply driving prices up, and what it does to the environment is even worse. That’s why the world needs for India and China to use clean energy. It’s not enough for the U.S. and Europe to replace oil with clean energy. China and India would immediately take up the slack in the demand. If we developeit, I believe that clean energy will eventually cost a fraction of what we’re paying now, and that is incentive enough for India and China to use it. Maybe that will prevent environmental collapse.
Fifth, China and India would not be the only ones to benefit. What about Europe and Australia? Africa? South America? Once the tech is developed, it should be cheap, giving the third world a real chance to better their lot.
Sixth, it would solve our Middle East problems. Let them keep their oil. Venezuela too. Well – most of it. There would still be a healthy market for oil because that’s what plastic is made of. Being energy independent does not mean we won’t need plastic any more. The demand for oil would keep them in business, but OPEC would no longer call the shots.
How would we do this? Well, it would take a lot of R&D, and that’s where all those high-paying jobs come from. Solar is getting a lot of research now, and that was spurred even more by $4.00/gallon gas. Wind should be used too. And geothermal, biomass, waves, and maybe something else that we haven’t thought of yet. For $700B, you could probably build a hydrogen infrastructure. We will never use hydrogen cars without an infrastructure to support them, and we will never get an infrastructure unless the government commits to subsidizing one.
But energy independence wouldn’t all be done through energy generation. We’d also need to put a check on the demand. Outlawing inefficient light bulbs would be a start. I would not say outlaw incandescents, because I have heard of research that massively boosts the efficiency of incandescents. Rather than banning a technology, set ran efficiency standard – light sources must produce at least X lumens per watt. We should be using LEDs to light our houses, and we should get tax breaks for installing light pipes to bring sunlight indoors. Why use energy to generate light when we could just grab some from outdoors and use it inside? Light switches should sense motion as well as light. If no one’s in the room, lights out! If the window is open, dim the lights. I have a motion sensor in my office, but recently, I switched it from automatic to off. I have a huge window, and it lights my workspace more than enough (except on rainy days – then I set it back to automatic).
Intel just published the results of some research where they cooled a data center with outdoor air. In Texas. In the summer. The failure rate on their servers went up less than a half a percent, and that was with no air conditioning whatsoever – just fans. Air conditioning is a major, major cost in running a data center, and Intel’s study just showed that that has been a complete waste of money.
What about clothes dryers? We aren’t about to go back to using clothes lines (though that would be a good thing IMO), so we need to find a way to dry them without so much energy. Solar? I dunno – pour some money into research and find a way.
So those are the laws that Congress ought to be looking at. Let the economy dip. Let the underbrush burn, and clean out the cruft. We’ll be better for it if we let it burn now verses letting more underbrush build up. I am convinced that a comprehensive energy plan would more than make up for it. Otherwise, the next collapse will be a lot bigger.
