In April, I wrote about a little debate some coworkers and I were having about whether politics could be studied scientifically, and whether that approach was valid (I said it could be, and that it was one among many valid approaches). One argument tendered in opposition was that we simply don’t have enough information to even make a successful politico-scientific model, let alone to test whether it works or not. Any attempt to construct such a model, or to delineate variables and units of measurement, would be in vain.
I think that is incorrect, because in science, the cool thing is that fail = win. What I mean is that science is all about testing something, getting results, and developing a conclusion based on those results. If your model sucks and your experiment fails as a result, you’ve learned something. You rebuild, you try something else, and you chalk your first try up on the list of things that don’t work. Launch and iterate, my friends. It’s the Google way, and we’ve done alright so far.
Continue reading ‘In Science, FAIL = WIN’
You may remember that way back when Tropophilia received free carbon offsets from Move Neutral, a carbon-offset company based out of Austin, TX. We’ve also featured a badge in our sidebar as part of the 350 Challenge from Brighter Planet in Middlebury, VT. Brighter Planet is feeling festive and is offering the gift of free carbon offsets. Just follow the link below to pass along some carbon credits to your eco-geek friends. ‘Tis the season to be neutral:

A guest post by James Q.
First off, I want to thank Jarred for inviting me to guest post on Tropophilia. I’ve been following the blog since its inception and have been nothing but impressed. I hope I can meet the standards of this site.
Jarred linked me to an article about using solar power in conjunction with a small water powered fuel cell. While photovoltaics power a home during the day, surplus power splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the two are combined again at night in a fuel cell to produce power. Sounds good enough, but I cannot in good faith agree with the concept.
I’m not an engineer or scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe that simplicity works. My first thought when reading the article was, “why not just store the excess power in a battery instead of using it to power another process?” To me, adding extra steps, equipment, and parameters only complicates things. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t efficiency fall every time an energy source passes through a different medium?
Continue reading ‘The Future of Power’
Last month John McCain made a campaign promise that, if elected, he would champion a $300 million prize to develop an inexpensive and powerful automotive battery that could “leapfrog” current available batteries. While the announcement garnered some press coverage, it was covered with fervor in the political as well as technology blogosphere. In fact, it seems to have been one of the most polarizing political announcements in technology and clean-technology investment spheres since a number of candidates promised to make changes in laws regarding carried interest. Tech investors left a number of interesting commentaries on the McCain battery plan. Many deemed the intentions of the plan as noble, but the logistics poor. One of the major arguments, among others, was that the development of such a battery would have a monetary upside that would far outweigh the $300 million prize. Others argued that such money would be better used in some kind of federal R&D program that could foster emerging battery research.
These commentaries got me thinking about prizes and the inherent “carrot and stick” issues that surround such achievement-based prizes. While the clean-tech detractors certainly make interesting and very true points, they’re forgetting the intangible inspiration factor that such a prize could create. An excellent example of such inspiration success could be the $10 million Ansari X-Prize awarded in October of 2004. In the the nine years from introduction to its presentation to the Paul Allen-backed winner Mohave Aerospace Ventures, the prize inspired over twenty-six teams made up of both amateurs as well as professionals to create and successfully launch a reusable manned spacecraft in two separate flights within two weeks. What many fail to point out is that over $100 million was invested in technologies leading up to the two successful Mohave flights.
Wait, isn’t something off here? Why would Mohave and Paul Allen put up ten times the financial muscle into winning a prize that doesn’t even cover the costs of research and development? In the typical investment world such ideas are shear lunacy. In this case wouldn’t it make sense that the prize money merely inspired the group towards the end goal? Why can’t the same true for battery improvements, or wind power, or any other publicly available prize? Isn’t the mere possibility that such a prize could inspire a talented scientist or engineer to shift their efforts towards developing new technology worth forgetting a few logistical shortcomings in a plan?
There however is another important fact that many clean-tech investors have left out. Beyond talk of batteries and prizes, recent campaign statements by both major party candidates illustrate the fact that both candidates are actively interested (at least for now) in making some serious changes to federal energy policy. Placing individual candidates positions aside, if promises from both candidates hold true into a new administration shouldn’t clean-tech investors (as well as the general public) be excited about the possible sea change such policies will bring?
Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user AndyArmstrong.