Archive for the 'Energy' Category

In Science, FAIL = WIN

Science WinIn 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’

Food for Thought (Sorry for the Silence)

Hey folks.  I’m back after a long day-job-driven haitus.  Things have been hectic, and the best way to jump back in seems to be some quick-blogging of items I’ve found intriguing over the past few weeks.

David Roberts at Grist offers a great primer on power grids, including the important distinction between a wide grid: “a new high-voltage backbone, with lines spanning the length and breadth of the country, able to carry electricity from anywhere it’s generated to anywhere it’s needed” and a smart grid: a transmission system that allows for distibuted production (think rooftop solar panels) and is capable of adjusting in real time to compensate for heavy usage, increased production, etc.  This is a recommended read to get a basic grasp of what David describes as two key power grid issues:

[O]ne grid issue is getting more power (transmission lines to new places) and one is using power more efficiently(smarter distributions systems). The politics around those two issues are quite different

Related, also courtesy of David: here’s a list of articles on my to-read list related to smart grids.

Jason Calacanis sent a long and thoughtful email about the ways in which anonymity online can be harmful to the extent that it erodes our empathy for other people. Jason goes so far as to call this trend a “disease”–”Internet Aspergers Syndrome”:

This disease affects people when their communication moves to digital, and the emotional cues of face-to-face interaction–including tone, facial expression and the so called “blush response”–are lost.

In this syndrome, the afflicted stops seeing the humanity in other people. They view individuals as objects, not individuals. The focus on repetitive behaviors–checking email, blogging, [and] twittering…–combines with an inability to feel empathy and connect with people.

This is a provocative thought, and it does seem to me that the next big trend online (web 3.0?) will be authenticated identities driving the social media we’ve taken for granted.  Calacanis mentions that social networks in South Korea require a social security number to sign up.  There will inevitably be a tension between the norms that have developed in the web’s infancy and the changes that will be necessary to combat what is moving from a medium where goodwill and trust could be taken for granted toward an anything-goes medium where accountability is virtually (pun intended) nonexistent.  How we choose to make that shift–requiring social security numbers, for instance, might be a bit invasive by American standards–is unclear, but I think many of us are starting to feel fatigue with unaccountable spammers and trolls ruining the web for everyone else.

I’ve come across a fair amount of criticism recently of URL-shortening services (like tinyURL, bit.ly, Digg, others).  As TechCrunch explains:

Nobody really likes [URL shorteners], but they are a necessary evil. How else are you going to share links on Twitter without having the URL take up half the message?

The criticisms focus on a number of issues:

  1. URL shorteners obscure links, which opens unsuspecting users to spam attacks;
  2. shorteners, to quote the founder of del.icio.us, “add another layer of indirection to an already creaky system” and slow the web;
  3. some shorteners, like Digg, deny direct traffic to sites by using a frame instead of directing clicks to the original material (Facebook users will find this familiar, since shared items are framed in a similar fashion);
  4. all shortened links are dependent on the continued existence of the proponderance of shortener start-ups AND the perpetuity of their terms of service (in other words, the guarantee that your tinyURL will not be reassigned or disappear)

I worry about the Digg/Facebook model gaining traction, since “link juice” for original material is what feeds the web’s content producers.  But I think in the future you’ll see more of this type of functionality: an interim landing page where visitors will see a full URL before continuing to the source material.  If content aggregators (I’m looking at you, Digg) can add value by previewing pages and layering social rankings or other features, this could be a win-win-win proposition: People clicking shortened links are protected from spam; the URL shortening service has an opportunity to advertise and lure visitors to other material; the content provider receives a direct traffic boost.

That’s all for now, though I should be blogging regularly again next week.

Carbon Neutral for a Day

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:

One Day from Brighter Planet

The Future of Power

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’

On Prizes and Progress

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.