10.15.2007
Blog Action Day
So it's finally blog action day.
Solar or Wind at My House
I've been really interested lately in what renewable energy technologies I can implement at my house.
I've discovered that currently, solar panels and wind turbines are only really viable where you have strong government support. New Jersey apparently offers the best support. I live in Georgia. We don't seem to get much assistance at all. Living in such a red state, I guess I shouldn't have expected much.
I'm going to contact my state and local representatives today to see about getting legislation passed to reduce the cost of renewable energy technology.
I'm not much in favor of subsidies, but until there is a critical mass, it's just not going to be supportable.
CFLs
I was reading yesterday about how many governments are looking at phasing out conventional light bulbs. I thought that was terrific. I'm caught in the dilemma that I have a bunch of conventional bulbs around my house. I seem to have at least one pack stashed away in every closet in my house. I'm too cheap to throw them away. As they burn out, I'm replacing them with CFLs.
Skeptical
Here is what Georgia Power has posted on their website about green energy:
Why does Green Energy cost more?
Although renewable sources like sunlight and wind are free, the technology used to capture the energy they produce is still more expensive than traditional power generation methods. Additionally, the renewable sources have relatively low availability. For example, the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. Increased demand for Green Energy may lead to expanded power production capacity and eventually to lower costs.
"Increased demand for Green Energy may lead to expanded power production..."?
They charge an extra $4.50 per 100 kwh. I'm sorry. If I'm giving them more money, I was something a little more concrete about what they are going to do to source more green power.
Solar or Wind at My House
I've been really interested lately in what renewable energy technologies I can implement at my house.
I've discovered that currently, solar panels and wind turbines are only really viable where you have strong government support. New Jersey apparently offers the best support. I live in Georgia. We don't seem to get much assistance at all. Living in such a red state, I guess I shouldn't have expected much.
I'm going to contact my state and local representatives today to see about getting legislation passed to reduce the cost of renewable energy technology.
I'm not much in favor of subsidies, but until there is a critical mass, it's just not going to be supportable.
CFLs
I was reading yesterday about how many governments are looking at phasing out conventional light bulbs. I thought that was terrific. I'm caught in the dilemma that I have a bunch of conventional bulbs around my house. I seem to have at least one pack stashed away in every closet in my house. I'm too cheap to throw them away. As they burn out, I'm replacing them with CFLs.
Skeptical
Here is what Georgia Power has posted on their website about green energy:
Why does Green Energy cost more?
Although renewable sources like sunlight and wind are free, the technology used to capture the energy they produce is still more expensive than traditional power generation methods. Additionally, the renewable sources have relatively low availability. For example, the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. Increased demand for Green Energy may lead to expanded power production capacity and eventually to lower costs.
"Increased demand for Green Energy may lead to expanded power production..."?
They charge an extra $4.50 per 100 kwh. I'm sorry. If I'm giving them more money, I was something a little more concrete about what they are going to do to source more green power.
8.27.2007
Green is Good Business
I can't stand when George Bush says he isn't going to do something that could help the environment because it could be bad for American business. This is such a ludicrous concept.
Why would a push for greener technologies not be great for the U.S. economy? We have some of the most innovative and ingenious people in the world here. If an individual or company in the U.S. invents some technology that helps clean the planet, they are going to be making money hand over fist. Sure businesses in our country will have to buy the new technology. But that money would go right back into another U.S. company.
If these new technologies are developed overseas, then that's where are money will go. Increasing the trade deficit. That doesn't sound very good for the economy.
Of course, George Bush will argue that he won't require U.S. companies to purchase these new technologies. Well, that's just great, George. Why don't you push off the hard stuff for future generations. Just like when you don't raise taxes, but increase the deficit, instead. Talk about ingenious.
Why would a push for greener technologies not be great for the U.S. economy? We have some of the most innovative and ingenious people in the world here. If an individual or company in the U.S. invents some technology that helps clean the planet, they are going to be making money hand over fist. Sure businesses in our country will have to buy the new technology. But that money would go right back into another U.S. company.
If these new technologies are developed overseas, then that's where are money will go. Increasing the trade deficit. That doesn't sound very good for the economy.
Of course, George Bush will argue that he won't require U.S. companies to purchase these new technologies. Well, that's just great, George. Why don't you push off the hard stuff for future generations. Just like when you don't raise taxes, but increase the deficit, instead. Talk about ingenious.
8.13.2007
Wind Power Interest - Next Green Roofs
Wow. I e-mailed my city council member about my idea about putting wind turbines around the city and she is interested in talking with me about it.
I don't know what else I can contribute, but I guess I should give her a call.
If we're going to push the city to go green, I'd like to talk to her about green roofs as well. I've attached a link to an interesting site. A little geeky, but full of information. Just on the surface, it seems like a good idea for most buildings that can handle it. The city might be able to offer some tax incentives for it.
The one thing I'm concerned about is the lack of rainfall in Atlanta. I guess you would still have to provide irrigation for periods of no rain. It's a give-and-take. I wonder how that would fly when we're in a drought.
I don't know what else I can contribute, but I guess I should give her a call.
If we're going to push the city to go green, I'd like to talk to her about green roofs as well. I've attached a link to an interesting site. A little geeky, but full of information. Just on the surface, it seems like a good idea for most buildings that can handle it. The city might be able to offer some tax incentives for it.
The one thing I'm concerned about is the lack of rainfall in Atlanta. I guess you would still have to provide irrigation for periods of no rain. It's a give-and-take. I wonder how that would fly when we're in a drought.
8.10.2007
Wind Power
I live in a fairly liberal neighborhood in Atlanta called Grant Park. We have a fairly unusual fight brewing between some of my neighbors.
A guy got permission from the city to install a wind power tower on his property. I have no idea what this thing is going to look like, but I'm fairly certain that it isn't going to be too terrible. He's not going to want an eyesore on his own property any more than anyone else does.
Some of his neighbors are fighting him in court to keep him from being able to install the tower. I guess being liberal and environmentally conscious only goes so far. NIMBY and all.
It got me thinking, though. If people don't want to see them, why don't we put them somewhere people already think looks ugly, like the median of the freeway? With all the billboards, cars and whatnot all along the freeway, will a few 100 foot towers make it look any worse?
I wonder if there is a way to submit this suggestion to the city.
A guy got permission from the city to install a wind power tower on his property. I have no idea what this thing is going to look like, but I'm fairly certain that it isn't going to be too terrible. He's not going to want an eyesore on his own property any more than anyone else does.
Some of his neighbors are fighting him in court to keep him from being able to install the tower. I guess being liberal and environmentally conscious only goes so far. NIMBY and all.
It got me thinking, though. If people don't want to see them, why don't we put them somewhere people already think looks ugly, like the median of the freeway? With all the billboards, cars and whatnot all along the freeway, will a few 100 foot towers make it look any worse?
I wonder if there is a way to submit this suggestion to the city.
8.06.2007
2.13.2007
The Rise of Developing Nations
I'd been thinking about this for quite some time, and this link my dad sent me spurred me to finally write about it.
There have been a lot of articles over the past year or two talking about the rise of developing nations, China and India in particular. Most of these articles focus on the potential for the United States to lose its sole superpower status. Comparisons to Great Britain 100 years ago are inevitable.
I get the sense that these writers think their audience is the arrogant American. The world revolves around us and if it ever stops, we will all be plunged into a new dark age. Or worse maybe, any new superpower will treat us the way we currently treat many other nations. George Bush's "it's our way or the highway" diplomacy.
Why don't more people look at it the other way? There are 2.5 billion people in China and India. And those countries are working very hard to raise their standard of living.
The business world already sees the potential positives in that fact. There are 2.5 billion potential new customers out there, and a growing percentage of them have the money to buy their products. It also gives them a pool of potential cheaper employees. More customers, lower costs. What's not to love?
The knee-jerk response, especially for Democrats, is to say that jobs will be lost in the U.S. That's definitely going to happen. It's basic economics. But take the scenario further. As the Indian and Chinese economies expand further, wages will rise and the economic incentive to move jobs to those countries will diminish. In fact, with so many more customers, many businesses will have to expand in order to meet the demand.
It's called disruptive innovation.
People are afraid of change, that's natural. What our national leaders need to do is illustrate the benefits as well as the risks of these changes.
But I digress...
Let's move on to something I never hear anyone talking about. At least not the way I would like to hear people talking.
People bemoan the loss of American leadership in science and technology. America has a very innovative culture. More so than perhaps any other nation. I totally agree that we need to continue to improve the country's investment in research and development. We have the greatest university system in the world. We need to maintain that status, and increase our efforts to get our students to take an interest in math, science and engineering.
While the U.S. share of patents has declined from 60% in the 1980s to about 50%, that is a remarkable number considering that we comprise only 5% of the world's population. I don't have any more facts around this, but I find it hard to believe that the decline has as much to do with lower output in the U.S. as it does rising output in the rest of the world.
I challenge people to think of things differently. Let's assume that the U.S. productivity in the realm of science and engineering stays the same as it is today. However, as India and China (40% of the world's population) produce more scientists and engineers, the number of patents they obtain per capita will increase. This explosion of knowledge will accelerate the advancement of humanity beyond the already extraordinary rate at which it is advancing today.
To me, this is an incredibly exciting thought. With so many more scientists and engineers working to solve medical, energy and technology issues, how quickly can we solve some of our most challenging problems?
The U.S. may not be the dominant nation 50 or 100 years from now. That doesn't mean we are going to be considered a second-rate power either. We can still be an integral part of the new global economy.
All this leads to a discussion of globalization versus isolation, but that's a post for a different day.
There have been a lot of articles over the past year or two talking about the rise of developing nations, China and India in particular. Most of these articles focus on the potential for the United States to lose its sole superpower status. Comparisons to Great Britain 100 years ago are inevitable.
I get the sense that these writers think their audience is the arrogant American. The world revolves around us and if it ever stops, we will all be plunged into a new dark age. Or worse maybe, any new superpower will treat us the way we currently treat many other nations. George Bush's "it's our way or the highway" diplomacy.
Why don't more people look at it the other way? There are 2.5 billion people in China and India. And those countries are working very hard to raise their standard of living.
The business world already sees the potential positives in that fact. There are 2.5 billion potential new customers out there, and a growing percentage of them have the money to buy their products. It also gives them a pool of potential cheaper employees. More customers, lower costs. What's not to love?
The knee-jerk response, especially for Democrats, is to say that jobs will be lost in the U.S. That's definitely going to happen. It's basic economics. But take the scenario further. As the Indian and Chinese economies expand further, wages will rise and the economic incentive to move jobs to those countries will diminish. In fact, with so many more customers, many businesses will have to expand in order to meet the demand.
It's called disruptive innovation.
People are afraid of change, that's natural. What our national leaders need to do is illustrate the benefits as well as the risks of these changes.
But I digress...
Let's move on to something I never hear anyone talking about. At least not the way I would like to hear people talking.
People bemoan the loss of American leadership in science and technology. America has a very innovative culture. More so than perhaps any other nation. I totally agree that we need to continue to improve the country's investment in research and development. We have the greatest university system in the world. We need to maintain that status, and increase our efforts to get our students to take an interest in math, science and engineering.
While the U.S. share of patents has declined from 60% in the 1980s to about 50%, that is a remarkable number considering that we comprise only 5% of the world's population. I don't have any more facts around this, but I find it hard to believe that the decline has as much to do with lower output in the U.S. as it does rising output in the rest of the world.
I challenge people to think of things differently. Let's assume that the U.S. productivity in the realm of science and engineering stays the same as it is today. However, as India and China (40% of the world's population) produce more scientists and engineers, the number of patents they obtain per capita will increase. This explosion of knowledge will accelerate the advancement of humanity beyond the already extraordinary rate at which it is advancing today.
To me, this is an incredibly exciting thought. With so many more scientists and engineers working to solve medical, energy and technology issues, how quickly can we solve some of our most challenging problems?
The U.S. may not be the dominant nation 50 or 100 years from now. That doesn't mean we are going to be considered a second-rate power either. We can still be an integral part of the new global economy.
All this leads to a discussion of globalization versus isolation, but that's a post for a different day.
Told Ya So
See, I knew I wouldn't use this blog. I'm going to just start typing whenever I have something to say rather than waiting for a profound moment. We'll see how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)