On Corruption

PhotobucketI’m back on the East Coast for a few days.  When I come here I normally stay with my parents (they’re in their mid-late 80s) at their home in Philadelphia — which happens to be an apartment in a very nice retirement community.  As it often does, the conversation this evening turned to politics.  But unlike many political discussions between parents and their children, it was not at all rancorous.   Through our talks, we try to understand why the US as a nation is having so much difficulty in gaining traction in solving its most obvious problems: wars, healthcare, financial reform — and, of course, creating a level playing field for renewable energy.

I pointed out that each of these is rooted in what I label generally as corruption, which I define as the supremacy of money and power over common sense and decency in creating and enforcing our laws.  I acknowledged that corruption is a harsh word, and that it applies more accurately in some cases than in others.  But I do think that if our leaders were kind and sensible people, uninfluenced by the power of money, we would have immediate workable answers for these and many other pressing issues.

Since we’ve so often discussed this idea of corruption as it applies to energy policy, and since healthcare is so omnipresent in a retirement community, let me use this latter as an example.  The 94-year-old lady living across the beautifully carpeted hallway from my parents’ place recently had a knee replacement, which was, of course, 100% paid for by Medicare.  We encountered her in the hallway; she still struggles to walk — which shouldn’t come as a surprise considering her age — and so they’re in the process of scheduling a second such operation.

Meanwhile, our nation has millions of people 60 years younger who happen to be uninsured and face untended illness or financial ruination — or both — because they can’t get health insurance.

While my heart goes out to the old lady, I point out a simple, if ugly truth: the only reason she’s receiving serial knee replacements is that they are profitable. She’s thin as a toothpick, horribly frail, and quite obviously has no prognosis under which she’ll ever be able to walk more than a few slow steps without terrible pain — regardless of how many times her knee is replaced.  Yet I caution you not to expect a change in healthcare legislation that might damage the profit stream generated by those surgeries she’ll be receiving — even if making such a change would free up huge amounts of cash that would more than pay the cost of insuring those who presently can’t find coverage.  The power of that money is so intense that such change simply will not happen — regardless of how compelling the argument — or how enormous the benefit to the public.

Do you have a better word to describe such a system than corrupt?  Can you introduce me to one honest, reasonably intelligent person who thinks that spending a fortune on knee replacements for 94-year-olds is a good, fair-minded idea while others who happen not to be able to get health insurance face catastrophic health conditions to which their pitiable complaints will be turned a deaf ear?

I know that the vast majority of the many millions of people working in healthcare are honest, decent, and incredibly talented.  I know dozens of them personally, and I respect them deeply.  But the fact remains that the medical industry is in place to make money.  And if you happen to be one of the lucky ones (like our friend above) who benefits from that profit motive, I urge you to consider it a bonus for which you should be profoundly thankful — because not everyone is so lucky.

So as not to ignore the energy industry entirely in this post, it’s clear that a similar argument could be made here.  As I’ve pointed out, the oil industry alone employs seven lobbyists for each of the 535 members of Congress.  Do you think Big Oil would be spending those hundreds of millions of dollars if they weren’t buying something of far greater value in exchange ? Sorry to appear cynical, but I’m convinced that the level playing field we’ve discussed here so frequently will come about when and only when we’ve found a way to disconnect our lawmakers from the powerful interests that buy their votes.

Corporate lobbying is an institution that is causing more harm to more innocent people with each passing month.  What’s the matter with simply abolishing it?  The framers of the Constitution wisely built in the right of the people to redress their government, but I think it’s pretty clear that they didn’t intend this patent dishonesty that’s ripping our civilization and its people slowly and painfully apart.  What’s the harm in simply saying that money should not buy legislative influence?

Offshore Oil Drilling

Photobucket2GreenEnergy associate Bruce Allen supports oil drilling off the coast of California as a means of cleaning up the huge amount of crude and methane that are poured into the ocean every day. But of course, this idea is counter-intuitive, insofar as most environmentalists work against the idea of any and all drilling.

Bruce is one of the world’s leading experts on this matter, as has spent a great deal of time in Washington DC, testifying in front of Congress, and speaking to large groups of interested people. Here’s a clip.

Renewables and Regulation

Photobucket

My colleagues here at 2GreenEnergy — particularly Bill Paul — are constantly reminding me that the greatest potential for renewable energy lies outside of US borders, and that this is largely due to regulation. So, to stimulate a bit of discussion on the topic, I just posted this piece on Renewable Energy World called Renewables and Regulation.  

Where Should Funding for Renewables Come From? – Guest Blogger Geoff Nicholson

PhotobucketGuest Blogger Geoff Nicholson writes:

I’d like to comment on your recent post about public sector support of renewables. 

I spent the better part of my aerospace career in R&D. My experience was that private entities couldn’t plan for longer than one product development cycle. For aircraft and jet engines that tended to be about 5 to 10 years. Their ability to create a basic research vision and hold to a technology development plan was not very good, except for corporate research groups that had lots of research ideas but couldn’t care less how or when the technologies were introduced into real world products.

 If it weren’t for government funding of critical, long-term research projects/programs, we would still be flying propeller airplanes. All of yesterday’s and today’s jet engines/aircraft were really developed under military government contracts from the ’40s through the ’80s. The commercial sector didn’t have the capital to individually or, for that matter, collectively fund the myriad of technology development programs necessary to field a jet aircraft. It was too big a hurtle for the private sector.

 Since the end of the cold war, government R&D funding for aircraft has all but dried up compared to before. And, arguably no revolutionary product innovation has occurred since — only incremental improvements. The most noteworthy development has been a painfully slow and halting move toward composite airframe structures to reduce weight. No wholly new propulsion schema has been innovated. No truly revolutionary airframe schema has succeeded. We still suck, burn and blow air in engines that have the same basic design since the 1940s. We still fly tubes with wings on them. We just do it more efficiently than before while trying to drive the cost of manufacturing down. In other words, aviation has slumped into the mature end of the product life cycle curve without the impetus of government R&D funding.

 And, the rest of the world has substantially caught up to us. What used to be dozens of US aircraft manufacturers have consolidated into less than a handful. Airbus, Embrear, Bombardier and others have taken market share from US companies, hand over fist.

So, is there a need for government involvement? Yes. Should the government fund basic R&D? Yes. Should government fund end product development? Maybe, but only for a few pilot programs but not for the vast majority of end products since the government doesn’t care too much about market demand for product features and functions and the various combinations of desirable product features.

Should Renewables Technology Be Developed in the Public or Private Sector?

PhotobucketFrequent commentor and all-around smart guy Larry Lemmert writes:

I whole-heartedly believe (that it’s business that’s causing the rapid migration to renewables) and for that reason, the role of government should be limited to cheerleader on the side-lines, offering only tax credits to lubricant the transition, but largely to just stand back and keep out of the way of this tidal wave of green development….”

Thanks for writing in, Larry.  I go back and forth on this. I ran that idea by George Douglas, spokesperson for NREL, in the interview I conducted with my him for my book on renewables, and he politely by firmly took my head off.

I asked, “Isn’t technology is typically developed in the private sector? What was the thought process behind doing this in a public agency?”

He responded, “Well, the first statement is not true. How did we get to the moon? Public sector development of technology. The Internet is public sector development of technology. Really, the model that people think about is the Bell Labs model – the long-term investment in technology. But after the Second World War business itself became much more increasingly interested in short-term returns.

“And the role of government in investing in high risk and long-term research was given a great deal of credibility during the Second World War. The development of radar, development of nuclear arms, and so forth — specifically aimed at harnessing nuclear power. So Oak Ridge National Laboratory, San Diego National Laboratory, Los Alamos, etc. all grew out of that. So, there has been, at least for the last 60 to 70 years, the divide between what research is generally pursued by private enterprise and what research is pursued by the government and in academia. It’s the difference between near-term results, and by near-term — I don’t mean tomorrow — but in the 10 to 20 year time horizon, and much longer-term problems and results.”

We’d all like to say, along with Jefferson, “That government is best that governs least.”  Try to find a politician who runs on a “big government” platform.  Even as he’s spending your money as fast as he can get hands on it, he’s telling you that he’s for small government. 

But you have to admit that NREL’s position on this gives us something to think about.

Global Warming

PhotobucketTomorrow morning, I need to rush home from dropping my daughter off at school to be on a live radio broadcast, in which I’ll be speaking on the imperative to move to clean energy. Also featured on the program is a representative of the National Resources Defense Council. I interviewed someone from the NRDC for my book on renewables, so I’m fairly familiar with the cut of their jib. You have to like people who stand up and do the right thing under incredible pressure to yield.

In preparing for this live discussion, I’d like to try to concentrate on the basics; I’d like to make this is simple and as black and white as possible. But that’s not easy. The more I learn about this the more complicated I understand it to be. There is a lot to discuss about the subject of global warming alone, for instance. But discussions on the subject are usually 10 parts politics for every one part honest, objective science. I could prove that 2 and 2 are 5, using logic that I find in a lot of places.

The fact is that almost everything you read was written for a reason – and that reason is very seldom to inform you of the complete unvarnished truth. We’ve all come across the idea that global warming is a hoax. There is a paper being circulated now that takes this a step further, alleging that the hoax is aimed at creating enough fear in people that they will accept increased infringements in their liberties and ultimately a unified and tyrannical world government.

Personally, I’m a bit skeptical. I have to ask — in my mind, who has more credibility: thousands of research scientists – many of whom I’ve met and come to know as trusted friends — or a guy writing a paper with outrageous ideas and essentially no supporting evidence? Hmmm.

Energy Storage Regulation Needed – Guest Blogger Garth

It’s fast becoming apparent that large clean energy storage is needed for variable renewable energy integration into the grid, not only to stabilize that resource but to avoid inevitable curtailment due to transmission constraints. The resulting VERS (variable energy resources) losses incurred reduce the value of clean energy, particularly wind, in some cases by 50%. Detailed information of this nexus is spelled out in a subcontracted study by NREL released October 2009. (NREL/SR-550-46716)
Read More »