The power and the glory
Jun 19th 2008
From The Economist print edition
The next technology boom may well be based on alternative energy, says Geoffrey Carr (interviewed here). But which sort to back?
EVERYONE loves a booming market, and most booms happen on the back of technological change. The world’s venture capitalists, having fed on the computing boom of the 1980s, the internet boom of the 1990s and the biotech and nanotech boomlets of the early 2000s, are now looking around for the next one. They think they have found it: energy.
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11565685
Wimbledon Wisdom
-
I recently ran across a graduation speech by the tennis great Roger
Federer. I especially appreciated this passage:
In the 1,526 singles matches I played...
1 day ago
.JPG)
.jpg)
4 comments:
Taking a lead from Mike, I read some of the articles in The Economist special report on the future of green energy investment. I don't think the idea itself is anything new, but there are interesting statistics and information that help benchmark how much attention is being paid by investors in this area and the groups involved.
Living in the Bay area where I have several venture capitalists as my neighbors, I can see the attention on green energy/innovation everywhere. I think among the public going green is really more trendy than anything; most peoples’ actions don't really affect much. For instance I just got back from a work conference. In an effort to be green the conference was paperless, they didn't print out any of the presentations. However, they fly me and everyone else out from all over the country... so yes, great they didn't waste paper, but flying is not easy on the fuel usage.
I don't doubt that the U.S. is innovative and most innovative when money is to be made, as the case can be made with energy. However, it’s going to take more than creative marketing, trends or investment bankers to create an innovation substantial enough to really make a difference. Science does not respond to money, it needs it yes, but unlike the other booms (dotcom, etc.), it may take longer. In the meantime, ethanol, wind power etc, I am sure will become more prevalent, but we won't be seeing a decrease in energy costs. More likely, we will see these become more popular only because they will become cheaper relative to more conventional energy sources. Now in the short term, whether they become cheaper because of government subsidies is another question and one I invite any comments/opinions on.
Why wouldn't science respond to money?
because science cant be forced.. hearing all sorts of stories over a couple of years from a scientist, and how most of the discoveries are haphazard (labs were working on something else and discovered something they didn't intend to), science is more of a shot in the dark. In other words, there is no strong correlation between money and desired results. Yes it helps, and it is necessary, but there is no guarantee.
If science doesn't respond to money why would it meaningfully respond to government subsidies?
A)The government is notoriously bad at picking winners.
B)Science and technology does respond to market forces. The combustion engine and the personal computer wasn't prodded by government...the list goes on.
C)It is true that many scientific discoveries happen by accident (Penicillin). But government doesn't even thinking in the the dimensions where those discoveries take place. And the private sector accounts for X% of a major discovery which yields large profits regardless of whether said discovery is a research priority.
Post a Comment