Friday, January 30, 2009
Source: Stardreams, YouTube
This week, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Al Gore offered a disturbing, science-based, update on ice retreat and melt, and the subsequent impacts on humanity. As he points out, it is not the planet that is at risk from global warming, it is our human civilization. In my view, catastrophic events like Katrina, Ike and major fires are indeed becoming a new norm. This would indicate that we, as a species, are not adapting quickly enough to the impact we are having on our environment. Fortunately, we are cognitive social beings in a wired world, and so I believe we have the fundamental software, both within us and as a result of our technological community building, to adapt. If we act in concert soon.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
News bits, as the Administration pounds the drum for the stimulus and job creation.
Source: Apollo Alliance email blast and whitehouse.gov
Local Green: California’s unemployment rate hit 9.3 percent in December - a 15 year high.
President Barack Obama said that the first step in boosting the economy is to “take bold action to create a new American energy economy that creates millions of jobs for our people.”
A piece at The Huffington Post argues that the Obama administration faces a major challenge with the growth of economic inequality.
Friday, January 23, 2009
A new poll suggests that Americans, preoccupied with the economy,
are less worried about rising global temperatures than they were a year
ago but remain concerned with solving the nation’s energy problem.
The findings are somewhat at odds with President Obama, who has put a high priority on staving off global warming and vowed Tuesday in his Inaugural Address to “roll back the specter of a warming planet.”
In the poll, released Thursday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center,
global warming came in last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues
like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of
lobbyists. Only 30 percent of the voters deemed global warming to be “a
top priority,” compared with 35 percent in 2008.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Hansen argues urgently for a carbon tax, not cap and trade, which he views as greenwashing in the policy domain.
Sources: www.guardian.co.uk and The Observor
Hansen - head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and winner of the WWF's top conservation award - first warned Earth was in danger from climate change in 1988 and has been the victim of several unsuccessful attempts by the White House administration of George Bush to silence his views. Hansen's institute monitors temperature fluctuations at thousands of sites round the world, data that has led him to conclude that most estimates of sea level rises triggered by rising atmospheric temperatures are too low and too conservative. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says a rise of between 20cm and 60cm can be expected by the end of the century.
However, Hansen said feedbacks in the climate system are already accelerating ice melt and are threatening to lead to the collapse of ice sheets. Sea-level rises will therefore be far greater - a claim backed last week by a group of British, Danish and Finnish scientists who said studies of past variations in climate indicate that a far more likely figure for sea-level rise will be about 1.4 metres, enough to cause devastating flooding of many of the world's major cities and of low-lying areas of Holland, Bangladesh and other nations. (Bold-MTH Editor). As a result of his fears about sea-level rise, Hansen said he had pressed both Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences to carry out an urgent investigation of the state of the planet's ice-caps. However, nothing had come of his proposals. The first task of Obama's new climate office should therefore be to order such a probe "as a matter of urgency", Hansen added.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Martin Luther's King's last march was in support of garbage workers who were protesting terrible working conditions and unmitigated racism in Memphis. On the eve of Barack Obama's swearing in, and in light of his commitment to lead on the issue of environmental preservation and global warming, it seems that the redemption of the promise of justice is taking place on every level. From ending dehumanization of any person-which led to the garbage workers signs declaring "I Am A Man" above-to abolishing degradation of the environment, there is a lot of work to do. I believe Obama's deep strategy is to create a nation of justice organizers, a globe of organizers. It is the organizer's dream. We will soon see if this can be accomplished from the White House.
Source: Daily Kos.com
As we celebrate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and consider the effects Dr. King's work have had on the United States, I want to highlight an often overlooked aspect of that work, how Martin Luther King and the civil rights struggle have influenced American notions of environmental health and justice.
One of the many corrosive effects of racial segregation in the United States is the unequal exposure to wastes and hazardous substances faced by people of color in both urban and rual areas across the nation. Consciousness of environmental racism grew in the 1980s, after a variety of incidents (including the siting of hazardous waste sites in Houston and the 1982 protests of a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) dump in Warren County, North Carolina that marked the first time Americans had been arrested for protesting a landfill) became public. Parents worried about children getting sick. Cancer rates in affected areas skyrocketed. In the years after the federal government evacuated the neighborhoods surrounding the Love Canal chemical dump site in upstate New York, worries grew that more communities were affected. These worries were acute in African-American communities, where similar health complaints were not unusual..."more at headline.
Friday, January 16, 2009
"‘Green Collar Jobs’ report forecasts 37 million jobs from renewable energy and energy efficiency in U.S. by 2030
ASES / MISI study reveals opportunities, warnings in nation’s first update of groundbreaking study; hottest sectors: solar, wind, biofuels, fuel cells
BOULDER, CO – 1/15/2009 – The renewable energy and energy efficiency (RE&EE) industries represented more than 9 million jobs and $1,045 billion in U.S. revenue in 2007, according to a new report offering the most detailed analysis yet of the green economy. The renewable energy industry grew three times as fast as the U.S. economy, with the solar thermal, photovoltaic, biodiesel, and ethanol sectors leading the way, each with 25%+ annual revenue growth.
The new ‘Green Collar Jobs’ report from the nonprofit American Solar Energy Society (ASES) based in Boulder, and Management Information Services, Inc (MISI), an internationally recognized economic research firm based in Washington D.C., provides a sector-by-sector analysis of where the opportunities are in the rapidly changing renewable energy and energy efficiency industries.
“There’s a new sense of optimism in the green economy,” said Brad Collins, ASES’ Executive Director. “But while the U.S. could see million of new jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency, this will only happen with the necessary leadership, research, development, and public policy at the federal and state levels.”
Key steps include a national renewable portfolio standard, long-term extension of the production tax credit, effective net metering policies, and improved access to electric transmission infrastructure.
According to the advanced scenario in the report, which represents the upper limit of what is technologically and economically feasible, RE&EE would generate about 37 million jobs and $4,294 billion in annual revenue by 2030. It’s one of three forecast scenarios highlighted in this report. Under the base case (business as usual) scenario, which assumes no major change in policy or initiatives, the green job forecast is for more than 16 million jobs and $1,966 billion in revenue in the U.S. by 2030 – less than half the jobs and revenue than the advanced scenario. The third scenario assumes moderate policy improvements at the federal and state level and forecasts 19.5 million jobs and $2,248 billion in revenue by 2030.
Key conclusions from this report include:
• Renewable energy and energy efficiency currently provide more than 9 million jobs and $1,045 billion in revenue in the U.S. (2007). The previous year (2006) renewable energy and energy efficiency represented 8.5 million jobs and $972 billion in revenue.
• 95% of the jobs are in private industry.
• As many as 37 million jobs can be generated by the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries in the U.S. by 2030 – more than 17% of all anticipated U.S. employment.
• Hottest sectors include solar thermal, solar photovoltaics, biofuels, and fuel cells (in terms of revenue growth).
• Hot job areas include electricians, mechanical engineers, welders, metal workers, construction managers, accountants, analysts, environmental scientists, and chemists. The vast majority of jobs created by the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries are in the same types of roles seen in other industries (accountants, factory workers, IT professionals, etc).
• Renewable energy and energy efficiency can create millions of well-paying jobs, many of which are not subject to foreign outsourcing. These jobs are in two categories that every state is eager to attract – college-educated professional workers (many with advanced degrees), and highly skilled technical workers.
• The renewable energy industry grew more than three times as fast as the U.S. economy in 2007 (not including hydropower). Renewable energy is also growing more rapidly than the energy efficiency industry, but the energy efficiency industry is currently much larger than the renewable energy industry.
But while there is tremendous opportunity, there is also a real sense of urgency. Every year’s delay by policy-makers (2009, 2010) has a highly disproportionate and negative impact on long range growth. The longer that policy-makers delay in implementing ambitious renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, the more difficult it will be to achieve the report’s goals by 2030.
Unless quick action is taken, the U.S. risks losing millions of green jobs to other nations that offer a more serious and sustained commitment to growing its green economy. Consider the impressive results of Germany as an instructive example.
Germany’s population is about one-quarter the size of the U.S., but Germany has more renewable energy jobs and generates new jobs faster the U.S. Germany has 5x the wind sector jobs and 4x the photovoltaic solar jobs as the U.S. Germany produces half the wind rotors in the world, one-third the solar panels in the world, and leads the world in biodiesel production.
The U.S. is in a global marketplace. If we fail to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency, the U.S. runs the risk of losing additional ground in these industries to Germany and other nations. If we refuse to address policy and regulatory barriers to the sustained development of the new energy economy, other countries will lead and reap the economic and environmental benefits. For the U.S. to be competitive in a carbon-constrained world, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries must be a critical economic driver.
About the American Solar Energy Society
For more than 50 years the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) has been leading national efforts to promote education, public outreach, and research about solar energy and other sustainable technologies. www.ases.org
About Management Information Services, Inc
Management Information Services, Inc (MISI) is an internationally recognized, Washington D.C.-based economic research and management consulting firm with expertise in economic forecasting, analysis of energy, environmental and electric utility issues, and labor markets. www.misi-net.com" "
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Source: AIAA Newsletter
Former Officials Call For More NASA Involvement With Industry. In an article for the Space Review (1/12), Joan Vernikos, former director of NASA's Life Sciences, and Kathleen Connell, former policy director of the Aerospace States Association, wrote on NASA's "opportunity" under the new administration to "get out of its mid-life crisis, step back, take a good hard look at itself at the unflattering reflection of its lagging abilities in space, and make bold changes, before the world passes it by." The authors are critical of NASA's "ten-center ground infrastructure" which they call a "drain on the NASA budget." They feel NASA should do more "partnering with commercial interests" on a variety of issues since it should be "investing in...the development of a beneficial space economy." NASA "must intentionally return benefits via space-based economic development as it goes forward."
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Thanks to Joan Vernikos, an eminent and far-sighted space expert and my co-author. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Jeff Foust, who published our essay below.
License to change: will NASA?
by Joan Vernikos and Kathleen M. Connell
Monday, January 12, 2009
A new administration is coming in very soon with a license to change. All areas of government seem to be taking on the challenge. During the transition, the outgoing regime is loudly defending Ares and the current Administrator’s technical prowess, but even more is at stake at NASA, and this opportunity for authentic change is rare and not to be squandered.
Having just celebrated its 50th birthday, NASA has perhaps the only opportunity to get out of its mid-life crisis, step back, take a good hard look at itself at the unflattering reflection of its lagging abilities in space, and make bold changes, before the world passes it by.
If all the change envisioned is tweaking—cost-cutting trade-offs of favorite programs, preserving the status quo, job security, preserving ten aging centers with regional or private interests, or setting unattainable goals such as those of the last 10 years—this opportunity too will be wasted. We offer ten sign posts on the road to genuine strategic change in civil space for next eight years.
|Even more is at stake at NASA, and this opportunity for authentic change is rare and not to be squandered.|
NASA has come a long way from its original charter designed to establish a civilian space program focused on scientific and technological creativity both in space and in aeronautics. It started out with momentum. A systematic plan for the development of platforms, both robotic and manned, suggested incredible capabilities with a good dose of passion. Within 16 years political circumstances propelled NASA’s leadership. Voyager, Pioneer, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Viking, remotely piloted vehicles, short take-off and landing (STOL), swing-wing concepts, and more all dotted the atmosphere and outer space. With that came an explosion in scientific and technological advances that fired up the imagination of schoolchildren, established new fields of technology, and opened up commercial possibilities never before contemplated.
The country was uncertain about going to the Moon. But the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis changed matters. The president deemed space a safe competitive arena that demonstrated the nation’s muscle-flexing. A nation mourning for John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King was still compelled enough to propel the program for nine years and sustain its scientific pursuits of Skylab and Viking for the next seven years.
As NASA came out of this enthusiastic adolescence, it lost its will and purpose. It got bogged down with a sprawling and crumbling infrastructure, political haggling, and internal fiefdoms. For many it was now just a job. Passion and creativity waned. Political and budget cycles were shortened to unrealistic periods leaving graduate students unable to complete degrees in space-related sciences. College students moved on to more promising fields for inspiration, and NASA lost out on the best and the brightest.
Today, the ten-center ground infrastructure remains a drain on the NASA budget. Its burgeoning bureaucracy has discouraged many a good scientist and holds back innovation as well as collaborative arrangements for national and international cooperation. In addition, NASA’s documentation requirements to access space have grown with each administration. Space measured in weight of documents is a notorious deterrent to scientific and commercial progress. Unlike other countries, the annual US budget cycle hinders continuity and stability critical to successful scientific progress. Discontinued programs are costly and wasteful, leaving graduate students unable to complete degree requirements within a reasonable time frame, while many have abandoned the space program as their chosen career. Because of stop-and-start opportunities, engineering vision and enthusiasm have also waned. Students are more attracted to lucrative technological frontiers. This is not the profile of an organization positioned to compete or excel in space in the 21st century.
Today, American space innovation is also hampered by a 20th century aerospace industry that is punished unless it lobbies for status quo body count and cost-plus contracts, in lieu of innovation. Rather than rewarding creativity, this focus minimizes evolving the workforce, using only existing technologies that will be obsolescent by the time the next launcher enters service. In the end, this reactive strategy perennially holds NASA hostage to the past. Industry is not really the villain, however, as they generally do what they are encouraged to do by the government customer—one all too often welcomed to continue a private career by traveling through the revolving door.
Meanwhile, the global picture has changed. NASA has lost its global launch monopoly and leadership. Driven by enthusiasm and the profit incentive, the commercial and international space sectors have rapidly moved in and come of age. Activities ranging from satellite launch capabilities, commercial parabolic and suborbital manned flight, the building of satellites, and the planning of inflatable space stations are all now in open competition. Once the purview of a select few, human access to space is rapidly becoming accessible to all.
So, in the past eight years, what did NASA come up with to retain its global leadership? The reinvention of the Apollo program. This was sending humans back to the Moon, at a hugely inflated cost, under the guise of testing out systems for putting humans on Mars. Without wishing to deny the astronaut corps the long-awaited prize of one day following in the footsteps of the Apollo astronauts, the value of returning to the Moon to stay as a testing base for Mars is slim. It would also divert funding away from crucial preparative work to enable a human mission to Mars before the end of this century.
|Today, American space innovation is also hampered by a 20th century aerospace industry that is punished unless it lobbies for status quo body count and cost-plus contracts, in lieu of innovation.|
Apart from the robotic work and orbiting lunar missions conducted by many countries, the greatest value of space exploration lies in commercial interests, whether as space travelers, explorers, lunar resource teams, or near-term terrestrial products and services. When NASA is ready to test technologies required for human Mars missions its interests would best be served by partnering with commercial interests. It would certainly be more cost-effective than going it alone.
NASA’s main mission is to explore and discover. What then is NASA’s role in this next-generation manned lunar enterprise? It should be in developing cutting-edge technologies required by the commercial sector—a lunar lander or a lunar rover for instance, to advance both commercial and NASA’s scientific interests. In sum, doing what government should do, which is investing in enabling infrastructure to enable the development of a beneficial space economy. As with other areas of government-sponsored research, the cutting-edge advances must be handed over to commercial interests in an orderly and efficient manner. NASA should not be nor should it have ever been in space transportation operations. Such operations are best left to the private sector.
Another legacy of the outgoing administration is the removal of “understand and protect the home planet” from the NASA mission. Restoring this mission is a top priority. Scientists at the recent American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco reported that arctic ice is in a “death spiral” and that climate change does account for stronger, more frequent hurricanes. NASA must be a part of the global warming solution. NASA’s share of the global monitoring flotilla is a resource to humanity. Underfunded climate instruments need to be made operational soon. In addition, NASA has niche capabilities in clean technology engineering, wireless solar power terrestrial transmission research, and in extreme weather habitat enhancement. All of these kinds of innovative efforts should be encouraged.
This Earth-centric strategic priority not only preserves life on the only life-bearing planet we know, it is a tactical choice which creates political capital and allows NASA the credibility to do what it does best: scientific missions exploring the universe, returning lessons about the lifecycles of planets (including our own), developing advanced methods of monitoring the Earth’s environmental changes, transferring proven methodologies to operational agencies like NOAA, and following the Hubble telescope model sharing the excitement and benefits of these discoveries with young minds and the young at heart public.
Authentic change at NASA is also about embracing scientific priorities and adopting true international engagement rather than bartering and halting the fruitless debate that somehow proposes that science impedes crewed exploration. On the contrary, science enables exploration. Scientific missions that are too costly and complicated for any one country would best be done collaboratively with international partners. In this global age scientists all over the world have similar interests and are at similar levels of development though methodologies and perspectives may differ. This is a great opportunity to combine talents for the greater good, and enable exploration capability.
A manned mission to Mars will entail detailed planning that will vary depending on the knowledge gained from a systematic series of robotic precursor missions and thorough ground research. Much like Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, a manned mission to Mars will depend on careful, detailed mapping and prospecting of the Mars terrain and resources. A human Mars mission is not like climbing Everest or exploring the poles, and these 20th century exploration analogs are neither subtle nor complex enough to help us understand how to move forward in space.
It is crucial to achieve return on existing ISS space infrastructure investment. The old NASA/aerospace arrangement of “propose, fund, build, and move-on” is a necrotic business model and has destroyed NASA’s former reputation as a good steward of taxpayer dollars.
|A human Mars mission is not like climbing Everest or exploring the poles, and these 20th century exploration analogs are neither subtle nor complex enough to help us understand how to move forward in space.|
The $100-billion International Space Station National Laboratory (ISSNL) is an extraordinary accomplishment. It must, for starters, be utilized as the ideal in-space testing ground for the human component. Risk management for human presence in microgravity has been advancing steadily with six-month increments of crew time aloft. These are already showing serious problems that need to be resolved by applying the scientific method. Six months in microgravity is a far cry from a two-to-three-year exploration mission with slow communication and no resupply or rescue potential. Designing launch, spacecraft, and habitat capabilities is the last, not the first, thing that needs to preoccupy planners when we can only guess at what the requirements might be. Empty rhetoric about exploring Mars, without mitigating human risk, has characterized the current vision to explore Mars. This is, on the present course, a hollow and cynical political game, since such a mission will happen on neither our nor our children’s watch with the current mentality. Disposing of current proven assets like the ISSNL in favor of new untested options is speculative and costly, and further drives a Mars mission into a receding point on the far horizon of human exploration and US leadership in space. Finally, research aboard ISSNL may lead to advances in terrestrial biosciences. Many more experiments are needed to explore and exploit this beneficial opportunity.
Should we be serious about exploring Mars, or any other destination, we first have to know from robotic precursors exactly what to expect to find and where to land. Next, from analogous simulations in microgravity, we must know what working conditions would Mars astronauts be expected to encounter and where one-third gravity may in fact be a bonus.
Robotic missions would provide the advanced information on weather and radiation hazards. As with the early days into space, and the established protocols of rigorous science, it stands to reason that biological specimens including plants and microorganisms should precede any human venture; that too should be preceded by equivalent study on the ISSNL so that expected risks may be calculated. Unfortunately, the recent shortsighted cancellation of the necessary ISSNL facilities and elimination of the microgravity science community will not enable similar testing of some mammalian species such as mice or rats before humans go to Mars or even stay in low Earth orbit (LEO) for a two-to-three-year duration. Further, from a national perspective, we have enabled state-of-the-art laboratories for partner countries on ISSNL, but our own partially-built facilities were mothballed. Thus, for want of a relatively modest science program, we may have only ourselves to blame for our growing international space exploration deficit in contrast to other nations. The hard fact is that now others may not only have the will to get to Mars before us, but the technical knowledge as well.
We have no alternatives to ISSNL for human-tended science in space at present. Despite years of extensive countermeasure development and testing, such procedures have proven inadequate. Restoring an on-board artificial gravity capability should be reconsidered or, at least, investigated systematically as is done by other countries.
It is our firm belief that we cannot be ready to send humans to Mars by 2050 as long as we pursue the fallacious path of the current approach. It would seem logical and ethical that in order to contemplate sending humans on a mission to Mars and, in addition, to gain as much information as possible about the destination, at least seven distinct elements must be in place:
- Detailed knowledge of the Mars terrain, environment, and resources relevant to human habitation collected from a progressive series of robotic precursor missions;
- A reliable completely closed life support system including, air, water, food and waste management;
- Radiation protection;
- Behavior and performance maintenance and selection procedures for extended compatibility in long stays in confined, remote simulation conditions;
- Basic self-sufficient medical car;
- Proven effective, practical, preventive and therapeutic countermeasures to known or yet to be identified microgravity-induced health hazards; and
- A new concept of a space suit that is generic (not custom-made), flexible, comfortable, resilient, and reparable so that it can be worn daily for long hours with suitable protection from environmental hazards. Advances in such a suit and portable life support should be equivalent to the technological leap from the iron scaphander of sponge divers of the 19th century to today’s wetsuit and diving gear.
These elements have to be in place and tested on the ISSNL or similar commercial LEO station before considering moving ahead with the development of the relevant launch, spacecraft, and habitat capabilities. Just as it takes around 20 years to bring an experimental drug to market, it may take at least the same time for out-of-the-box creative thinking to arrive at the point of testing the evolutionary spacecraft needed for Mars exploration. Sustained support and commitment is crucial to the success of such a venture. On the other hand, any launch or spacecraft design started now to take humans to Mars will be obsolete by 2050. Creative brains of young scientists and engineers across the country must be brought together. The defunct Advanced Concepts Program may be one model that, together with prize-type motivation, could stimulate NASA’s creative juices once more. And, as we have advocated earlier, the entrepreneurial space sector should be brought into the next Mars mission architecture not as a “contractor” but as a partner.
|NASA can indeed reclaim its former true leadership. But it must first shed its hubris and capitalize on the accomplishments of those who are successful by following in their footsteps.|
For change agents, it is crucial to learn from mistakes. Since 1976 NASA has repeatedly failed in that the decision to build a spacecraft preceded the requirements for its use. The Shuttle was rescued and the best was made of it as a science platform thanks to the development by the Europeans of the Skylab-type Spacelab. This allowed for sophisticated research in life and microgravity sciences to be carried out in space for the first time since Skylab. Once more science-driven requirements for the ISSNL facilities were ignored, leading to less-than-optimal utilization potential. Yet again the international partners are coming to the rescue of science providing capabilities in their facilities and willingness to share.
But the projected lifespan of the ISSNL is short. There is so much to do. As in the past the outgoing NASA was unable to recognize the critical role of the ISS in achieving their stated exploration goals let alone scientific research. Stealing from science to support transportation has been counterproductive. I tend to believe this is not through malfeasance but through NASA’s lack of vision in developing a tactical strategy to achieve its own ultimate goal.
The value of the Constellation project is and must be thoroughly and openly reassessed. Parts of it may be sufficiently advanced to bring value to the human spaceflight program. For others, alternate solutions should be considered. Both the Defense Department and the commercial sector are actively pursuing and succeeding in developing a variety of launch capabilities. The proven success of the Atlas 5 has reclaimed US leadership in the launch sector. Commercial companies such as SpaceX and Orbital Sciences with their Falcon and Taurus rockets and Dragon and Cygnus spacecraft are edging in. Is it now time to take advantage of such progress and purchase rides to space, rather than continuing to compete with the private sector through the ten-center organizational scheme? In addition, open government and Web 2.0 allow all Americans to participate in the process and to assess the arguments and decisions made. Competence is many-faceted, and a competent, self-confident NASA will be an open one. Deals done in smoke-filled back rooms got us here, so perhaps it is time to try something new to get where we really want to go in space.
The global stage has changed in fifty years. International, commercial, and non-profit participants are now entrenched in the space arena. NASA can indeed reclaim its former true leadership. But it must first shed its hubris and capitalize on the accomplishments of those who are successful by following in their footsteps. It must address the generational challenge of our era, climate change, with a vigor that makes up for wasted time. It must revitalize NASA’s traditional creativity in aeronautics. NASA must acknowledge the value of the ISSNL to mount a science-informed successful mission to Mars, with the help of commercial players. Finally, it is time to let go of the ten-center political hydra that drains the agency of critical resources, or expect to ask the taxpayer to increase NASA’s budget in order to do the job it is asked to do. And NASA must intentionally return benefits via space-based economic development as it goes forward.
Now, surely, must be the time to step back and take a long hard look at where NASA’s future should lie in the new and vibrant world of space. That’s what real change is all about.
Joan Vernikos PhD is President of Thirdage LLC and former Director of NASA’s Life Sciences. Kathleen M Connell MA is Principal of The Connell Whittaker Group, LLC, and a former Policy Director of the Aerospace States Association.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
So it seems with some of the utilities, businesses and Exxon.
If smart grid is funded (see CNET story below) I would like to to see compensated feed-in approved in CA. I understand from solar experts that a pilot program is in the works. Feeding power back to the grid, and getting paid for it, would create a new economic cycle. The problem is that utilities would go broke with a massively successful feed-in program. How to resolve this conundrum will be a challenge for the next phase of "public" power policy. It makes no sense to me to feed-in surplus power to the utility for free, when being paid for surplus power is a strong incentive for folks to install solar power systems. On the other hand, utilities are needed, it is said, to deliver power during off peak hours, such as heat in the night. Stay tuned. But imagine, in just one scenario, if older folks on fixed incomes had a passive income stream on their rooftops. A win-win situation, and a possible solution to a broken social security payee system?
Meanwhile, I am astounded, amazed and still in disbelief that the Wall Street Journal reports that the CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, has come out in favor of a Carbon Tax. It is hard to disagree with Rex that a major concern with Cap and Trade is that it will create an emissions brokerage sector on Wall Street, which is not entirely a pretty prospect. Still, what is Rex's strategic move in this regard? He must know that increasing tax is the third rail for elected officials in Congress. So it might be posturing without sincerity. Still, by voicing support for a carbon tax, he allows others to come on board carbon tax, joining Al Gore and others. Could it be that Rex sees that global warming is extremely disruptive to society, and therefore bad for business in the long run?
WASHINGTON--When politicians are doling out trillions of tax dollars in bailouts and so-called stimulus spending, nobody should be surprised if the line of businesses queuing for cash snakes all the way around the Capitol building. The latest idea: more spending on smart grids.
The idea of a smart grid is an alluring one: A far more intelligent electric power system that takes advantage of technological developments to deliver power in a more optimal, energy-efficient way. A household dishwasher could decide to turn on when prices are low at off-peak times, and plug-in electric cars could feed power back into the grid when necessary.
To make the case that a smart grid is deserving of some serious federal largesse, utility companies and their business partners organized an event here on Thursday that drew hundreds of congressional staffers and random political lurkers (the free sandwiches probably helped). The companies demonstrated "smart" thermostats and smart phone applications to monitor energy usage--and then delivered the punch line: significant checks from the U.S. Treasury are necessary to make all this happen.
Given that electric companies make money from energy consumption, they need some government encouragement to adopt smart grid technologies, they said.
The federal government should provide "the right incentives to allow the utilities to do the right thing," said Bob Gilligan, vice president of transmission and development for GE Energy.
It is expected, business representatives said, that Congress will soon authorize using taxpayer funds for smart grid technology, if not through the upcoming stimulus package, then in either an energy bill or a separate climate change bill.
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who belongs to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Natural Resources Committee, was on hand to endorse the spending allocation.
"We know this is driven principally by private enterprise and private inventors, but Uncle Sam needs to belly up to the bar and be the spark plug for this revolution," Inslee said. "We know the world demands clean energy technology. The world is going to go to the door of the country that will develop these new technologies."
Along with increasing loan guarantee programs and research and development funding for such technologies, the federal government could take steps to incentivize the use of smart grids by decoupling utility revenues from the amount of electricity sold, Inslee said. The development of a smart grid system could also be dovetailed with a renewable energy portfolio standard, he said.
"We should not allow this economic crisis to be wasted," Inslee said. "We intend to use this stimulus package to promote investment in these technologies."
Tax vehicles such as investment tax credits would be cleanest way to spur smart grid use, said Dan Delurey, executive director for the Demand Response and Smart Grid Coalition, a trade association.
"The smart grid does qualify for stimulus," he said. "It's infrastructure, and it's shovel ready. There will be R&D, but there are technologies out there that will be deployed now."