14 responses so far ↓

• 1 EdenSprings // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:25 am

  With Abramson, isn’t it the Male Chauvanist Pig Flu? Apparently he’s got quite the dose himself if one looks back at his non-handling of sexual harassment fiascos throughout his administration.

• 2 David Harpe // Nov 4, 2009 at 8:36 am

  Allan McDonald’s explanation is a bit of an oversimplification. One thing he didn’t go into a great deal is how one of the main reasons NASA wasn’t persuaded to postpone the launch is due to a completely awful presentation of the O-Ring failure data by the engineering teams:

  http://www.asktog.com/books/challengerExerpt.html

  Tufte does a pretty good treatment of this in his series of “Information” books.

  Another hero in this was Richard Feynman. He was appointed to the commission investigating the disaster. When the commission came out with their report, the true cause of the failure was again buried in technical babble and cover-your-butt language. During the press conference where the report was presented, Feynman famously pulled the reporters aside and showed them with a live demonstration what happened to the O-Rings:
  http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/mr._feynman_goes_to_washington/

  Feynman also talks about this experience in one of his books (can’t remember which one right offhand).

• 3 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:19 am

  I will get on my alternative energy soapbox again. Why do we waste valuable time and research money on things like waste cooking grease fuel, when it is completely unscalable.

  The optimal output of waste grease from the city could only run a handful of vehicles. We should be focusing on projects that are scalable and have a chance to make a real difference to the energy usage on this country.

• 4 KYGuy // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:45 am

  Harpe – wasn’t that in “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman”? Great read.

• 5 David Harpe // Nov 4, 2009 at 9:51 am

  Mark,
  You are absolutely dead-on. Most energy problems are very difficult to solve if you do a proper analysis of ALL factors involved. Most “green” solutions simply move problems/waste/pollution from one area to another…they don’t truly solve the problem. Green roofs built with plastic construction materials made in China and populated with exotic plants shipped from halfway around the world. Electric cars made with huge, limited life batteries full of some of the most toxic and non-recyclable chemicals on the planet – all manufactured overseas.

  Few people are interested in cradle-to-grave analysis of these problems. They just want to look out in the driveway at their little electric car and feel like they’re doing something. It’s just not that simple.

• 6 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 4, 2009 at 10:12 am

  The problem is David, that there is nobody saying no to these research grants. I don’t believe that researchers should get a penny of public funding unless they can prove that their research is potentially scalable and TRULY reduces waste or pollution.

  That is why I am a proponent of the government offering a huge financial award for achievement of a goal (ie. a cleaner home fuel cell that would work in Cleveland, OH) to anyone who can develop that technology.

  We have diluted the government money allocated to alternative energy research so much by dribbling it all throughout academia, that we have gotten few results.

  The goal of academic research is to ensure the funding of that research as long as possible. The goal of private industry is to achieve a solution as quickly as possible, so you can sell it to recoup the costs of the research.

  It’s not surprising that by differing our innovation to the Universities and research institutions, we are not tremendously further along than we were 30 years ago.

  The most rapid innovation has come in the automotive and heating a cooling industries because those private corporations were financially motivated to get products to market quickly to meat the demand for lower consuption products.

• 7 David Harpe // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:14 am

  Exactly! A lot of money can be made in viable alternative energy and energy conservation strategies and materials. It’s a huge motivator for private industry…and they are far more motivated than a tenured professor.

  But there has to be balance. Private industry tends to stay with innovation along established lines. Take an existing concept, refine it, tweak it, eek a few more pennies out of it. That can help to a point. But true quantum leaps in technology come from basically two paths: Purely accidental discoveries (Krazy Glue, Post-It notes, etc) where someone makes a mistake and it becomes a huge leap. These things can happen in private industry or academia.

  The second way to make a jump is to try something completely far-fetched and test it for viability using the scientific method. This is a very slow method, but we’ve had numerous successes here.

  Both approaches are important. But what is far more important regardless of the source is a brutally honest evaluation of whatever solution pops out.

• 8 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 4, 2009 at 11:42 am

  History has shown that the most technological innovation has occurred during war time, when large government contracts motivated businesses to develop the technology to achieve the contract.

• 9 David Harpe // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  True, if historically you are speaking about generic technology. We’ve recently seen a lot of innovation in the area of digital photography and imaging – no doubt driven by the increased needs of the military complex for such technology, for example.

  However you can’t expect the same level of progress in technologies associated with carbon footprint reduction and energy conservation. The only thing “green” about an army is some of the camouflage. They consume enormous energy, generate enormous waste, and they aren’t bashful about it.

  Although you could make the case that a tank engine consuming less fuel would be more efficient because of longer range, not much useful work has been done in the area. Usually figuring out how to kill the most people from the greatest distance with the least risk is a much higher priority for military-driven research.

• 10 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  My point was simply to show that history supports my belief that a large carrot is a more productive than a big stick or wasting money in academia.

  The problem with Cap & Trade is that unless you place every economy (yes that includes China & India) under the same threat of the stick, then the jobs and industry will flee to those economies.

  While we may cut pollution in this country, we are just outsourcing it, along with our jobs, to countries that are more likely to pollute.

  As an environmental scientist, I can tell you that the majority of the real contamination goes from non-point sources, and not point sources like factories and power plants.

  I will admit that I am a global warming skeptic from simply a scientific basis, the goal of reducing carbon-based fuels should be done for many other reasons aside from global warming alone.

  The Japanese are ahead of us in realizing that the short-term solution lies in small package nuclear energy plants that would power smaller areas.

  We are surrounded by fissionable materials related to industry and health care industries and people don’t think twice about it. The presence of large reactors belching out ominous plumes of harmless steam, give the public the jitters. Meanwhile, most oncology treatment centers have substantial quantities of nuclear materials.

  Everything should be on the table for discussion, kitchen grease and other non-scalable solutions excluded.

• 11 Novena // Nov 7, 2009 at 7:58 pm

  “Hail UofL, Savior of the Earth’s Resources”

  The earth is breaking. Is the world coming to an end? We must at least give UofL credit for attempting something in its energy study effort:
  SEEKING TO SAVE MONEY FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE SHUMAKER AND RAMSEY TOOK OFFICE.

• 12 Bill // Nov 8, 2009 at 11:25 am

  But pretty soon they’ll be shelling it out to get the new hot football coach so that money saved will be paid back out.

  After all, Ramsey and Jurich got to find a way to get the prestige back at the program especially after the Porkmeister scandal.

• 13 Novena // Nov 8, 2009 at 6:44 pm

  “The Reality of Money at UofL”

  Remember, Bill, the energy study is future research and has not yet saved money for anybody in this inglorious material world. But it is a small step for the UofL honchos (they have momentarily taken their minds off big-time athletics) who crave money only somewhat less than Bernie Madoff. You’re right, though, that they will be stokin’ the dollar fires for a new pigskin coach quite soon. It will be burn, baby, burn in Belknap.

• 14 Bill // Nov 9, 2009 at 11:24 pm

  Actually Novena, its a great concept if they can get it to work at U of L for using the methane and any sort of biowaste that can be converted into electricity both cheaply and environmentally sound. Not to mention to save some money. After all, its a good time to think of ways to save some bucks.

Leave a Comment