Hi Jennifer,
We are involved in a not-for-profit project to develop a system for clean, location independent and renewable electrical power generation that can be built from common materials.
The system design of the project is being managed in a not-for-profit and open manner and applies the same methodologies and principles that have made Linux and other Open Source Software projects such a success.
The information is presented here: http://www.energytower.org
We have some initial electrical and thermal output calculations of the system for various locations here:
http://www.energytower.org/index.html#Calculations
I believe that this project will create an implementable, economical, reliable and serviceable system. Although the entire project is being managed in a not-for-profit manner, the intent is to work with business.
The detailed design, manufacture of the sub-assemblies, construction, system operation and integration with existing operations and waste heat sources can have large economic benefits for the entire economy.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Rohatensky
Regina, Canada
Although it is fiction, an interesting read is Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/index.html
One of the concepts I thought a lot about was the Nash Equilibrium game theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium game theory (John Nash is the real person Russell Crowe played in A Beautiful Mind).
One of the simplest examples is Tic-Tac-Toe where the game is always a draw if both players are rational.
My understanding of a Nash Equilibrium applied to economics or politics is that the game settles into a scenario where any rational change in strategy by the competition doesn't change the outcome.
i.e. When applied to a military arms race, both sides continue to increase weapons buildup in case the other side attacks.
My interpretation when applied to energy supply is that since the industrial revolution, all parties have been making the rational business choice. We are in the situation we are in not because there is no method to power society without destroying ourselves, but that the rational choice for a business is to show as much profit as possible.
Again, time will tell if I came up with an idea of value, but I thought it would be interesting to put my 'X' in the wrong spot on the tic-tac-toe grid and see how it works out.
One other note: In Saskatchewan, Canada we have 1/3 of the oil and gas in Canada and 2.6 billion tonnes of coal. New renewable energy ideas aren't an easy thing to get people interested in here either.
true
Pinxi
National Innovation Systems looks interesting and my negative attitudes are probably a reflection of personal experience. I see from this report: http://www.abfoundation.com.au/pdf/NISRoosShortPaper22Nov05.pdf
that compared to the rest of the OECD we prefer to let other people do our innovating for us. Part of this is the reluctance of the public sector to interact meaningfully and creatively with the private sector and the policy by all governments to throttle the universities in an attempt to make them self-funding degree factories. It is axiomatic that if there is a solution to anything, it has already been discovered overseas.
Maybe Robert lives in a more innovative part of the world.
(Large scale investments = me). It's just no. 3 Boxer: IMO you simplify and reduce the nature of early mover advantages, innovation, IP exclusivity and incentives for enterprise. VC is easy enough to get for the right person who has a reliable track record and who's prepared to put their nads on the line (ie don't need exclusive IP, just need a market, perhaps a niche, and reasonable margins). Similar for self-funded, private capital ventures - there are other motivations that drive a great deal of investment these days especially when the interpretation of potential flow of benefits is greater than simply personal private gain; and also where they're lining future silver clouds and disinclined to take overly large risks by themselves. Where an idea can have broader benefits or carries too much risk and uncertainty, an open development process can lead to an better outcome and alpha or beta stage stimulate further innovation and improvements. This approach is taking off in some quarters. Kudos to Robert and wish him all the best. Scale of investment and market conditions can also by themselves be sufficient barriers to competitive market entry, and within these type of applications there's often considerable scope for distinctive, proprietary innovations.
I have a lot of time for your comments Boxer and in my wrong side of bed barbs I don't generally lump you in with the other knee jerk sceptics. (I was going to point out that out earlier). The exchanges that we've had in past are among the few reasoned ones here that had opportunities for real learning on both sides and I've enjoyed them. I'll end this conversation now as those quality exchanges are too few and far between, so the time is overdue for me to get off the blog again.
PS sideline but related, you might be interested to read some findings on innovation systems and the role of original research versus recycled know how - look into National Innovation Systems if you can google up same.
Pinxi, you have fallen out of bed on the wrong side. I’ll try to be more serious in my discussion now, at least for 5 minutes.
My point about intellectual property is:
1.Robert may have a good idea here, but I would leave it to the engineers to assess that.
2. Having an idea may mean that there’s a market for the idea itself, and an entrepreneur may wish to purchase the ideas to hold exclusive rights. That person would then invest significant venture capital to prove up the technology, but he/she will only do that if the proving of that technology adds to its value, which then gives the entrepreneur a return on their investment to that point.
3. If the idea is in the public domain, as it now seems to be, no entrepreneur will pick it up even though it is free, because if they do, and they put in the venture capital to prove it up, anyone can take the refined idea and use it without paying for it. The entrepreneur therefore has no way of recovering their investment.
4. Once the idea is proven at the commercial scale, then we can talk about markets for energy produced from the technology. The entrepreneur sells the technology to energy producers. Yes, said entrepreneur makes squillions of dollars, but then again, he/she may put in many millions of dollars and the concept may be a dud. The entrepreneur wants to be paid for taking that risk and if no one will pay for that risk, the venture capital will find somewhere else to go.
5. The value of the technology may be large, but if the idea is commercially successful, the cost of the technology per unit of energy produced will be infinitesimally small. The competitive position of the renewable energy will not be compromised. If the entrepreneur gets to be filthy rich, it doesn’t matter that much. I’ll be envious too, and that won’t matter at all.
I can appreciate Robert's lack of interest in fighting to protect a patent. But he may sell or give the idea exclusively to someone who will defend the patent. This would serve the same purpose of protecting the value of the idea itself.
I think the misunderstanding you may have is that you have gone from the original idea to the energy market without passing through the market-for-the-idea steps. My concern is that Robert may have blown a good idea away because he didn’t do that either. No doubting his motives, but it would be a shame if an idea better than nuclear fusion is buried because it wasn’t marketed properly at the outset.
Then again, the idea may not require development; it may already have proven commercial viability, in which case we will see Robert’s power stations sprouting up around us in the near future.
How do your economic dictates plan for the long term effects and consequences of today\'s economic choices Sylvia? How do they address even the short term unpriced externalities? How do the impoverished majority participate in markets to vote according to their choices when theyre excluded by virtue of poverty? How do your energy markets incorporate AGW? They rely on sets of guidelines that favour business as usual and a narrow set of economic concerns and ignore forces for disruptive structural change. If you only look at economics and markets then you\'re excluding the broader system in which the human construct of 1st world markets operates. we see this kind of small world outlook in the attacks on the enterprising idea above.
Pinxi,
If you'd care to specify in concrete terms where the current approach to economic analysis fails, then there would be something to discuss. Merely waving your hands, and alleging that it's deficient, gets us nowhere.
Sylvia.
Well there\'s an implicit value set there Sylvia. Among other things, it includes assumptions that economic concerns are the ONLY concerns to be considered and that the current economic system is complete, valid and comprehensive enough to be sufficient. Even the physicists argue against the narrow worldview of modern economics, not just the hippy scientists.
The current system of economics evolved by responding to politics, situations and events prior. Why would yuo assume that it has arrived at it\'s final and adequate state and therefore should be applied as static? To begin with by getting some rigour and credibility economists could drag their sorry arses (asses for the septics) out of antiquated newtonian maths and theoretical assumptions that don\'t correspond with reality. If you can\'t get that then you lack perfect information ha ha ha and you may lack rational decision making ha so I won\'t waste time trying to fill you in.
Economic considerations dictate that cheap, but unsustainable, options for power generation should be continued for as long as that is possible without significant external costs. Only then should more expensive sustainable solutions be used.
It may be that the external costs of burning fossil fuels are significant, but there are other options, such as nuclear power, which may not be sustainable in the long term, because of the limited available of the fuel, but which are acceptable in the short term.
Consequently, the proposed sustainable solution, like solar towers and wind farms, is simply here before its time, because the power it will generate is uncompetitive.