Thomas Friedman Interview

[GTKeeper]

I watched a Charile Rose interview last night with Thomas Friedman about his new book (Hot, Flat and Crowded) and his thoughts on current state of foreign affairs etc.

Friedman wrote the popular book 'The World is Flat' which chronicled the internet boom and the path toward globalization.

Anyway, I think the interview was great and some of the thoughts that Friedman had I think are spot on.


His view is essentially stating that because of the exponential increase in natural resource consumption world wide due to the fact more and more people are entering 'middle class' society energy will be THE industry with a potential boom, especially forms of clean energy.

If you think about it, it makes sense. In 12 years by 2020 there will be about 1.2 billion MORE people further increasing the demand for natural resources. From strict macro-economic terms we know that the current global consumption rate of energy is not sustainable.

The key in this whole thing though is allowing the market to accept and introduce clean energy on a massive scale. Friedman makes the great point that no multi-billion dollar investment is EVER going to happen in clean energy if the price of oil keeps jumping around every 15 minutes to new highs/lows. In July it was 147 ppb and now its close to 100 ppb. If renewable energy start-ups knew that oil would be at 140 ppb for the next 20 years they would be shoveling money into new energy developments. He suggests that the government should assist in helping create the right market conditions for these industries to start up.

The whole point of his book is that if the US can get back on the cutting edge of technology and become the leader of the world in clean energy other countries will buy this from us and invite us to implement it in their own regions. Why wouldn't that be a win win situation for us?

 

[Genx87]

Heh if I could trust the govt to help "create" the right market(whatever the hell that means, sounds like some kind of regulation) I might support it. The problem is right now the govts idea of alternative energy is corn ethanol. How does that help us progress to the next level?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Friedman makes a good point and it sounds real nice. He overlooks one major problem though. Even at $147 a barrel there is no viable method of clean energy technology on the market that can compete with oil. The problem is not investment, it's technology. If/when the technology comes along that can compete with oil the investment money will flow readily to it. Investors would throw money at it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Friedman makes a good point and it sounds real nice. He overlooks one major problem though. Even at $147 a barrel there is no viable method of clean energy technology on the market that can compete with oil. The problem is not investment, it's technology. If/when the technology comes along that can compete with oil the investment money will flow readily to it. Investors would throw money at it.

And that is the other issue. Even at 147 dollars a barrel alternative energy costs more. We have to realize when alternatives are ready it will come at a higher cost than we are currently used to.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The whole point of his book is that if the US can get back on the cutting edge of technology and become the leader of the world in clean energy other countries will buy this from us and invite us to implement it in their own regions. Why wouldn't that be a win win situation for us?

That presumes they won't just steal our patents.

 

[alchemize]

The World is Flat is an excellent book. A must read for any business person AND and politician (or any person that posts to P&N).

On this topic, just think if we sunk as much money into solar energy as we do the other craptastic stuff the government spends on (farm subsidies, earmarks, bribes for votes, war, etc.). The majority of households in america would have their power bills cut dramatically (sorry Seattle). Added benefit: electric cars become much more viable.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Friedman makes a good point and it sounds real nice. He overlooks one major problem though. Even at $147 a barrel there is no viable method of clean energy technology on the market that can compete with oil. The problem is not investment, it's technology. If/when the technology comes along that can compete with oil the investment money will flow readily to it. Investors would throw money at it.

Actually, his argument is that the technology is available, just not widely distributed so at the rate that its implemented its VERY expensive.

One specific example was his mention of a wealthy Chinese entrepreneur that happens to make solar panels. He was ready to open up a factory in the US to mass produce solar panels. He has canned the idea for the moment because

a) Our government renewable energy credits are set to expire this year and we refuse to extend them.

b) The price of oil tanked 30% in just a few months which added to the uncertainty.

The catch 22 here is that if we help make new energy sources viable it will lower the overall cost because of mass production. If we don't then it will take a very long time for the technology to make the natural progression in order to compete with oil right out of the box.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: alchemize
The World is Flat is an excellent book. A must read for any business person AND and politician (or any person that posts to P&N).

On this topic, just think if we sunk as much money into solar energy as we do the other craptastic stuff the government spends on (farm subsidies, earmarks, bribes for votes, war, etc.). The majority of households in america would have their power bills cut dramatically (sorry Seattle). Added benefit: electric cars become much more viable.

Agreed, thats another point he makes. The reason we don't feel like we need to invest in any of this on a large scale is that we don't have any serious competition out there. The cold war FORCED our government to develop truly awesome technologies due to the space race etc. but right now we are the top dog and he points out that we are complacent in our position.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The whole point of his book is that if the US can get back on the cutting edge of technology and become the leader of the world in clean energy other countries will buy this from us and invite us to implement it in their own regions. Why wouldn't that be a win win situation for us?

That presumes they won't just steal our patents.

Well so what if they do? Right now in China you can buy any brand of golf club you want that is a total knock off. I don't see golf companies going out of business. Plus the quality of the Chinese made product is quite bad.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The whole point of his book is that if the US can get back on the cutting edge of technology and become the leader of the world in clean energy other countries will buy this from us and invite us to implement it in their own regions. Why wouldn't that be a win win situation for us?

That presumes they won't just steal our patents.

Well so what if they do? Right now in China you can buy any brand of golf club you want that is a total knock off. I don't see golf companies going out of business. Plus the quality of the Chinese made product is quite bad.

All I'm saying is that it we probably won't be able to sell these technologies to other countries, which lowers the potential return on our investments. Economies of scale shrink when you're limited to the domestic market.

I don't see why China and India would even care about clean energy. Look at Beijing. And even if they do, I see no reason why they would pay top dollar for us to implement when they can do it cheaply themselves.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
The whole point of his book is that if the US can get back on the cutting edge of technology and become the leader of the world in clean energy other countries will buy this from us and invite us to implement it in their own regions. Why wouldn't that be a win win situation for us?

That presumes they won't just steal our patents.

Well so what if they do? Right now in China you can buy any brand of golf club you want that is a total knock off. I don't see golf companies going out of business. Plus the quality of the Chinese made product is quite bad.

All I'm saying is that it we probably won't be able to sell these technologies to other countries, which lowers the potential return on our investments. Economies of scale shrink when you're limited to the domestic market.

I don't see why China and India would even care about clean energy. Look at Beijing. And even if they do, I see no reason why they would pay top dollar for us to implement when they can do it cheaply themselves.

China will care in a very short time. They are essentially destroying their own country by rapid expansion of cars and coal burning plants. Friedman addresses this issue as well in that by the time they realize what they are doing to themselves and their health they will be asking us on how to implement clean energy and they will ask us to come over and do it for them.

Essentailly cheap energy comes at a price and in the case of China its the people's health and the health of their neighbours. From his multiple visits to China Friedman says that their initial reaction to clean energy is essentially 'it was US's turn to grow the last 150 years however they wanted, now its our turn' but when thoughts of health and sustainability come into question the Chinese are a lot more receptive. I think thats a huge opportunity for us.

 

[lupi]

Outside of the taboo nuclear, what clean techs are available to start building new power plants now. As for things like electric cars, there is a good deal of skeptiscism that GM will meet its target release date for it's release as is.

 

[racolvin]

if we had declared war on energy independence instead of Iraq we could be well on our way for less than half the dollar cost and with zero american lives lost

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: racolvin
if we had declared war on energy independence instead of Iraq we could be well on our way for less than half the dollar cost and with zero american lives lost

Didn't Lyndon Johnson try that with the war on poverty 40 years ago?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Friedman makes a good point and it sounds real nice. He overlooks one major problem though. Even at $147 a barrel there is no viable method of clean energy technology on the market that can compete with oil. The problem is not investment, it's technology. If/when the technology comes along that can compete with oil the investment money will flow readily to it. Investors would throw money at it.

And that is the other issue. Even at 147 dollars a barrel alternative energy costs more. We have to realize when alternatives are ready it will come at a higher cost than we are currently used to.

NOW, but certainly the idea is that with more investment, alternatives will drop in cost.

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: racolvin
if we had declared war on energy independence instead of Iraq we could be well on our way for less than half the dollar cost and with zero american lives lost

Didn't Lyndon Johnson try that with the war on poverty 40 years ago?

I dunno, I wasn't yet out of diapers at the time

But if you could be more specific I'd be happy to go do some reading about it...

 

[Stoneburner]

I heard a rumor the mustache of doom is gone.

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: racolvin
if we had declared war on energy independence instead of Iraq we could be well on our way for less than half the dollar cost and with zero american lives lost

Didn't Lyndon Johnson try that with the war on poverty 40 years ago?

oh poo, I looked it up ... TOTALLY different thing .. bunch of social programs.

We're talking about investments in manufacturing to build wind parts (turbines,blades, etc), plants to build solar panels, nuclear plants, huge solar collectors in the AZ desert, things like that, not giving away powdered milk to unwed mothers in the 60's.

In some ways (not all) I'm with T. Boone - make my vehicle run on something we've got plenty of here locally and put most of the grid on solar/wind/hydro/nuclear.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: lupi
Outside of the taboo nuclear, what clean techs are available to start building new power plants now. As for things like electric cars, there is a good deal of skeptiscism that GM will meet its target release date for it's release as is.

Pickens plan comes to mind doesn't it? That uses wind which is outside of taboo nuclear as you say.

So what that there is skepticism, at least GM is trying and I think they are doing the right thing because if they can get competative with the Toyota Prius that will push the technology further and the consumer will benefit, do you disagree?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: racolvin
if we had declared war on energy independence instead of Iraq we could be well on our way for less than half the dollar cost and with zero american lives lost

Wishful thinking.

Half our conversation on alternative energy is BS.
Right now there are only two ways to power a car. Gas(oil) and electricity. I have not even heard of an alternative energy source that will solve this problem.

Perhaps hydrogen, but we would need a way to create that hydrogen. Such as more nuclear power plants.

But to think that we can throw $15 billion a year at the problem and then watch as an amazing solution pops up out of no where is wishful thinking.

BTW I still think we should invest some money, but we need to be willing to accept the fact that 10,15 or 20 years from now we may not have come up with anything better than what we have now. The internal combustion engine has been around for 100 years now and no one seems to have come up with something better.

 

[Moonbeam]

A bunch of morons stuffed full of opinions and spouting like diarrhea machines on things they know nothing about. Is there anybody here with the modesty to say I need to learn more on this matter and know practically nothing at all?

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A bunch of morons stuffed full of opinions and spouting like diarrhea machines on things they know nothing about. Is there anybody here with the modesty to say I need to learn more on this matter and know practically nothing at all?

Oh and I suppose you are the be-all-end-all of knowledge and enlightenment?

I'm perfectly willing to learn more, which is why I went and looked up that reference to Johnsons War on Poverty. Which is why I read every day about alternative energy plans like Google's investment in geothermal research, in companies that make wind turbines and how they're changing the blade design to be more efficient, about bio farms to produce natural gas, about TFT solar devlopments. And I put my money where my mouth is, as in buying stock in these companies.

By that same token, I read every day about how much money GWB asks for to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how our soldiers get killed and maimed, and then come home substandard care, marital and financial crises, etc. And for what? Our security? Oh bullhockey, we went there for oil interests and nothing else.

So take your "diarrhea machine" and produce something that contributes to the discussion, rather than letting it spill all over the floor...

 

[CycloWizard]

The federal government is already the #1 funder of alternative energy research worldwide. It funds in-house (i.e. national laboratories, as well as DoD), university (through NSF, NIH, etc.), and private (SBIR and the like) research out the yin yang. So, the only way to argue that the government should do more is to argue that it raise funding levels for science, which I fully support.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A bunch of morons stuffed full of opinions and spouting like diarrhea machines on things they know nothing about. Is there anybody here with the modesty to say I need to learn more on this matter and know practically nothing at all?

Oh and I suppose you are the be-all-end-all of knowledge and enlightenment?

I'm perfectly willing to learn more, which is why I went and looked up that reference to Johnsons War on Poverty. Which is why I read every day about alternative energy plans like Google's investment in geothermal research, in companies that make wind turbines and how they're changing the blade design to be more efficient, about bio farms to produce natural gas, about TFT solar devlopments. And I put my money where my mouth is, as in buying stock in these companies.

By that same token, I read every day about how much money GWB asks for to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how our soldiers get killed and maimed, and then come home substandard care, marital and financial crises, etc. And for what? Our security? Oh bullhockey, we went there for oil interests and nothing else.

So take your "diarrhea machine" and produce something that contributes to the discussion, rather than letting it spill all over the floor...

What online sources do you use to track developments in alt/clean energy?

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
What online sources do you use to track developments in alt/clean energy?

All the news sites (I'm a news junkie) have something like a "science" page, which is where you'll end up finding lots of stuff, techie sites like CNET have a "green tech" page that gets updated fairly regularly, and stories that appear on those pages will have links to the companies themselves so I'll follow those links, etc.

As for non-online stuff, i watch Discovery, National Geographic, and History channel alot