Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Chalk one up for the optimists

An extract from an interesting editorial in Sunday's Washington Post:

Take energy. Today, 70 percent of it comes from fossil fuels, a 19th-century technology. But if we could capture just one ten-thousandth of the sunlight that falls on Earth, we could meet 100 percent of the world's energy needs using this renewable and environmentally friendly source. We can't do that now because solar panels rely on old technology, making them expensive, inefficient, heavy and hard to install. But a new generation of panels based on nanotechnology (which manipulates matter at the level of molecules) is starting to overcome these obstacles. The tipping point at which energy from solar panels will actually be less expensive than fossil fuels is only a few years away. The power we are generating from solar is doubling every two years; at that rate, it will be able to meet all our energy needs within 20 years.

. . . .

It's important to understand that exponentials seem slow at first. In the mid-1990s, halfway through the Human Genome Project to identify all the genes in human DNA, researchers had succeeded in collecting only 1 percent of the human genome. But the amount of genetic data was doubling every year, and that is actually right on schedule for an exponential progression. The project was slated to take 15 years, and if you double 1 percent seven more times you surpass 100 percent. In fact, the project was finished two years early. This helps explain why people underestimate what is technologically feasible over long periods of time -- they think linearly while the actual course of progress is exponential.

5 comments:

Dave said...

Thank God for that. Sign me up for a solar Hummer.

Joe said...

There's a dirty joke in there somewhere, Dave.

Jay said...

Ha ha ha! I'll take one, too.

Joe said...

Let's hope they can figure out how to effectively harness sun/wind to make our little cars go, because burning corn or old egg roll grease definitely isn't the solution.

Jay said...

Aren't they blaming that (in part) for the current food shortage?