Our Grid is Getting Smarter

We are about to see the convergence of two of the most influential technologies in the history of men. This statement may sound bold, but it is absolutely based in fact. The emergence of a nationwide utility infrastructure for delivery of household electricity revolutionized life as we know it in the United States. It paved the way for the media and computing revolutions, and the all-important networking infrastructure that ties them together. These technologies, one antiquated, the other in it's infancy, have changed the human landscape tremendously. Possibly as much as the development of firearms, or even the invention of the wheel.

The merging of our electrical grid with networking capability has seemed somewhat inevitable. Scientists and engineers have understood the benefits that could be provided by incorporating real time data into our power management scheme for years. Primarily, combining these technologies promotes a more stable utility system, by addressing the current grid's major problem: the speed at which production and delivery issues can be fixed. Real time data would tell computers, not employees, when and where energy transmission troubles arise, and deal with them accordingly. This system would reduce if not eliminate blackouts and brownouts which can cost our economy billions, as they have in the Northeast in 2003 and California in 2005. The eventual benefit to updating our grid system reads like a laundry list of positives. The new "Smart Grid" or "Intelligrid" as it has been called, would be more efficient, perhaps saving as much as 20% of the electrical energy that we produce today. Our networked utilities would rely less on power from one source, effectively decentralizing the grid, thereby making it more resilient and less attractive as a target for attack. A benefit of this decentralization is the ability to connect more and varied renewable energy sources, which further promotes our nationwide energy independence plan. This new structure would also allow consumers to be more involved in their electrical use, by incorporating devices which could be programed to operate only when demand-based utility rates are low, signaled by information available through their connection to an outlet.

Of course there exist many hurdles for this infrastructure change to occur. Three of the largest are the resistance and inability of utility companies to change, public concerns over increased governmental control of energy and household privacy issues. Certainly for any of these points to be addressed, there will need to be legal mandates that will bring financial muscle to bear upon the problem. This process has already begun, surprisingly in the previous presidential administration. After the strikes of 9/11, president Bush made a clear gesture that improvement of the grid was necessary, mainly to strengthen our defenses, which was then re-emphasized after the above mentioned blackouts. President Obama has picked up this torch, and carried it one step further. As a part of his administration's energy policy, the DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office has received $2.3 billion in funding, partly to aid in the development of smart-grid technologies. The recent economic stimulus package granted the DOE an additional $38 billion, much of which is earmarked to solving the renewable energy integration issue, in which grid limitations play a great role.

The final hurdle to a smarter grid lies partially in the technology itself. Costs of metering equipment for the home must be made affordable. Latency, or the delay in transmission of information within the network, must be reduced to within reasonable levels for the system to work at all. The argument could be made however, that we did not wait to perfect the personal computer before bringing it to market, and sales did not lumber along until someone deemed them perfected. Much of this technology may be refined as time passes, and we see it's real weaknesses. Business too must play catch up, and the practicalities of engaging a workforce must be embraced. In this era of unemployment rates in the near double digits, businesses only need to hang out their shingle and the workers will arrive, not to mention cash. In 2009 the Cleantech market received over half of the venture capital in the U.S. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 put forth $100 million in matching funds per year through 2012 to get smart grid projects going on the state level.

This could be the single largest change to occur within my generation. Experts are saying that a significant portion of the grid modernization project may be in place by 2030. It will involve the unprecedented cooperation between the entities of government, the utilities, and the public, and it will be vastly expensive. The question is, can we afford not to enact this change?

Healthcare Opus, part Two

I hope that you've had a chance to read the first part of this posting. I felt that I had a lot to say, and that it was more than could be reasonably fit into one post. That's a lot to ask. Please read on...

After a series of long conversations, some heated, some a bit threatening, I carried my opinions about the new healthcare bill into the back of my brain in an attempt to understand what all the fuss is about. On a deeper level. To organize my thoughts, I actually drew out charts, made notes, and got generally pretty geeky about all of this. I feel like this has been time well spent.

One big question that I still have is whether or not we should be so concerned about the effect that this law will have on business, and small business in particular. The so called "engine of the economy." If healthcare reform will hurt these entities (while they are down, as it were) then I would agree that this bill has been introduced at an inopportune time. However, this far-reaching change would not have been possible in an era of Republican domination of both houses of congress and the office of the president, such as we have had in recent years. So, I say bravo to the current administration for going for it, even if the timing could have been better. I for one, have seen enough kowtowing to the interests of big business, and their disregard for the general public, to last a lifetime.

I have heard the expression that folks were "using their homes like cash machines" over and over to describe the finance bubble that played a large part in our current economic quagmire. What I feel that most of us have ignored or disregarded is how corporations have continually used the American market and the environment in a similar fashion.

We are, to be sure, an easily manipulated population. Make products, market them effectively, and we will surely buy them. But the question has to be asked in this age of dwindling natural resources (and heightened competition for them) if we have made the right choice for the long term. Currently, I see two systems that are intrinsically linked. Our businesses, in order to move ahead and be profitable, are directly connected to consumerism on an ever increasing scale. Consumerism drives business, and business needs resources, whether in the form of man-power, or raw materials for production. So, as it pertains to a nationwide Healthcare system, should the argument really be about whether or not we will harm American business with the passage of this bill? Continued, rampant business expansion, will use more man power, more resources and more energy. A false prosperity will continue to exist, allowing for even higher global birth-rates, and ever more consumers. I feel I am being carried to the edge of the cliff by a mad wave of lemmings.

The blame for our recent economic woes has got to be focused on our own short-sightedness. The arguments against healthcare are the perfect example. This is by no means an argument against healthcare, but wouldn't you think businesses would see the benefit in covering their employees, so they could afford to go on to have covered children, who would grow into healthy adult consumers? I guess that kind of thinking goes against today's bottom line.

The point is, I'd really like to think that at some time in the near future, we would be willing to put the pieces in place in government to "downshift" our economy to a new model that doesn't require endless consumption for stability. I'd like to think that everyone would be able to do more with less, while waxing nostalgic about "the good ol' days" of $3 coffee drinks available inside your local Wal-Mart.

Healthcare Opus, part One

The new Time magazine came yesterday. Two articles stood out against the typical fare of how China is catching up to us and the book and movie reviews. The first was a guide to the changes in healthcare that we can expect to see rolling out in the coming months and years. The second, what I considered to be an alert about Andrew Breitbart and his series of conservative "Big" sites. I would be surprised if the juxtaposition of these articles was an accident.

For me, the guide to healthcare was an anxiously awaited full explanation of what has actually been debated so hotly in congress and has been such a bone of contention between Democrats and Republicans. It has been debate that, quite honestly, lost me a few turns back. I am glad there are those of you out there that held on for the ride in it's entirety. Be happy that you won't have to explain this new system to me now.

One thing I knew before all of this started. A national healthcare plan would be expensive. Not necessarily for government, not necessarily for insurance companies, but mainly for you and me. I view this cost as an acceptable part of being insured. I never expect insurance to be free. It's expensive no matter where it comes from, but much less so if it comes from a cooperative, which effectively is what we're talking about here. A giant, government-regulated cooperative. In a country that values it's freedom as much as we do, this definitely means trouble. Or does it?

Seems that as always, this depends on your perspective. The conservative argument has been that your insurance options under institutionalized healthcare would be limited, and ultimately more expensive. That the bill is a small business killer, due to the coverage that they would have to provide their employees. Overall, the tone has been that it's a plan that government is forcing down the throats of all Americans that is akin to the socialism of European nations. Okay, I can see how that might run contrary to the ideals of the founding fathers. However, we're a long way from the 18th century. A lot has changed with the addition of say, several hundred million people.

My experience with insurance companies has always been an exercise in compromise. It seems you always have to be willing to pay too much for not exactly the coverage that you need. If the government's new plan delivers as expected, not much would change. I would still face limitations and some expense, in the form of higher taxes and Medicare payroll deductions. But this time, at the least, I could not be denied coverage, and when it came time to take advantage of Medicare I wouldn't see gaps in the prescription drug benefit.

As the bill pertains to small businesses, my attitude is that it's about time that all employers provide some form of healthcare. Nothing says "my employees are disposable" more than not insuring them. It will be tough for some businesses to survive under the new law, but it should be recognized that the ones that fail probably weren't so healthy to begin with. I am willing to take some heat for saying this, but our companies should not be immune to the same laws that govern nature. Struggling enterprises should be allowed to fail. Be creative, layoff under-performers, suck it up. I thought clawing your way to the top was the American way.

Socialism? I think we all need to get a better handle on the structure of our government as-is. We live in a Socialist Republic already. We may not call it that, but that's exactly what it is. I would go so far as to call it a Corporate Socialist Republic. For most of you who have been willing to read this far this may seem obvious, but for the remaining few that don't believe, let me remind you of the huge corporate bailouts that happened not so long ago. Chrysler? General Motors? Lest we forget the banking industry? It should not seem so important that we are becoming anything like our European cousins.

Try this on for size:

"American business, the motor of the global economy, was dealt a deathblow by the Marxist putsch that the Democrat Party delivered in the form of the healthcare bill. Why wasn’t this made public before the vote? The numbers are staggering. It was revealed Friday that AT&T, the largest telephone company in the country, will take a one-billion-dollar hit in the current quarter as a result of this economic attack on America. The farm-equipment company Deere is looking at $150 million in new healthcare-related charges this quarter, and Caterpillar is facing $100 million.

Who do you think will pay for this? We will pay. According to Reuters, “Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees that tax burdens under the new law would likely filter down to employees.” Business is not something in the abstract, or the evil force the leftists and the communists deceptively smear it to be — business is work, business is people, it is jobs, it is production. When business pays, we pay. Jobs pay. Consumers pay.

And we will pay for more than that as well. Have you seen the commercials yet for people who have maxed out their credit cards, and have loans over ten thousand that they can’t pay back, urging them to apply for stimulus dollars? Are you one of those who played by the rules, worked hard, did the right thing? If so, you’re screwed. The man has you and your wallet and your kids’ wallet by the throat. Welcome to the era of the degenerate: they will be sucking your blood and your children’s blood and your children’s children’s blood for decades to come, or however long America lasts."

-by Pamela Geller, published on the site "Big Government," run by conservative pundit Andrew Breitbart

Scary right? This article contains exactly the form of rhetoric that is, in my opinion going to be the death knell for the Republican party in the coming years. Although this article comes from the far right extreme in political thinking, I have heard these sentiments uttered in more reserved circles. Truth be told, these outrageous "chicken little" proclamations are receiving their share of flak not only from leftists. What lies just below the surface of arguments like these is a deep well of fear-based ideology. I have a hard time understanding just how a completely static, unchanging government, with no new ideas could be a good thing for any nation. Change, and I use that word knowing the stigma attached to it at this point, is necessary in any and all healthy systems. Change invigorates. Change renews. Having said this, I also believe in a healthy dose of balancing conservatism, so that we are not, as a nation constantly firing from the hip.

Allow me to address a few points in the above article, before I stray too far from this topic. A little perspective about these numbers the author so casually tosses around. AT&T will take a one-billion dollar "hit" in the current quarter as a result of having to pay additional healthcare coverage? This is a small percentage of AT&T's quarterly revenue, which by the way, was up 25% to 30.87 billion dollars as a result of expanded cellular clientele. Not to mention, this cost could certainly be financed over a longer period than three months. John Deere? Their claimed 100 million loss would hardly make a dent in their revenues. This company earned 23.1 billion in 2009. There is a small truth in part of what the author says here. These costs, to some degree would be passed on to the worker. We should be sure to hold the companies accountable for their decisions on this front. It is not the fault of the healthcare bill if Mega-Conglomerate X decides to forward the additional expense to it's factory floor. Once again, the rhetoric favors big business, because "business is people" and that means jobs. But at what cost? When do we start saying to ourselves, business and corporations in particular are not serving those who serve them? What benefit is there in protecting them to the current degree that we do?

I think I speak for most moderate liberals and certainly anyone on the left of me by saying that I resent being labeled a supporter of the "degenerates" that will be sucking the lifeblood out of the rest of America's hard-working, fiscally responsible population. This is a prime example of how sensational media practices play upon the fears of conservatives. I wonder why anyone would think that I, as a liberal, would want to support freeloaders, suckling from the teat of federal and state tax revenues, any more than a conservative would. The cold, hard fact is that these folks who are not "playing by the rules" are already causing your insurance premiums to escalate, and causing insurance companies to clamp down ever-harder on payouts to honest types like ourselves. As I see it, you're going to pay whether it's as an individual, or out of a tax pool. The only difference being that the tax pool is regulated a hell of a lot more than your insurance provider, who can drop your benefit any time they like. So really, what's there to complain about? If you like your plan, and want to keep it, keep it, and shut up.

Let's Get This Started With a Big Bang! or not.

Here's a resounding shot-over-the-bow to those of you who may be interested in my socio-political viewpoint.

Disclaimer: It is not my intention to start a ruckus here, only to sound off on my own personal thoughts about the state of the state, how whacky things have gotten, and how we create ways of elevating ourselves "above" the rest of society.

Here we go. I just witnessed the spectacle that is "Jesus Camp," the documentary film by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady. By "spectacle" I am not insinuating that it was by any means horrifying to me, panic-inducing, or that it ripped open my consciousness in a brand new way. It felt more like a reminder that hardcore religious fanaticism is alive and well in our country, and, as we all are too well aware, the rest of the world. What was most interesting to me about the film was that it centered around the children of evangelical Christian parents, who apart from their intelligence, seemed to be masters of their faith's rhetoric at such a young age (average 8 or so). They all speak with surprising eloquence about their dedication to their Lord. They all speak of their personal moments of "salvation" as naturally as talking about brushing their teeth. Their interactions with adults seem, well, very adult.

I wondered if it was the camera in their face, the attention, or the fear of punishment from their parents that was driving these children to express on film their unending love for Christ. Honestly, it just didn't seem natural. All of their decisions were guided by the judgement of the church. To me, children should act like children. Or, to put it a better way: children should have a childhood. You know, run around. Play. Get into trouble. Test the boundaries. From my perspective, this seems like the way most of us learn to be in society. We must feel the sting of being burned, so to speak, in order to know we don't want to be burned. Right? More than anything now, I want to see the result in five to ten years of this kind of up-bringing on these kids. I sat on my couch and continued to watch, thinking again and again one thought: backlash!

What the film did a really great job in explaining, is how these kids come by this existence and why they accept, without any question, this "faith" and all that it entails. Apparently the formula is extremely simple: it's all they know and are allowed to know by their parents. Seems obvious. The parents spend a ridiculous amount of energy isolating their children from society, limiting their friends to those of the same faith, and the biggie-home schooling. In some sense, this is admirable. One mother states in the film, "God didn't give me these children to abandon them for eight hours a day..." I can respect that. However, this allows almost zero exposure to any viewpoint that might conflict with those of the parent. This limits the child from ever having to do any critical thinking. From ever having to decide for themselves what's right and what's wrong. Wow. What a luxury.

I've often wondered how seemingly intelligent people could wind up with really closed-minded ideals, which they often will defend quite adamantly. There is a scene in which a speaker on an evangelical radio show professes that we should utilize all of our natural resources to the last stick of wood and the last drop of oil because, as he says, most people "just don't get the point. Jesus is coming. This is just one plane of existence. We are all going to be taken out of here." That's a very romantic idea, but one that does not leave much of a safety net. Apparently, this gentleman is a bit of a risk taker. I would like to see his stock portfolio. The connection to the children in the film was obvious. Little people with limited vision become big people with limited vision. That may seem harsh, but I'd like to add that this man spoke intelligently (however vehement) and confidently on his subject. And this is why I find this so compelling.

I think that the prevailing attitude of most folks is that they are somehow better than everyone else and that they've got the world wired pretty well. I fall victim to this belief often enough. It is probably a defense mechanism that people have to be able to deal with the competitive world that we all share. However, I have to admit that I think this attitude, as with anything else has to be tempered with some degree of healthy moderation. When you enforce your belief system on your children to the exclusion of all others, what real favor are you doing them? Have you, perhaps taken your defense mechanism to the next level?

I guess what makes this okay, is that it could all be chalked up to attentive parenting. And, incidentally, parenting has a long tradition. And tradition has led to more bad things being deemed good than anything else I can think of. What occurred to me halfway through my viewing, was that many of the same "features" of this method of child-rearing closely resembled the way that so-called cults indoctrinate their members. Better not say that too loud.

With further thought, I had a bit of an epiphany. Stop reading now if you are offended by gross statements of the obvious.

Although I do not agree with the majority of what I saw during this film, I believe that evangelical Christians have a right to their beliefs. The problem, as it pertains to me, is that I cannot relate in any capacity to these folks. I have successfully isolated myself from that world as much as they have isolated themselves from me, a liberal-minded long-hair. Before I go any further, this isn't about being more forgiving, or sensitive. I'm already sensitive enough. What this is about is the creation of a boundary around your life that prevents any kind of awareness of anyone that doesn't do what you do. I actively tune out stations on the radio that involve any mention of Jesus. I actively avoid reading anything from a conservative source, be it political or religious. I actively avoid, like the plague, anyone that would want to talk to me about religion in an effort to convert me. I'm doing just fine, thanks. Ironically, I surround myself with things I'm already intimately aware of. I read magazines that cover subjects I already know about. I hang out with people that do what I do. Not so strange. I think we all do this.

So this brings me to my point. Listen up liberals. We are supposed to be the people that are going to change the world for the better. Lead the charge on things like the environment, education and healthcare with revolutionary ideas and a willingness to face the problems. What I am seeing among my peers (the ones I choose to know) and something I see in myself is something more akin to what I would label conservatism. It is a brand of apathetic misunderstanding of the other team that I previously would have only accused conservatives of: taking the shortcut of institutionalizing a prejudice. I fear that we are creating or may have already created a new status quo in liberal thinking. That you have to be an idiot, living in a static bubble of 1950's thought to be religious, a republican, or a conservative. That we as liberals own the patent on a world future that doesn't mean self-destruction. That we are entitled to our righteousness because everyone else doesn't seem to care...

I think if we are to live up to our reputation as the more aware, more compassionate, more understanding portion of humanity we are obligated to face opposing viewpoints with the open minds we tell the world we have. However uncomfortable it may be to educate ourselves about them.

Something interesting I just found (Nov. 21st):

Christianity, with its roots in Judaism, was a major factor in the development of the Western worldview.... A basic Christian belief was that God gave humans dominion over creation, with the freedom to use the environment as they saw fit. Another important Judeo-Christian belief predicted that God would bring a cataclysmic end to the Earth sometime in the future. One interpretation of this belief is that the Earth is only a temporary way station on the soul's journey to the afterlife. Because these beliefs tended to devalue the natural world, they fostered attitudes and behaviors that had a negative effect on the environment. ~Donald G. Kaufman and Cecilia M. Franz, Biosphere 2000: Protecting Our Global Environment, 1996