Comments for BIG POTATOES

Comment on 01: Think Big! by Paul Reeves

Paul Reeves — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:48:43 +0000

Not clear where to post this – but worth a look – Airbus’ view of the future

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/reports_results_reviews/THE_FUTURE_by_Airbus_consumer_report.pdf

Comment on Beyond the iPad by BIG POTATOES | Event: Beyond the iPad

BIG POTATOES | Event: Beyond the iPad — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:38:34 +0000

[...] Beyond the iPad [...]

Comment on Research by BIG POTATOES | BIG POTATOES workgroups underway

BIG POTATOES | BIG POTATOES workgroups underway — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:12:58 +0000

[...] Research [...]

Comment on Research by Tweets that mention BIG POTATOES | Research -- Topsy.com

Tweets that mention BIG POTATOES | Research -- Topsy.com — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:47:48 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nico Macdonald, Norman Lewis. Norman Lewis said: Kick-off tonight of the Big Potatoes IT workgroup. See http://bit.ly/blvT8o for some details. Discussion on the promise of convergence + [...]

Comment on James Woudhuysen on Material World (Radio 4) on scientific development and the economy by malcolm watts

malcolm watts — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:25:45 +0000

I think what people want is a complete package, including the goal and timetable for completion.
What do I mean by this? Take housing – people don’t just want somewhere to live, they want purpose – a job, a family, society etc. Robert Owen was on the right track but was hooked on the proclivities of the period connected with religion and not to mention the vibrancy of capitalism at the time – creating specific ideologies and dogmas. From a purely human point of view, a total package to achieve a given end would be ideal.

Comment on Welcome to BIG POTATOES: Join the debate! by Julian Spence

Julian Spence — Tue, 25 May 2010 15:43:36 +0000

Hi
I much appreciated a copy of the manifesto I was given.
It reminded me of the Midlands Philosophical societies – which con-joined membership worked together to push signification innovations. Difficult to see who are the successors to Wedgwood & Arkwright – with their appreciation of more than just product but also manufacturing and technology push. In these societies networking individuals and bringing new ideas and arts together seemed to have flourished. Perhaps we have failed to learn the lessons of history…?

Comment on 13: The spirit of innovation knows no limits by James Woudhuysen

James Woudhuysen — Wed, 12 May 2010 15:16:10 +0000

It is not only ‘greenies’ who oppose infrastructure in the Third World, but the UN. For Aaron Cosbey, ‘Developing Country Interests in Climate Change Action and the Implications for a Post-2012 Climate Change Regime’, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development , 2009, pp26, 27, on

http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcbcc20092_en.pdf,

‘The rush of investment needed over the next several decades in developing country energy infrastructure will lock in technologies for up to half a century thereafter’, and ‘today’s investments, particularly in energy infrastructure, cast long shadows’. But this fatalistic doctrine would make climate a barrier to China, say, continuing in coal-fired power stations, when that country has little choice for the present. China will not be in coal in 50 years time, but in nuclear and renewables. Through fossil fuels now, it can gain the wealth to dispose of that kind of energy infrastructure in the future.

Similarly and more recently (3 April), the UN Development Programme report Ambitious but achievable: Universal Access to Energy by 2030, on

http://content.undp.org/go/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=2521394

is in fact far from ambitious. It argues, in the modern style, not for a decent energy supply to assist industrialisation and end poverty, but rather for ‘universal access to modern energy servicesto meet basic needs’… by 2030 (p10).

All peasants and all shanty-town dwellers must be not be allowed to be cold in their homes in winters in 20 years’ time – oh yes, Big Potatoes indeed!

The Green/UN/mainstream doctrines of Energy Return On Energy Invested, and of ‘natural capital’, can only represent new energy infrastructure in the Third World as self-defeating and an attack on the planet. See JW and Joe Kaplinsky, Energise! A future for energy innovation (Beautiful Books, 2009), pp52, 457-60.

For an interesting Greenish treatment of energy return on investment, (7 June 2007), see Ida Kubiszewski and Cutler J. Cleveland (Lead Author); Peter K. Endres (Contributing Author); Peter Saundry (Topic Editor);. 2007. “Energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy.” In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment), 13 October 2006, on

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy

Although this article favours large scale wind, the EREOI/EROI approach that follows from Figure 3 displayed in it would rule out nuclear, solar thermal and solar PV, and arguably new hydroelectric plants.

That doesn’t leave a lot of scope for innovation….

Comment on Welcome to BIG POTATOES: Join the debate! by Paul hIBBERD

Paul hIBBERD — Tue, 04 May 2010 19:39:06 +0000

Science, we are told, is exciting. But to many outsiders it is the imaginative leaps which are exciting – the scientific ‘method’, essentially a checking process, is a necessity but can be tedious! Different kinds of people are needed for the different parts of scientific progress. Why not choose ten ‘big potatoes’ (big scientific problems), give people a bit of background and then have a brainstorm on the web. It just might speed things up a bit….

Comment on Welcome to BIG POTATOES: Join the debate! by Paul Young

Paul Young — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:39:34 +0000

I agree that the government have become risk averse and that the STEM subjects are not taught creatively. I have been called a high risk taker and have been involved in a couple of successful companies and a number of so called “risky” ventures in renewables and space.

I have long given up approaching any government organisation for help and for the past 10 years used private funding. One project that is technology disruptive (the eMdrive) has been almost totaly ignored here and yet the Chinese government has put 20 scientist on their copy of the eMdrive project. It would seem that some emerging countries are willing to take risks. Is our government (and I mean all parties) just too old and staid in its thinking?

Lord Drayson has instigated a review of our space industry but those so called “risky” project I have been involed in have been ignored. These are Starchaser (reusable “green” launch vehicles), PowerSat (power satelites) and eMdrive. Are there any government advisers who are capable of recocgnising new scientific inovations and their long term impact on the British economy? Where they do not just count the “beans” and assess risks? How they can assess risk on inovative technology is beyond me. I know my math is not great (or my spelling) but I can’t recall anything in probability theory that can reliably predict this kind of out come. Why they cannot see the long term benifits and how interactions between inovations can take place, again, is beyond me. I and many other entrepreneurs seem to be able to accomplish this so why not a well funded government?

Comment on 13: The spirit of innovation knows no limits by Paul Reeves

Paul Reeves — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:54:31 +0000

Andrew, if I understand your point correctly – I think that with, at least in the UK, every policy related to either manufacturing something or even just existing requiring a nudge towards zero carbon growth- see as only one example

http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/buildinggreener

It doesn’t then take an enormous leap of the imagination to suggest that if is is decided that development in the UK has to be zero carbon growth – then our government and NGO’s will in one form or another (morally or financially) attempt to try to influence governments in the developing world to either slow down their infrastructure development or avoid it at all by ‘allowing’ their populations to continue with their existing sustainable’ ‘infrastructures’. The point here is that carbon targets influence pretty much all views of future innovation – globally.