The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: July 5, 2009

69 comments on DrumBeat: July 5, 2009

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

joule on July 5, 2009 - 10:40am

Re: Tom Friedman article

Tom Friedman's latest article about US energy technology and China clearly displays that he has a very poor understanding of both energy and technology.

In a nutshell, his contention appears to be that clean energy is going to be the Next Great Thing and that the US's advanced position in this area is the thing that will restore the US to competitive advantage over China.

Absolute rubbish! Nonsense! Tosh!

Over a remarkably short period of time China has mastered nuclear weaponry, rocket science, computer technology, and myriad high-tech manufacturing technologies. Yet, Friedman would have us believe that after having accomplished all of the above China is going to be dependent upon the US for wind turbines, solar power systems, bio-fuel plants, clean coal, and other energy technologies? More realistically, if we don't watch out, the flow of such 'clean energy' commerce could wind up being in the reverse direction.

What Friedman doesn't seem to understand is that in the modern world, with all sorts of advanced technical information no further away than a few strokes of a keyboard, it is very hard for any country to maintain a purely technical advantage over other reasonably advanced industrialized countries for anything but a short period of time. (Look at how fast Japan went from being an isolated and backward feudal society to an industrial power house well before the so-called Information Age.) These days the barriers to technology transfer are very porous indeed.

Whatever technology a country finds difficult to develop on its own, it can buy or steal. The area where countries ARE able to maintain extended advantages is in the size and sophistication of their manufacturing base in conjunction with availability of capital, and China seems to be doing quite alright in these departments also.

I wish I knew what Friedman is smoking, because I sure could use some of it right now.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BrianT on July 5, 2009 - 11:06am

Freidman is good at B/S and thus makes money as a speaker and journalist. The guy is old enough to remember when Made in Japan meant crap (hard as that is to believe now). If you shake hands with that guy count your fingers afterward.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

joule on July 5, 2009 - 1:19pm

BrianT -

On the flip side of the coin, I distinctly remember when 'Made in Great Britain' meant high quality. What immediately comes to mind are the Dinky Toys, Matchbox Toys, and Britain's Ltd metal soldiers and artillery of the 1950s, all of which were superior to much of the similar stuff made in the USA.

Are there any goods sold in US retail stores made in Great Britain these days?

And speaking of 'Made in Japan', I distinctly remember back in 1962 when my mother was shopping around for a compact car to replace my late father's 1955 Plymouth. A friend told her about a car called a Toyota and she asked me about it. After I stopped laughing, I said, "Ma, are you crazy .... don't you know that a Toyota is made in Japan?"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

hightrekker on July 5, 2009 - 11:17am

"Little Tommy" has always been challenged. and should at best be read for entertainment.
Just look at any of his analysis, from Iraq to the economy.
Carp Fishing on Valium.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

joule on July 5, 2009 - 1:25pm

hightrekker -

"Carp fishing on Valium."

Great phrase! Got to remember that one.

I've done carp fishing as a kid, and it's soporific enough even without the aid of Valium.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

hightrekker on July 5, 2009 - 1:56pm

I have to admit (as a fly fishing elitist), that I have enjoyed carp fishing at times in my life.
From what I understand, they are now being targeted by fly fishers.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

WebHubbleTelescope on July 5, 2009 - 8:18pm

Lots of stuff on rough fish recently:
Carp bow-fishing
another

Gar on front-page of WSJ!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

enemy of state on July 5, 2009 - 11:21am

He seems to have it backwards. It is not our job to convince the Chinese to pursue clean energy business opportunities. They are already doing that big time. It is ourselves who are at risk of letting this opportunity largely pass us by, and getting our clocks cleaned. The Chinese clearly get it, although their current energy strategy, which I would sum up as "all of the above" is still a threat to the climate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

majorian on July 5, 2009 - 12:51pm

Friedman is full of beans as usual. It's fine that he supports the flawed climate bill but his arguments betray his profound ignorance of all facts.

Ultracritical steam at Tianjin is not 'clean' or 'cleaner' coal. It is merely high efficiency coal and as every school child knows (since Jevon) if you raise efficiency you invariably lower cost and increase consumption increasing CO2.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html?fta=y

Clean coal means carbon capture and sequestration.

The green alternatives are too small to make a difference.

One alternative is plant trees to offset coal electricity except that only sequesters 3 tons per acre a year so a single average 500 MW power plant would take over 1000 square miles of forest to absorb
all the CO2 produced.

If a 500 MW coal fired plant were run on biomass from trees it would take over 800 square miles of forest.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Merv_NZ on July 5, 2009 - 4:18pm

"Clean coal means carbon capture and sequestration"

Sorry, Majorian, but this is the pie-in-the-sky technocopian dream.

The only "Clean Coal" solution is to leave the filthy stuff in the ground.

Mother Nature worked this out a long time back. Pathetic human attempts to find a better solution are doomed to failure.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

paal myrtvedt on July 5, 2009 - 12:58pm

Bravo joule, good observation.

More realistically, if we don't watch out, the flow of such 'clean energy' commerce could wind up being in the reverse direction.

If not this actually will materialize - 'Chindia' may grab the "entire" export market in the rest of the world - on the formula "Grab 3 Pay for 1" ( eg. take 3 Chinese made WTs to the price of 1 US made one - given the same energy nameplate imprint)

Friedman came across to me as very 'sovereign' ...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

George.Mobus on July 5, 2009 - 2:56pm

How true. I just finished posting this in my blog Tom, Tom, Tom. When are you going to pay attention to reality?. It is the latest post on the subject of Tom Friedman's Pollyanna view of 'ET'. I really believe he and every other cornucopian believes that energy technology is subject to Moore's Law. As I said in the article, didn't anyone pay attention in physics class? Oh, that's right, most people don't bother to take a hard science course!

George

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

joule on July 5, 2009 - 7:10pm

George.Mobus -

I just read your blog and thought your comments re Friedman and his ilk were right on.

You are also quite correct in pointing out the fundamental flaw in trying to compare innovations in the energy field with those in the dot-com business. You and I know that the two are not even remotely comparable, but convincing some people of that obvious fact appears to be nearly impossible.

As far as I can tell, the only talent that Friedman has is in identifying a hot issue early on, adding his own catchy sound-bite spin to it, and then shamelessly promoting his bloviating babbling as if he had just discovered some new law of nature.

He isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last self-promoting buffoon to make a tidy living out of spreading pure nonsense. Just think: he probably reaches many thousand times more people through his articles than you do with your blog. Discouraging.

But we just need to keep on plugging. For what else can we do?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

gregvp on July 6, 2009 - 4:03am

> "Friedman would have us believe that after having accomplished all of the above China is going to be dependent upon the US for wind turbines, solar power systems, bio-fuel plants, clean coal, and other energy technologies?"

No, he's saying exactly the reverse, I hope. He has published similar pieces before, always in English - not the best language if you're talking to Chinese.

I'd like to think he's trying to light a fire under some American political slugs by telling them, in effect, "hey, the Chinese are going to clean our clock."

Maybe I'm overestimating him, but I don't think so. He still believes that action on Global Warming at the national or international levels can be effective, and we can party on; so he is only one step in front the deniers.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.