Let There Be Light

By Sarwar A. Kashmeri
For the Valley News

Travel where you will in the Upper Valley, the topic of rising energy costs and what to do about them is a prime topic of conversation.

Alternative forms of energy, such as wind, solar, biomass and other nonfossil, renewable energy generators, are actively discussed but lead quickly to frustration for a number of reasons: The substantial cost to install even an entry-level systems (a reasonable solar system, for instance costs as much as an automobile); absence of adequate federal incentives; the absence of any incentives in New Hampshire and the marginal incentives that Vermont can afford; and environmental and aesthetic concerns.

All these crosscurrents were evident at a breakfast forum organized by the Upper Valley Computer and Information Industry Association at the Fireside Inn and Suites last week to discuss whether the Upper Valley can become energy independent.

Ably moderated by former state Sen. Matt Dunne, the panel of experts discussed renewable energy alternatives for the Upper Valley. At the end, however, they conceded that energy independence for a small and relatively sparsely populated area was not realistic. Participants left with a wealth of knowledge, however, and the UVCIA is to be commended for its effort to illuminate the complexity of this important issue.

As one small example of the complexities involved in alternative energy generators, one of the panelists discussed the installation of a residential water-turbine. Should you have a fast running stream on your property and your family has considered installing a water-turbine to generate electricity, you might want to will the installation to your grandchildren.
The permitting process involves a long list of permits, licenses and inspections by local, state, and federal officials to assess the impact of diverting the water on fish and other organisms, the impact on wildlife, the possibility of damaging a wetland that may be connected or fed by the stream miles downstream, and so on.

The stream that runs alongside our property in Reading, Vt., flows into a bigger water drain that later connects to the Connecticut River, which finally flows out into Long Island Sound. I shudder to even contemplate the layers of permits we would have to get to use that stream for power generation.

No, it is not easy to contribute to controlling global warming.

So it was with some excitement that I learned about the European Union's decision last week to replace every energy-inefficient incandescent bulb in Europe with fluorescent lamps by 2009. An incandescent bulb (the ones in general use throughout America and the rest of the world) converts less than 5 percent of the energy it uses to light, and is little changed from the time Edison invented it in 1879. The EU's decision will save Europeans more than $9.2 billion a year in electricity costs and cut out about 25 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions to boot. It is an idea that can be put into place with existing technology combined with a healthy dose of political and business leadership.

The reason fluorescent light bulbs have failed to gain traction with consumers is mainly because of their cost, even though they are cheaper to operate and last longer. But their price is bound to decrease as the European market responds to a demand for billions of the new light bulbs annually.

The success of the EU switchover seems assured because all the manufacturers of light bulbs support the change. It turns out that one of these manufacturers is United States-based General Electric. So here is an idea for the Upper Valley's energy and environmental champions: Why not start a movement to convince New Hampshire and Vermont business and political leaders to hitch a ride on the European juggernaut and replace all of the Upper Valley's incandescent light bulbs by -- let’s give ourselves one more year -- by 2010 and then extend the project to the rest of both states.

A rough calculation tells me that there are something like 14 million incandescent lamps in use throughout the Twin States. Assuming the Upper Valley has a third of these, that is around 5 million lamps. A drop in the sea compared with the estimated 3.2 billion inefficient lamps that are plugged into the EU's grid.

If New Hampshire and Vermont followed in the EU's footsteps, using the savings estimates developed by the EU, the Twin States would save about $34 million annually in electricity costs (Upper Valley estimated savings: $11 million), and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by some 90,000 tons, with the Upper Valley's emissions dropping by 30,000 tons.
Vermont and New Hampshire already have a sizeable commercial relationship with the EU. The two states' exports to Europe exceed $1 billion, and EU investment in both states is around $8 billion, which supports more than 30,000 jobs. The light bulb project would add more depth to these business links and expand the regional economy.

Brussels starts putting together an impact switchover assessment review in May. Perhaps a Twin State business-government delegation could be sent to the EU to use that assessment as a template. That would provide the governors and legislative leaders of both states with hard numbers to quantify the costs and benefits of adopting the European idea.
As a regional organization that is supported by business and nonprofit groups throughout the Upper Valley, the UVCIA seems ideally suited to act as a catalyst to jump-start this initiative. What do you think?
***
Sarwar Kashmeri is the author of the recently released book: America & Europe After 9/11 and Iraq: The Great Divide. He is a fellow of the Foreign Policy Association, a strategic communications adviser, and lives in Reading, Vt. Your comments may be posted on the Business Climate blog: http://www.sakbizcol/ .blogspot.com

Do we need a Sputnik moment?

By Sarwar A. Kashmeri
For the Valley News

My column last month drew more than its usual share of responses from readers. You may recall the column argued that, no matter which side of the Iraqi war one was on, the $300 billion that has already been spent on it limits the ability of the federal government to do anything meaningful to reverse the serious decline of American engineering graduates.

The National Association of Manufacturing predicts a shortage of 12 million to 15 million skilled manufacturing workers by 2020 if present trends continue. Local high-technology firms, such as Hypertherm, are already strapped for qualified workers. Yet, it is these highly skilled manufacturing workers who will increasingly determine the ability of America to sustain its standard of living in a globalized world.

Absent a recognition of this problem and its successful resolution, the country is headed for serious trouble.

The e-mail responses my column ranged from taking me to task for criticizing the war (one memorable e-mail was titled: Peace At Any Price) to those that complimented me for using a nonpartisan perspective to illuminate a critical problem.

I am not a big-government fan. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. But there are times when government financing is an efficient tool to move a long-term national strategic agenda forward. President Kennedy's 1961 challenge to land an American on the moon was an example of this.

The man-on-the-moon project unleashed a decade of engineering invention and creativity matched by an explosion of excitement that propelled young adults into engineering and scientific programs. Entire technologies had to be invented from scratch (systems analysis, miniaturization, numerical analysis, robotics, etc.) and the benefits continued to flow into the economy for years through the commercial applications of these inventions.

For example, ablative materials developed to dissipate the fearsome heat of re-entry gave rise to Teflon coating that is still used for coating cooking utensils (and ostensibly some presidents). The disk drive in Apple's iPod is a direct descendent of the computer storage drives used on the lunar lander.

“The huge crop of engineers we have had since the '70s is a direct result of that national resolve following the launch of the Soviet sputnik,” Bill Canis, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers and executive director of its Manufacturing Institute, told me.

For those of you for whom Sputnik does not mean much, it was the world's first artificial satellite. It was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957, ushered in the space age, and jolted the American scientific and security establishment to action by revealing the science and engineering gap between the United States and the Soviets.

Kennedy's masterfully conceived challenge reversed that gap, and American technical superiority remained unchallenged, until now.

Perhaps the threat faced by American industry due to the forces generated by globalization and the diminishing attraction of technical careers is today's Sputnik moment. So, is it time for another national challenge to reverse this threat? And what form might that challenge take?

Computers dominate today's economy, and I put the question to David Kotz, professor of computer science and director of the Center of Mobile Computing at Dartmouth College.

Kotz recognizes the need to inspire America's young people to remain interested in science and engineering. “In my field … there continues to be tremendous excitement about the applications of, and potential for, computing,” he told me. “I've noticed that every 3-year-old is a scientist, exploring his or her world. Every 5-year-old is an engineer, building contraptions to see how they work. So how do we capture and sustain that natural excitement and curiosity?” he asked.

For Kotz, today's equivalent of the man-on-the-moon challenge is clear: to bring our nation, and our world, into a more sustainable relationship with our Earth. “Science and engineering will play a fundamental role in any solution to this long-term goal. We need fundamental science -- understanding the Earth's natural processes and our affect on those processes, and the chemistry and physics involved in producing clean energy, for example. We need to develop new technologies -- efficient engines, cleaner industrial processes, methods to conserve water, and communications technology that reduces the need for travel. And we need teachers who can communicate about science and engineering so that everyone can understand the science underlying new policy and that everyone can benefit from new technologies.”

Kotz presciently warns that this challenge is global. “As scientists and engineers -- as a nation -- we have the opportunity to lead, and we must ensure that the whole world benefits. Otherwise, our world will continue to see conflict -- driven in the future by disputes over water and arable land if not by oil and other 20th-century resources.”

Kennedy's bold moon landing challenge harnessed American ingenuity, creativity and leadership for two generations. Yet its success was largely determined within the borders of the United States. What impressed me about Kotz's formulation of the next challenge is his clear understanding that today's challenges require a global frame of reference.

Making it a better world for Americans alone without consideration of other countries' needs is no longer, if it was ever, a recipe for success. Without regard to the condition of human dignity, without improving the lot of others, we cannot improve ours.

What do you think?
***

The discussion generated by my last column was so interesting that I felt your opinions ought to be more widely available than they now are as e-mails addressed to me. To that end, you will now be able to comment on Business Climate columns online at my new public blog: http://www.sakbizcol.blogspot.com. You can still write to the editor of the Valley News at forum@vnews.com.