um, I i know zip about batteries, but it seems obvious that conservatives love prizes because they fit so easily and simply into conservative ideology/mythology: a concrete recognition of and reward for individual achievement. It runs along the same lines as their justifications for CEO salaries but doesn't require the blinders that make labor invisible.

Ultra-Capacitors ------- Not batteries may be the answer. But then we'll need to build McCains nuclear plants to get the electricity.

" But then we'll need to build McCains nuclear plants..."

Talk about disposal problems...

You haven't heard about peak lithium?
zinc-air?
molten salt batteries?

The prize thing is a little bizarre. I think it's just a way to take credit for innovation without actually funding it. BTW, I'll give ten dollars for the first person to invent a cat-powered clock.

I'm a leftie lib engineer, and I'm gaga over prizes.

Consider this: sometimes they DO work, and sometimes spectacularly. Lindbergh really did cross the Atlantic because of a prize. Most spectacularly, though it's too early to be entirely sure yet, the Ansari X Prize seems to've effectively created the suborbital spaceflight market. It did so by making it possible for the winner to not lose money, but especially giving drama and major media coverage to the winner, enabling wide imagination and interest. Thus the promising deals between Richard Branson and Scaled Composites. Thus all the interest in Virgin Space despite the high upfront pricetag. I'm sure Ansari and the other sponsors are pretty happy about it all.

In the meantime, if the prize isn't given, you get your money back. But, it does take luck and good timing to have an effect. And, to have X-Prize kinds of effects, it has to be something that's conventionally looked at as so unlikely or expensive that customers aren't even thinking of lining up. Batteries don't really fall into that category. But his suggested battery subsidy probably would help.

"Boffins"!? Another Economist reader outed.

Prizes are bright shiny objects that distract and fool people into thinking the substantial work that is required to solve a problem is actually getting done.

Republicans are all about the con.

And with today's educational standards and anti-intellectual bias, fooling people is a breeze. Pretty much, all it requires is a soundbite and/or a sanction by god.

Exactly what will be the power source for charging all those batteries??? Last I heard, that electricity has to come from somewhere. Also how you going to deliver all that electricity? Last i heard, our electric grid was over taxed by use and under maintained and upgraded. What is McCain going to do about those factors? Another prize? How is he going to fund all this these prizes, tax cuts?

My guess is that the conservative attraction towards prizes is mainly due to the fact that they satisfy the requirements of creating a national movement towards accomplishing a single goal (as with the space program having the goal of landing a man on the moon) without the additional requirement of the goal being accomplished at the expense of creating a new government program. By creating a one-time government-funded prize to private enterprise, this provides the minimal level of government involvement necessary to spur development in a single area.

I agree with Kevin's point about the government's prize value being absurdly small relative to the size of the eventual market for a product that accomplishes the goal, but I think this misses the point of the prize, namely to push the specific area into the public's attention. For example, to take this area to its logical conclusion, imagine an American-Idol-style of weekly competition between individual researchers or research teams, where each group presents the work they've done that week, and the audience votes each week on which group gets its funding renewed. This would obviously be an absurd project towards having a fixed single task accomplished, but it would be a great way to force scientific research into the public conversation and imagination (at least until the program gets cancelled, which would probably not take long). The point of this prize is undoubtedly less to spur development and more to get the public focussing the national attention to this project without the government being the central venue for the development towards the entire project.

No, bmaz. He's oping to de-fund all those pork-barrel projects (like new bridges that would replace decades old safety hazard bridges and stronger levees that would replace those whose weakening by age are probably not strong enough to withstand a category two storm). By god, those pork projects are a waste of taxpayer dollars! But, let's continue to funnel money to KBR/Halliburton/Blackwater to the tune of billions a month, because that is money well spent!!!

oping = opting.

sometimes even preview can't help you help yourself.

Could we do it? What would it take? Are there disposal issues when we reach that kind of scale?

You gotta be kidding me. Republicans and conservatives of all stripes offer up the aper tiger of refinery-defeating environmentalists as some kind of insurmountable obstacle. Because they're so macho, they can start wears, but can't defeat pansy environmentalists. What strong leaders.

Kevin: Lots of energy technologies (coal, wood, oil, uranium, etc.) seem like great ideas until you scale them up to service a planet of 6 billion people.

Population. That's really the problem, isn't it? Why can't overpopulation be a legitimate topic for discussion? It's not like we aren't capable addressing it. Japan managed zero population growth. Other's have come close as well.

The carry capacity of the planet, the amount of people who can live on it without exhausting its resources, needs to be carefully explored. We could go a long way toward solving energy problems, global warming, and environmental degradation if we just spent some time and money educating people about the problems of overpopulation.

We certainly won't solve energy problems or many other challenges we face, unless we change everybody's thinking about birth control and family planning.

Kevin asked: Speaking of batteries, though, here's a question. Lots of energy technologies (coal, wood, oil, uranium, etc.) seem like great ideas until you scale them up to service a planet of 6 billion people. Then it suddenly turns out that they create lots of problems. So how about batteries? What would happen if we needed to manufacture not a few thousand car-sized batteries a year, but a few billion? Could we do it? What would it take? Are there disposal issues when we reach that kind of scale?

EPRI did a study a number of years ago indicating that there is not enough lithium in the world to power our vehicles if they were all run on lithium ion batteries (pure electric vehicles). I'm not worried about it yet, though. ;-)

Components of lithium ion batteries will need to be recycled. Besides lithium, there is the cobalt in the cathode, which is toxic and expensive. There is a fair amount of research devoted to replacing the cobalt-containing cathodes with lithium iron phosphate or other benign alternatives but there are still performance issues. Lithium iron phosphate is good for high power applications (hybrid electric vehicles) but less suitable for higher energy ones (all electric vehicles).

The big players in the field of lithium ion batteries are all in Asia (Japan, S. Korea, China). The big battery companies in the US (e.g, Eveready) gave up on them long ago-they were late to the party and the competition was too fierce. There are smaller companies in the US, mainly working on high power systems, where it still may be possible to get a foothold. Some of these have gotten a lot of favorable press (Google A123 Systems), but I'm not sure that they are actually turning a profit yet. Developing a new battery is an expensive business-$100 million would not be out of line.

I could go on (supercapacitors are good only for high power-you still need a battery, and Li ion batteries are the most promising right now because of their high energy density) but you get the idea.

lithiumgirl

From the April 28th Design News: "Gasoline packs 80 times more energy per kilogram than a lithium-ion electric vehicle battery. It holds 250 times more energy than a common lead-acid battery."

This gives you an idea of the magnitude of the energy problem. The chemistry of high efficiency batteries also leaves us with a significant environmental problem if we scale up to the point that every car on the road is battery powered.

The nature of cities must change if we are to cope with ever rising energy costs. Here in Austin we have sprawl. A lot of people have a thirty mile or more work commute.

There is another issue that is under-examined. Half of the energy we consume is used by our houses. I've spent the last four years studying what it takes to build an energy efficient house in this climate. It should not be more expensive to build more efficient houses.

One of the most energy efficient houses on the Austin Green Homes tour was a Habitat for Humanity house. It was cheap.

But, houses turn over much more slowly than cars. I've lived in a neighborhood where there were houses more than 200 years old. We must build efficient houses starting as soon as possible.

DevilDog, it's less the population than the impact of the population. Americans are 5% of the planet, we use 20% of it's resources.

It's less harmful to human rights to encourage using less, than it is to deny them the right to have children.

Peak oil, peak lithium, peak helium, peak copper, yadda yadda yadda. It's peak everything, basically. Worrying about "peak everything" obscures the real question, which is "what is the lifespan of a technological civilization?" The fact that we've never encountered any sign of another one ought to tell you that it probably isn't very long. What are the odds we are nearing the end of ours?

I think bmaz has the crux of it. " Exactly what will be the power source for charging all those batteries???"

I recently read (and I forget where) an estimate that to electrically replace the oil-based energy currently used to power the cars of California alone would require the equivilent of 30+ nukes.

Just for plug-in hybrids. Just for California.

They are about 100 years too late. At the beginning of the last century there were many inventors (Ford, Edison, the Wrights, etc.) who were able to achieve breakthroughs working literally in their basement. But we live in a post technological era. Most (all?) of the big technologies of the last fifty years (microelectronics, air conditioning, automatic transmissions, color TV, internet, space travel - you can go on and on) were not the result of single breakthroughs by individuals, but rather of continued R & D by large multidisciplinary teams. The idea that some lone wolf genius will have a wild idea and solve our energy problem is appealing but totally naive. When it comes to mature technologies, none is more mature than battery technology. Remember, batteries have been a strategic technology since the invention of the submarine. Nations spent huge sums exploring all combinations of the periodic table to come up with the super battery, but until nuclear power what did subs use? Lead acid batteries. There is a good chance new batteries will make plug in hybrids practical, but the batteries will produced by relatively large research teams producing incremental improvements, not by magical breakthroughs by genius lone wolf inventors. When it comes to modern technological development, $300E6 isn’t even a drop in the bucket (and barely the price of a single F22 at that).

Thank you for the response, anonymous. No one is saying stop having children -- at least not me. If every couple only had two children (one child to replace each parent), we would achieve zero population growth. As you suggest, teaching people to use less is also a good idea.

Sorry, to intrude on the topic de jeur.

I'll give ten dollars for the first person to invent a cat-powered clock.

In a video-game magazine article about a ninja video game called Ninja Gaiden I read when I was a kid, they included a side-bar describing allegedly "real" ninja techniques just for the trivia of it. According to that article, by looking a cat's eyes, you can tell roughly what time it is, because the dilation of their pupils changes regularly on a 24-hour cycle.

*holds hand out*

*holds hand out*

To receive $10, that is.

And, of course, conversely the cat can tell that you are freaking nuts. Kind of an odd zero sum stare down.

*holds hand out* To receive $10, that is.

Sorry, I already had to pay off my wife. She has two with built in alarms set for 11PM and 4:30 AM.

I was thinking of making a mechanical one myself. Perhaps a cat bed attached to a block and tackle that resets the weights on a grandfather clock. Our cats are old and gravity is one of the few things they have going for them.

My cats are alarm clocks three times each day.

Peak intelligence. Peak social utilization of scarce materials. Peak cooperation and communication.

Conservation is the key to solving the energy problem. Technology is an important but still minority component.

ALL of the articulated battery components have supply and toxicity maizes to negotiate to be viable. There is no 100% recycling program for lead, nickel, lithium based battery systems.

The assertion that there is many times more embodied energy in gasoline is true. And, that is because it takes that much energy to refine to get to be a concentrated useful fuel. Diesel fuel (including cellulosic bio-diesel) is not that concentrated but still capable of powering motion.

I have private legs. I don't need a private car.

I do need transport of people and goods.

Try innovating in conservation. In most applications it does NOT require enormous private capital investment, nor is it a price volatile commodity.

INSULATE. CARPOOL. WORK CLOSE TO HOME. INTER-MODAL (pack a bicycle on your bus/train/carpool).

Peak intelligence. Peak social utilization of scarce materials. Peak cooperation and communication.

Conservation is the key to solving the energy problem. Technology is an important but still minority component.

ALL of the articulated battery components have supply and toxicity maizes to negotiate to be viable. There is no 100% recycling program for lead, nickel, lithium based battery systems.

The assertion that there is many times more embodied energy in gasoline is true. And, that is because it takes that much energy to refine to get to be a concentrated useful fuel. Diesel fuel (including cellulosic bio-diesel) is not that concentrated but still capable of powering motion.

I have private legs. I don't need a private car.

I do need transport of people and goods.

Try innovating in conservation. In most applications it does NOT require enormous private capital investment, nor is it a price volatile commodity.

INSULATE. CARPOOL. WORK CLOSE TO HOME. INTER-MODAL (pack a bicycle on your bus/train/carpool).

In the 18th century one of the biggest scientific problems of the day was a way to determine longitude. In 1714, England's Parliament offered a prize of 20,000 pounds ($12 million today) for a solution. Many people worked on the problem for years until a clockmaker came up with the solution= the chronometer. Check out Dava Sobel's book "Longitude,the true story of a lone genius who solved the greatest scientific problem of his time".

The prizes are to cover up for a man who had no ideas. Basically, McCain is saying, "Hell, I can't think of anything, let's give money to someone who can!"

If that's what you want for a leader, vote GOP.

I think the basement inventor is the target of the prize. I don't know though.

There is a good chance new batteries will make plug in hybrids practical, but the batteries will produced by relatively large research teams producing incremental improvements, not by magical breakthroughs by genius lone wolf inventors. -fafner1

I wonder how the prize would be shared in this likely scenario? Give it all to the head of the company, share it with everybody that worked on it, or will one person on the team with a breakthrough idea get all the cash? I worked part of my time previously with engineers who were involved in R&D and a good share of their manager's time was spent motivating the engineers to SHARE their ideas with each other. Some of it was stubbornness, but people do steal ideas from each other. Think of Matt Groening's "The Smiling Idea Stealer" in "Work is Hell".

McCain has 300 million? Now that’s news!

We must thank him for the fool’s errand he has generously given us. We should call it what it really is, another diversion.

Don’t get me wrong, there have been vast improvements in battery technology. Lithium Ion is giving way to Lithium Polymer technology, but it’s still a battery.

Here is a virtual key to unlock your thinking since McCain has locked you into the “battery”.

Here’s my counter offer:

300 million for a device that produces clean energy and “recharges itself” with clean energy as you use it with zero loss.

Yeah, sure the “Perpetual Motion Machine”. Natch, no problem.

Remove the “Motion” (friction, wear) from the device and you are half way there.

Contest Rules: Winner must accept a check for payment.

Kevin asks, "So why the enthusiasm?"

This fits in perfectly with republican ideology. It's just more corporate welfare disguised as something that's available for the average Joe.

Dave Brown: It's just more corporate welfare disguised as something that's available for the average Joe.

Exactly. The days of the basement inventor -- except for eccentric millionaires doing R&D as a hobby -- are long gone. The resources required for this kind of R&D effort are available to the Government and to large corporations. Unfortunately, Government R&D funding seems to be static or shrinking and corporate entities need the money to pay their CEOs' salaries. And even if someone came up with the perfect battery, so what? Until we learn to shit electricity, there's still that other part of the problem.

Cars have to go. They will, with or without our consent, so we might as well try and make it an orderly transition.

The reason for prizes is obvious. By offering a prize, you can get dozens, hundreds, even thousands of people working on a project, but you only need to pay only the winner.

The problem is, of course, that many potential problem-solvers will find it impossible to pursue a solution because of money constraints. A further difficulty is that many of the issues civilization now faces require collective effort, and the money constraint issue is compounded by team's monitary needs (i.e. they have to support their families).

Prizes have had anecdotal success, but ultimately do not function as reliably as a paid, coordinated effort. Moreover, funding research at Universities or private labs supports the community, and spreads the benefits throughout society. If a successful effort is commercially viable, the reward factor is already there.

"Worrying about "peak everything" obscures the real question, which is "what is the lifespan of a technological civilization?"" - Pocket Rocket

This is a very good point that needs to be considered. Contrary to the constant talk of new technological innovation as the solution, one of the primary ways to achieve conservation is to drastically reduce our collective use of technology. Underlying the chatter regarding new technologies is the idea that nothing major has to change - some smart person invents a new battery and all of us can still drive our individual cars to work every day.

A big problem with technology - at least with the idea of reducing our use of technology - is that it gives the users a decided advantage over the non-users. Sure, there are all sorts of cons to technology, but who really doubts that our lives aren't way easier today? So, collectively and environmentally, we might be way better off accepting that life wasn't meant to be so easy, but who thinks that is gonna happen?

So, I would extend Pocket Rocket's question and ask "has there ever been a society willing to walk away from advanced technologies - or even a decent subset of their technologies - for the common good?"

Peak lithium? Hey, what's next, peak salt water?

Lithium in Abundance gives the lie to this silliness.

Peak oil is real, but that doesn't mean everything is suddenly peak. The funny thing about minerals is they don't give a damn about the latest fashions in apocalyptic predictions.

While we're at it, did you know that we hit Peak Iron over sixty years ago? Why did you miss that? Oh, right, that was based on the assumption that you had to use magnetite as an ore, and then some kill joys figured out how to get it from taconite. What's an apocalyptic philosopher to do, what with all those f***ing engineers and scientists foiling predictions of the end of technological society and human near-extinction.

Oh, how about Peak Wood? England hit that in the 14th century. Peak Tin? Hit that one about 1200 B.C. Yeah, then some smart asses starting smelting iron because bronze was getting too expensive.

HungChad: "has there ever been a society willing to walk away from advanced technologies - or even a decent subset of their technologies - for the common good?"

Probably not. The next question would be, are we smart enough to make our technologies as useful as they are now in improving our quality of life, and yet less destructive. That is the real challenge we face.

I would also question if all this crap we live with today is really making our lives easier, but that's another discussion.

thersites: The next question would be, are we smart enough to make our technologies as useful as they are now in improving our quality of life, and yet less destructive. That is the real challenge we face.

Stop it! Can't you see that HungChad and his/her fellow thinkers are busy contemplating their navels and predicting the End Of Days? I mean, they're not as much fun as the rapture crowd (who at least think that some will be saved), but they're entitled to their pondering nonetheless.

"It's not as if battery development is currently some kind of big government boondoggle, after all. Lots of private sector companies are working on new battery technology, and they're doing it because the potential market is worth tens of billions of dollars. An extra $300 million isn't really much of an incentive at all."

Kevin nails it. The prize is chump change to the companies and VCs funding new battery technologies. This is an idea that came out of a conservative think-tank, not anyone actually involved in developing or funding new technology.

Seems unlikely any great breakthroughs will be made in batteries due to the physical limitations of possible electrode pairs, which have been well investigated over the years. Thomas Edison investigated about 50,000 different battery configurations. I don't know if any great improvements have been made over the Edison battery that was once widely used in electric autos.

If we want any innovation in this country, we should get rid of "hired to invent," otherwise known as "pissing on the grave of Thomas Edison"--something Japan is not handicapped with. Once might wonder why Japan is becoming the technology leader?--a country so rigid and uncreative that "the nail that sticks out must be driven down." Mysterious.

Exactly what will be the power source for charging all those batteries???"

Solar power would work well -- just install one on the roof of the house or a group of them for apartments, and that should work. Wind power could as well.

Of course, that adds more batteries into the equation, which brings up more disposal issues, and so on.

But it could be done without blowing the current grid to bits, so let's throw out that red herring, shall we?

Luther: Thomas Edison investigated about 50,000 different battery configurations.

Well, if the Great Empiricist himself considered the case closed, then it must be closed! I'm going to get rid of all my lead-acid, NiMH and lithium batteries. Hey, it's Tom's NiFe all the way!

Edison also investigated over 2000 different light bulb filament materials, and wound up right back where he started - carbonized thread. End of story!

It's rumored though that some people, obviously ignorant of or too arrogant to appreciate that the Great Empiricist himself considered the case closed, who are experimenting with tungsten.

Greater heresy: work is being done on something called "fluorescent" lights. Must be the work of that Tesla fellow, with his "AC" (never work) and his science and math. Bah, humbug! Or LED's - positively preposterous! Or sodium vapor (high or low pressure), etc., etc., etc.!

Why the fascination with prizes? I submit it's an example of a mindset I've started calling YOD-YOT - "your own dime, your own time" which is becoming the norm for all kinds of training, education, and research activities that used to be funded by employers or the public.

My husband previously worked in the graphics & design field, and now teaches it, and has seen this change up-close and personal. It used to be, you could be hired in as a keyliner (just pasting down the elements of an ad, brochure, or whatever) and be trained by the company in the more intricate jobs and equipment. Now, you learn on your own dime, your own time. They want you fully ready to step into whatever job they have on offer on, dare I say it, Day One... and that's right down to knowing/having experience with the particular version of the design software they use.

RE: Luther on June 24, 2008 at 11:44 AM, alex on June 24, 2008 at 12:02 PM

The inherent problem with a battery is the same inherent problem of an explosive: if you have all the chemical constituents of a reaction in close proximity, and they store a lot of energy, you have the risk of spontaneous reaction. The virtue of a tank of gasoline is that it contains very little oxygen, so the fire hazard is minimal. A fuel cell is a kind of battery, but its chemicals have to be something which can be produced from electricity, and which can be readily piped in from a fuel tank. The problem with the most logical chemical, hydrogen, is that it is extremely corrosive, and tends to produce flammable leakages.

The one really workable alternative is electric traction: that is, you build an electric power supply into the road, typically by an overhead wire, and provide each vehicle with a sliding contact to take up power. Electric traction is already used on a large scale, and the question is only how to adapt it to wider range of uses. The problem is that the road is public property, and McCain cannot think intelligently about public property because he would then be, [gasp!], a socialist.

Thersites - agreed.

Alex - OK, I'll bite and respond to your childish and non-productive attack. I am pretty sure that I am not and have never been in the business of "predicting the End of Days." Nevertheless, let me thank you for permission to ponder.

Not that I think this will matter to a guy like Alex, who obviously has this all figured out, but the reason I post thoughts in a place like the Washington Monthly is because I am trying to think through these problems and I look forward to input from other posters. Alex, I had actually read your previous post and thought it made some interesting points regarding the "peak" of other minerals. I am not sure it did much to address the environmental impacts of using minerals in a non-sustainable manner. I also think it ignored the fact that we are living on a small planet with a rapidly growing population. So, no, I am not in the prediction business and I don't think the end of time is nigh, but I do reserve the right to discuss how we plan to spend the time while we are here. If that suggests that I am worried about the planet on which I live and my children will live, I don't apologize.

As a follow up to my comments to Alex, I would add the following. Once you get beyond his unnecessary sarcasm and condescending attitude, he does make a very good underlying point in several posts - that is, saying it hasn't been done or can't be done is often wrong. As a research scientist, I constantly see what was previously considered impossible proven to be possible.

If lithium is good, dilithium must be better (but only if you find it in its crystaline form).

The answer for basic transportation is a continuously energized grid. Then all that is required is efficient motor technology. A national program of road or track following embedded photo voltaics, supplemented with wind energy would help power it. Then, bicycles or regular battery power could be used to leave the grid system (and would have already recharged a conventional battery). Seems the problem is one of scale of the system rather than simply batteries . . .

Peak lithium?!

Dammit, I'm already competing with bio-ethanol for my food. Now I'm going to have electric cars muscling in on my meds? At this rate I'm going to be too hungry and manic to drive anyway!

"Attention: Lithium is no longer available on credit."

"I'm curious about is why conservatives are so ga-ga over the whole prize concept." There are two plain reasons -- (1) to give the appearance of caring about the environment without any regulatory effort -- just wait on the global warming or whatever problem until technology catches up -- and (2)the DeLay/Abramoff principle -- like earmarks, the contest might be rigged to get the prize to a buddy.

What we really need are cars that run on potatoes - just like those alarm clocks.

Scaling up won't be such a problem after the die-off. Lose about four billion planet-mates and suddenly there's an abundance of resources. Add in car-pooling and we could get away with a billion plug-ins.

One of my favorite parts of McSame's speech was when he talked about emission free "hybrid" cars.

Am I wrong that hybrids ALL use gas or diesel along with batter power?

Cal Gal, you are right, McCain is full of shit as usual. Hybrids do use portable hydrocarbon fuel as well as batteries. Also, I wanted to point out that it is very unlikely we are going to get something truly "revolutionary" in an energy breakthrough unless it is related to fusion power. There are going to be a lot of incremental improvements in a variety of technologies that will make all the difference. Conventional crude oil has thus far just been so cheap nobody wanted to mess with it. Alternative(s) are plural.

What's next? Reopening the ocean up for whale hunting? There's no fuel like old fuel, yah know!

It depends an awful lot on how you define "car". If you're willing to ride in a very small car that is very aerodynamic, then you don't need much in the way of power, so you don't need much in the way of batteries.

Doc & Cal Gal,

Hate to shill for McCain, but the whole idea of plug in hybrids (as opposed to "conventional" hyrids) is that they will be able to get the majority of their power off of the grid, not out of a gas pump. Not pollution free, but potentially a lot better than what we have, and not inextricably linked to mid-east oil.

>for a device that produces clean energy and “recharges itself” with clean energy as you use it with zero loss

I win!! And you are now the proud owner of a horse named "Stormy".

Of course I don't want to ride a horse to work - I don't even like riding, the horse is my wife's (and I would love to see it gone, frankly).

The thing is as somebody said above, we have absolutely no vision of a different world. The real "plug in hybrid" we are looking for is something that can be inserted almost invisibly into the current way we do things and have it somehow solve all our problems.

Infernal combustion engine a problem on both the intake (needs too much oil) and exhaust (pollution) side? Replace it with a motor an battery, somehow.

We can't even consider different ways of doing things. Look at me - the first thing *I* said about the horse is that I didn't want to "ride it to work".

Because I don't know any other way but to have a house at point A and a job at point B, and for 4+ out of every 7 days* going to work and back is what I have to do.

I know this isn't helpful. But I don't know what people like Alex are actually getting at. We have more problems than just energy. How is any new technology going to permanently solve traffic jams, for instance?

*I'm an American, so for you Europeans we get 10 "holidays" and maybe 15 days of vacation a year, so work it out across 52 weeks.