Those who know technology have a separate culture
and their own manner of speaking.
by Michael Jennings
Futurepower ® Technology Consulting
(January 22, 2009 version)
When talking about technology in a political context, it is absolutely necessary to have a complete understanding of the important technical details. Otherwise there can be very negative results.
For example, the Obama administration sent an email with a link to a video that had a short segment of Ms. Carol Browner talking about the plans of the Obama administration for the U.S. economy. At approximately 1:14 in the video, she says, "... whether it would be the people who will string the high-volt lines...”
Video, see the segment beginning at 1:14:
http://www.youtube.com/v/rhtE2EfFXvY
I have great respect for Ms. Browner and for her abilities. However, it is impossible for someone with little technology experience to be consistently accurate about technology. Leaders must have an adviser who has hands-on technology experience.
Someone who understands both the technology and the politics would not make such a casual reference to a painful, contentious, politically charged issue. Comments that show a lack of understanding tarnish the Obama administration's reputation. If the Obama administration continues without adequate advice, the administration will attract people who are using fraud to try to make money, as I will show below.
"The correct term is "high-voltage", not "high-volt". People who understand the technology hear Ms. Browner's words in a negative way. Misusing technical terms gives the impression that Ms. Browner does not understand the issues. That gives the impression that the administration does not understand the issues.
Hidden behind the words "string the high-volt lines" is the fact that in most cases using wind or sun to generate electricity cannot at present be profitable. The problem is that the best place to generate electricity from wind or the sun is almost always land of lesser value that is far from the place where the energy is needed, which is usually in cities. So it is necessary to have transmission lines, and the idea is to get the U.S. taxpayer to pay for the lines.
The cost is far higher because no one wants extremely high-voltage transmission line towers on their property. The towers and lines are ugly and they reduce the value of the property over which they run. An accident involving the line will likely be lethal.
The word “stringing” when used by technically knowledgeable people means that wires will be installed in places where there is already structures to put them. But in most cases of new alternative energy sites those structures do not exist. To make wind or solar energy available in cities, thousands of huge towers will be built. So the word “stringing” is misleading.
The power lines will carry DC, direct current, rather than AC, alternating current, because only DC is efficient enough when the power lines are hundreds of miles long. Direct current is much more difficult to control in case of power line or generation equipment problems. The lines will carry what is called "plus and minus" 500,000 volts or more. To find the true voltage, add the plus and minus voltages to get 1,000,000 volts, a frightening
figure for many people.
To get some idea of the political intensity of the issues with which the administration is involving itself, it is only necessary to read a short article from the Argonne National Laboratory, one of the 10 national laboratories under the Department of Energy. The plan is to take the land for the power lines by force:
National Electric Transmission Congestion Report and Final National Corridor Designations -- Frequently Asked Questions (PDF file), October 2, 2007
http://nietc.anl.gov/documents/docs/FAQs_re_National_Corridors_10_02_07.pdf
Quotes from section 2 paragraph 2: "... if an applicant does not receive approval from a State ..." to build transmission towers and lines, the applicant could apply to the federal government for a permit. "Such a federal permit would empower the project developer to exercise the right of eminent domain..."
Eminent domain means that the government would forcibly take away the owner's land. Since the lines would often be hundreds of miles long, that means forcibly taking the land of hundreds or even thousands of owners and installing ugly towers and lines that can be seen from a long distance and that lower the value of surrounding property.
Here is just one example of a typical attitude toward forcibly taking land: "West Virginia Public Service Commission staff economist, Michael Ileo, testified before the West Virginia commission that the power line would cost state residents $41.5 million in reduced property values."
See the quote from Michael Ileo in the article, Transmission Developers Jolted (January 14, 2008):
http://www.michigangreen.org/article232.html
At best, it will be discovered that the land owners should give their land for the good of the people in general, and that the power of eminent domain is necessary. In that case, it is far better that the Obama administration be very careful to show respect for the painful adjustments that are necessary. Casual, unfeeling comments can cause enormous political stress as land owners contact their senators and congressmen.
At worst, the Obama administration could inadvertently get itself involved with crime. Some of the proposed projects to supplement U.S. energy supply with electricity generated by the sun or wind have an element of fraud. Some energy projects can only be profitable for the investors if the taxpayers donate money. In effect, the profit from the venture would be money from taxpayers, not real profit. The energy project would in effect be a smokescreen used to hide embezzlement of taxpayer money. Those who want technological fraud are attracted to people in power who obviously have little technological understanding.
There's a way for the Obama administration to avoid the enormous political hassles caused by misunderstanding technology. Find an adviser who has serious hand-on technical experience. The Obama administration needs someone to write reports that help explain technological issues to those in the administration who have never designed or built anything involving technology.
It is necessary that all projects be examined to understand if they are actually beneficial for the country. That can only be done by someone who has plenty of technological experience. To understand a technological project overall it is necessary to understand many, many technical details, because there are often serious issues hiding in those details.
Having run a technological venture capital company or written papers about the economics of technology is not technological experience. Few people with technological degrees have such an intense interest in technology that they have taught themselves. To be successful as an adviser, it is necessary to know far more than 10 times what anyone learns at a university. So degrees tend to be irrelevant.
There are two other important requirements for a technology adviser. He or she must be skilled in both the sociology and psychology of the people who work with technology. Those issues are discussed briefly in our manual and in our articles.
We are completely qualified to help the administration. See our web site at:
www.futurepower.net
Other articles: Click on the DOE or GOV menu choices to see other articles about political problems involving technology.
Read our Technology Consulting manual:
www.futurepower.net/about/white_manual.html
Technology is also a culture and a language. Trying to speak about technological issues without help from an adviser is like someone who speaks only English trying to speak Italian. A native speaker of Italian will immediately know that Italian is not the English speaker's native language. The consequences of making mistakes when talking about technology are far more severe.
Copyright ©2009 Michael Jennings.
Exact printed copies may be made for any purpose.
Do not make online copies. Instead, link here;
that will assure that everyone reads the latest version. |
