Skip to comments.
PROF. SMALLEY'S LATEST BIG IDEA:
NANO-ENERGY WILL SAVE THE EARTH
SmallTimes ^
| Aug. 28, 2002
| Stephan Herrera
Posted on 08/13/2003 9:55:28 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
|
|
|
|
Photo by George Craig
"I think nanotech will play a role in providing the answers to these seemingly impossible problems that we all agree are soon going to be our childrens problems," said Richard Smalley.
|
|
|
|
MONTREAL Aug. 28, 2002 Nanotech guru Richard Smalley is working on a new challenge his biggest one yet. And he traveled Monday to Montreal to test it in front of an audience of aerospace scientists gathered at a former fortress that happens to sit in the shadow of a large geodesic dome. Smalley, of course, won a Nobel Prize for work on a rather small one called C-60, the novel carbon also known as Buckminsterfullerene in honor of Buckminster Fuller, who invented the geodesic dome. With his trademark flourish of science lecture laced with references to poetry and philosophy, Smalley told the audience of roughly 100 researchers attending the CANEUS Canada-Europe-U.S.-Asia workshop on the aerospace applications of nano- and microtechnologies that he aims to prove that nanotech can help save the world. And he set about making the case that nanotechnologists, believe it or not, are thinking too small. When he asked the audience of scientists to name the "most impossible problems facing us," they came up with: energy, water, selfishness, population, pollution, climate change, food, religion, wealth imbalance, health and war. "Other than religion, and well, maybe selfishness," he said, "I think nanotech will play a role in providing the answers to these seemingly impossible problems that we all agree are soon going to be our childrens problems. My idea is that if you solve the energy question, youll solve a lot of those other problems in the process." Smalley has been formulating this theory that nanotech can save the world over the past several months, most recently in testimony at a congressional hearing on the future direction of the U.S. Department of Energy. Smalleys opening statement in the congressional hearing put Monday night's talk into context: "I will get right to the point. Energy is the single most important problem facing humanity today. We must find an alternative to oil. We need to somehow provide clean, abundant, low-cost energy throughout the world to the 6 billion people that live on the planet today, and the 10+ billion that are expected by the middle of this century. The cheaper, cleaner, and more universally available this new energy technology is, the better we will be able to avoid human suffering, and the major upheavals of war and terrorism." Smalley is not the first one to suggest that its high time for humankind to find an alternative to fossil fuels, which now account for nearly three-quarters of the worlds energy consumption. Likewise, boosters have long predicted that at the very least nanotechnology, specifically nanotech-enhanced improvements to prosaic things like catalysis and filtration, can help improve the efficiency of the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels, and reduce harmful byproducts like carbon dioxide theoretically by orders of magnitude over existing technologies. What Smalley is pondering, however, is the day when nanotechnology flat out comes up with a practical alternative that makes fossil fuels a moot point. He is not talking about hydro or wind power (too location-specific). Nor is he talking about nuclear power. "There isnt enough uranium to replace fossil fuels," he said. His alternative? Energy from the sun and the Earths core. "I dont know how it would work yet," he said. "And I dont know if it will make anybody rich and I dont want applause, I just want to know if there is a life force to this argument. I think there is." There certainly was force to it Monday night not enough to solve the immense technical challenges of harvesting the immense heat trapped at the Earths core and blasted out into space every nanosecond from the surface of the sun, but therein lies Smalley's mission. Tim Harper, chief executive of the nanotech information service CMP Cientifica, said no doubt about it: "Once again, Smalley is onto something. This is the kind of thing that can really focus our efforts." But will it be enough to curry the necessary funding at a time when government science budgets and capital markets are already stretched thin? And, as one conference participant said to another: "Smalleys idea would change everything. Im quite sure for the better, but his president likes oil and his vice president isnt too keen on alternatives. Lets hope for the rest of the worlds sake that those two are thinking about the problems our children will face if they dont at least find the courage to test Ricks theory."
|
|
|
|
|
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: earth; nanotech; techindex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
OKKKK!
To: *tech_index; Salo; MizSterious; shadowman99; Sparta; freedom9; martin_fierro; PatriotGames; ...
2
posted on
08/13/2003 9:56:52 AM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(All we need from a Governor is a VETO PEN!!!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
they came up with: energy, water, selfishness, population, pollution, climate change, food, religion, wealth imbalance, health and war.
No mention of the tyranny that exists in much of the world, as well as lack of liberty and basic human rights.
No, the liberals seem to have won over these guys - it sounds more like Democratic talking points than a list of the real problems in the world.
To: babyface00
It seems to me that at a gathering of scientists, most of the problems mentioned will be scientific in nature, with a few token political ones scattered in. There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that any of them are liberal.
Smalley is a brilliant guy, and I'm eager to see where he takes this. Hopefully he'll bring my university another Nobel Prize if this pans out.
4
posted on
08/13/2003 10:10:47 AM PDT
by
NetOwl
To: babyface00
bump
5
posted on
08/13/2003 10:10:56 AM PDT
by
techcor
(What crayon do I use to draw a blank?)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
His alternative? Energy from the sun and the Earths core. "I dont know how it would work yet," he said. "And I dont know if it will make anybody rich and I dont want applause, I just want to know if there is a life force to this argument. I think there is."
Applause???????
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
GREY GOO ALERT
7
posted on
08/13/2003 10:26:37 AM PDT
by
Mike Darancette
(Save Traditional Marriage -- It's for the Children!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
NANO-ENERGY WILL SAVE THE EARTHSo we are doomed in our present state... IDIOTS.
8
posted on
08/13/2003 10:28:23 AM PDT
by
69ConvertibleFirebird
(Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
To: PeterPrinciple
Not the same thing as dealing with traditional solar power, of course. A sound bite like that couldn't possibly capture his reasoning about where the energy could come from, though the sun sure does emit a lot of it. It's tempting to say his idea focuses more on a way to harness energy, and hence the vastly different sources he mentioned. In any case, there's a lot more to this than putting up solar panels.
9
posted on
08/13/2003 10:29:37 AM PDT
by
NetOwl
To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
They're not idiots, and yes, at the present rate, the oil will eventually run out. Maybe not for a long time, but it will happen.
10
posted on
08/13/2003 10:30:38 AM PDT
by
NetOwl
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"There isnt enough uranium to replace fossil fuels," he said.Huh?
11
posted on
08/13/2003 10:34:44 AM PDT
by
Petronski
(I'm not always cranky.)
To: NetOwl
We always hear that we have enough oil to last for decades, but what if something unexpected happened to change that? If a limited nuclear exchange were to occur (someone is going to screw up and try to ivade Isreal again one of these days) that wiped out many of the mid-east oil fields, it could take a long time to get the oil fields in the rest of the world producing enough to even come close to what we use now, and those wouldn't last forever either. It would be nice if someone had a "Plan-B" on the back-burner somewhere.
12
posted on
08/13/2003 10:40:06 AM PDT
by
Orangedog
(Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
To: NetOwl
Selfishness?! Religion?
Those sound scientific.
To: babyface00
Those fall under the banner of token political topics.
If more non-scientific problems were mentioned, then the reporter probably didn't feel the need to mention them. Remember, this is just an article, not a transcript of all the talks given.
14
posted on
08/13/2003 10:50:16 AM PDT
by
NetOwl
To: NetOwl
"When he asked the audience of scientists to name the "most impossible problems facing us," they came up with: energy, water, selfishness, population, pollution, climate change, food, religion, wealth imbalance, health and war. "
Maybe the reporter's leaving something out, but he didn't say "name some...problems" he said "name the...problems".
It's not just religion and selfishness, its all of the problems:
energy - we've go enough to last centuries, if we could just get the envirowackos out of the way - hardly an impossible problem
water - it might be a problem longterm, but hardly insurmountable
population - debunked extensively
pollution - largely solved in the industrialized world
climate change - debunked extensively
wealth imbalance - only in communist/socialist countries
health - we're all living longer and healthier than ever in the history of mankind
war - what few, short wars we have are conducted with surgical precision to result in levels of peripheral damage unimaginable just short decades ago. Compare that to say the early and mid 20th century, or the early 19th century.
Most of these aren't even problems and certainly none are "impossible" I'd hate to fly in a plane these geniuses were responsible for designing. Maybe they should concentrate on figuring out where socks go in the dryer.
To: NetOwl
...the oil will eventually run out. Maybe not for a long time, but it will happen.Nobody is disputing that. How are we "doomed" because of it? That is what is idiotic: The "we're all gonna die(!!!!)" scenario.
16
posted on
08/13/2003 11:03:10 AM PDT
by
69ConvertibleFirebird
(Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
To: babyface00
That's a defeatist attitude to some of those problems.
As I mentioned, energy *is* a long-term problem. Just because it won't come to a head tomorrow doesn't mean oil will last forever, and there's nothing wrong with finding something better even in the short term. What with it being the 21st century and all, it's about time we find a high tech way to power things.
No one said water was an impossible problem to solve, but it is still something to think about, and it's an issue that can improve.
Population is not a problem in some parts of the world, but tell that to the people in India or Africa.
Pollution is still an issue in some places, and certain types of pollution could have, until recently, had detrimental effects on the ozone layer. Things like that do get solved, but that doesn't mean they go away from ignoring them. Talking about issues like that doesn't make a person stupid.
I'd like to see how climate change has been debunked. Everything I've read says that recently the earth has been heating up, though eventually it will go back into an ice age.
Wealth imbalance is indeed a problem as long as there are commies out there, though that's clearly a problem scientists won't solve.
Our health is getting better, but WHY STOP NOW? There are still plenty of diseases and other maladies out there, and various fields are exhibiting enormous growth today. I'm biased toward biochemisty and neuroscience, but I can definitely say that recent advances in those have me practically drooling when I think about the future.
The U.S. may not have been involved in much war lately, but that doesn't mean other countries aren't still killing people wantonly.
It's easy to sit behind a computer and talk about how stupid you think our scientists are, but in the long run, they are the ones bringing us new technology and new knowledge. It's even more dishonest to complain about the wording of an article and use that as an excuse to try to bash scientists. I think it's about time conservatives stopped trying to separate themselves from those in academia, especially the scientific areas (though I still find much scholarship in the humanities nauseating), and embrace the future.
After all, this guy has a Nobel Prize. He's darned smart, and you know it.
17
posted on
08/13/2003 11:13:14 AM PDT
by
NetOwl
To: NetOwl
Sigh. I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond. Did you read my posts? Did you read the article? Have you spent any time here on FR?
I don't have a defeatest attitude. If I said the problems were unsolvable, then I'd have a defeatest attitude. Pointing out the problems are mostly not problems, and that they aren't impossible (the criteria, by the way, for this list, if you read the article), isn't defeatest.
Energy a long term problem? Yeah, when the sun goes out. It might get more expensive, but that doesn't make it an impossible problem, and no where did I suggest we should just coast along ignoring it.
The rest of the points are answered similarly. If you don't think climate change has been debunked, you need to stop getting your information from ABC/NBC/CBS and Time/Warner. Do a little research. Think on your own.
I don't know where I implied scientists are stupid, but their list of impossible problems reads like Democratic talking points. If they actually believe these are "impossible problems" then they are stupid, whether they are scientist or not. That, or they're blind.
And BTW, its not conservatives who seperated themselves from academia, its academia who gave up the search for truth and logic and jumped on the hysterical liberal bandwagon, of which this list is a good example.
Lastly, getting Nobel prize, even in science, doesn't mean diddly when you talk about issues outside your field. I bet he's a genius in nanotechnology, but that doesn't prove he can make a sandwich, much less figure out what the world's problems are, outside of nanotechnology. He's a scientist, not a god.
To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
..the oil will eventually run out. Maybe not for a long time, but it will happen. Nobody is disputing that.
I will. I read here somewhere that the type of oil they are getting out of old wells is different than the type of oil they used to get out of those same wells. Almost as if it is being regenerated down there somehow. Until that is proved or disproved I wouldn't say the oil is running out.
But then again the "long time" gives an awful amount of weasel space. Say 10,000 years or so? then it probably will run out, but by then we'll be on other planets also. (or the Lord will have come back and fixed the whole problem)
19
posted on
08/13/2003 11:35:48 AM PDT
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: babyface00
Geez, hostility reigns supreme! First, your claims that I didn't read the article fall flat. I did, and in fact you are the one who needs to check it again. The problems listed were "most impossible," not impossible. Defeatist would be saying that we're done improving health. My wording was poor, so I'll give you that. Again, the fact that we have the sun does not mean it's not a problem harnessing its energy. You can't put just hold your stereo above your head and expect it to run. I find it telling that you didn't provide very your response to most of my points, but more telling that you didn't address my main point, which was that you are merely using a choice or words as an excuse to attack people. That won't win you points. You seem to be lumping all academics together, which is, again, unwarranted. Scientists are *not* pushing any liberal agenda. Attack the humanities people all you want (though be careful not to generalize), but I don't see how looking for advances in nanotechnology and chemistry qualifies as jumping on a liberal bandwagon. That sort of reactionary comment is just why liberals like to view us as stupid and backwards. I know Dr. Smalley, and I know he's smart and very competent. Yes, he can make a sandwich just fine. More importantly, your criticism does not apply because his talk was about nanotechnolgy, so he was *not* outside his field! You seem to be scraping for reasons to insult a guy you don't even know. I don't have to have been signed up on this site for long to recognize that.
20
posted on
08/13/2003 11:37:07 AM PDT
by
NetOwl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson