An excellent prioritized future wish list from Glenn Reynolds. Glenn’s list is pretty much the same as mine [except for #5, see below]. I think the topics most deserving of policy emphasis are #4 and #2. I emphasize the nuclear power topic because the lead time is long, but with suitable moon-shot leadership, the impact on CO2 emissions will be dramatic. I.e., it is possible to change the climate in which utilities make investment decisions in order to bring about wide spread deployment within 20 years. Breakthroughs are not required – just getting on with commercial scale implementations.
1. advanced batteries for PHEVs
2. rapid health response, e.g., for avian flu or bio-terrorism
3. nanotechnology
4. next generation nuclear power.
Another reason for emphasizing #4 and #2 are that these topics are less amenable to high-leverage X-Prize type incentives.
I would propose one more top-priority topic:
5. commercial scale carbon capture and sequestration
Excerpts:
» Better batteries: Electric cars offer tremendous promise. Electric propulsion is efficient, allowing operation at an energy cost of pennies per mile. Electricity generated from America’s plentiful coal stocks can, by taking the place of gasoline, promote energy independence.
Electricity generated by nuclear or hydroelectric plants can promote both energy independence and reduced greenhouse emissions. But you can’t run an electric cable to automobiles, which means the problem is batteries.
Today’s batteries are barely up to the task. A battery that could hold as much energy as a tank of gasoline — and recharge nearly as fast as a gas tank can be filled — would be a godsend. Some new technologies, including ultracapacitors, which aren’t really batteries at all as they store electricity directly instead of holding it as chemical changes, promise that sort of capability eventually.
Sooner would be better than later. This is a place where federal research spending might make a difference.
» Rapid Health Response: Between the threat of new natural epidemic diseases such as SARS or avian flu, and the threat of biological warfare or terrorism, we need to be ready to spot the threats as soon as they appear, and to respond quickly.
Numerous technological thinkers, ranging from futurist Ray Kurzweil to former Senate Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist, have called for a major effort to develop new disease surveillance technologies, and new technologies for the rapid development of vaccines, antiviral drugs, and other medications to allow a swift response.
We should be able to have a working vaccine within 30 days or less of encountering a new infectious agent, rather than taking years. Kurzweil and Frist both support a major effort along these lines (both, in fact, invoke the Manhattan Project as an analogy) and, while I fear that such a crash program isn’t in the cards, we need to be moving in this direction as rapidly as we can.
0 Responses to “Four top science/technology priorities”