Not In My Backyard

Every time there is a disturbance in the Middle East and the price of oil goes up, we get up in arms about achieving energy independence. "Let's exploit our own resources", goes the cry. We've got coal, wind, oil, gas, geothermal, solar and waves, all in abundance!! We don't need to be dependent on people half way around the world who don't like us much in the first place.

Then reality sets in. Mine the coal, but don't alter the landscape. Put up windmills or solar farms, but not where I have to look at them. Tap the massive gas reserves in the Marcellus shale, but don't let drilling trucks drive on the roads, risk pollution or contaminate the countryside with unsightly wells. Build more nuclear power plants, but don't put one where I might be in danger if an accident should occur.

Is it any wonder why so many foreign countries hate us when we are perfectly willing to ravage their countryside in order to preserve the quality of our own?

Let me suggest the following:

1. The first step to energy independence is to reduce consumption. Do it! I live in the northeast USA. How much do homes REALLY need air-conditioning? Sure, it's more comfortable on those few very hot days, but most of the time a whole house fan can do just as good of a job for a fraction of the cost. Wherever you live, if you stop and think, there is something you do that consumes energy that you could do without. No matter how small, just do it.
   
2. The next time someone wants to exploit a resource in or near your community, think about the steps that need to be taken to ensure that is done in a reasonably safe and aesthetic manner. Far too much time is spent just killing these projects rather than coming up with creative ways to make them work. Don't listen to the hype in the media. Do the research, find out what the real risks are and participate in getting the risks resolved in a cost effective manner.
   
3. The next time you feel like your quality of life is being threatened by an energy development that you are concerned about, also think of where your current energy comes from and who is sacrificing their quality of life so that you can enjoy yours.

Nothing is free in this world. It doesn't do any good to say DO reduce our dependence on foreign oil but DON'T do anything that costs me money, time, comfort or environmental impact. Unfortunately we can't have it all ways.

Too Many Choices?

In the movie "The Hurt Locker" Sgt. James returns home from a tour in Iraq as the leader of an Explosive Ordinance Disposal team. One scene finds James standing in the cereal aisle of a grocery store, apparently bewildered by the endless choices. Recently I had a similar feeling standing in the potato chip aisle. From the front of the store to the back, a good 150 feet, nothing but potato chips, pretzels, tortilla chips and popcorn.

As Americans, we expect choice. Choice in chips, cars, computers.... almost everything. Furthermore, it is choice that drives innovation and competition. What motivation would there be to make a better (well, at least different) potato chip if it weren't for the opportunity to increase market share.

On the other hand though, the choice does not come without a cost. Some amount of choice provides competition, which, hopefully, keeps prices down. However, each time a product or service is replicated in the name of choice/competitition, several parts of the costly infrastructure are also replicated. Design, development, HR, procurement, transportation and manufacturing to name a few. So, while some amount of choice is good for innovation and cost control, too much leads to unnecessary replication of costly infrastructure.

In the long term, this excess "choice" is not sustainable. We recently found out we really didn't need so many car choices. We really didn't need Chrysler, Dodge and Plymouth did we? But where do we draw the line and how is it drawn? While it seems extremely wasteful to me to have an entire grocery store aisle dedicated to snack foods, apparently the manufacturers of these different varieties are just responding to the wishes of the market. My gut feeling is that we could be perfectly satisfied with half as many kinds of snack food and cereal. Assuming consumption stays constant, the remaining half would have to ramp up production and perhaps become more efficient, while duplicated infrastructure of the removed half would reduce cost. In other words, surviving providers would sell twice as much product for the same design and development cost.

Which products should we eliminate and what should the displaced personnel do? Well, the answer to the first will have to wait for future blog posts because, as with many things, we humans seem to be able to agree that reducing cost is good, as long as I am not the one inconvenienced. Think of energy independence, health care and budget cuts resulting from falling tax revenues.

And what should the displace personnel do? I might be a little over optimistic, but if we spend less time, money and effort searching for the next best potato chip, perhaps we can spend more on how to reduce energy consumption while maintaining a high standard of living.