Last week, Google.org announced that it would partner with power generation and electrical engineering giant General Electric to promote the development of a “smart” electrical grid – a badly needed infrastructure upgrade that might have dramatically more hope under the new Obama administration than under the conservative government of the past eight years. Google.org, which represents the philanthropic arm of the search engine company, has been pursuing better renewable energy technology for several years now. It’s all part of a program they call “RE
Among other things, the Google program has resulted in innovations and large investments for solar, wind and geothermal technology. And Google knows it cannot achieve any sort of long-term economic competitiveness for renewables if we don’t have a better electrical grid.
There’s been a lot of talk about this “smart grid” infrastructure project from politicians, environmentalists and industry leaders for several years now. It might be important to step back and talk about this for a second. Many readers are probably fully aware of this problem already.
Put simply, the problem is that while coal can be stoked into furnaces that turn turbines at a constant and adjustable rate, power generated by renewables is nowhere near as reliable or flexible to consumer needs. Solar energy only generates during the day, when the sun shines; wind only generates when wind is blowing, and where it is blowing; and both hydro and geothermal generation rely on specific advantageous locations to generate their power. As a result, any long-term renewable solution to our energy dependence will rely partially on the ability to transfer power from one place to another across a “smart grid,” partially on the ability to store power when it’s not being used for times that it is, and partially on the ability of consumers to alter their lifestyles (oh, no!). General Electric’s mission here is not nearly as philanthropic: If we do get a “smart grid” installed, it will probably employ GE technology, which means big profits for the technology firm. It should be mentioned that Google, as major shareholders in renewable companies through RE
Regardless of whether or not RE
We could call this “inspired obsolescence” – activism that seeks to get rid of some oppressive or morally deplorable practice by making it no longer effective to its intended purposes. Often, this has occurred as a result of technological accident.
An un-environmental example is the way nuclear weapons arguably ended the practice of direct war between nations that possessed them. Prior to their development, it was fairly common that the nations of Europe went to war with each other. France would fight Britain, Germany would fight France, etc.
But if both sides in a conflict have nuclear weapons, neither side can be sure that engaging in war will ensure either its defense or enhance its wealth. In fact, both can be fairly certain it won’t. Nuclear weapons by both sides could result in the obliteration of the entire world, and therefore the likelihood that war would be counterproductive increased dramatically. As war between nuclear powers no longer served its intended purposes, it was rendered obsolete.
Google seeks to apply a similar logic to the coal industry. Coal is a major source of electrical power worldwide because it serves a purpose, namely generating energy that is cheap and constant. Google figures if renewable energy is made cheaper and more constant than coal, then coal will simply be rendered obsolete, no matter what TV ads say about “clean coal.” In essence, coal survives because it’s cheaper than renewables. If this is no longer not the case, then coal dies.
This is not the first time environmentalists have done this. Transit-oriented development seeks to make cars obsolete by making communities walkable, for example. And while they may not be the result of entirely environmental motives, think of the Internet or the iPod: One has reduced the use of paper by more cheaply providing the service paper once did, and the other has all but killed the mass-production and consumption of material records, no matter how loud the RIAA screams about it.
A lesson, perhaps, to take away from this movement by Google and similar techno-optimists is that examples do exist where activists can effectively counter the structures of capitalist power by simply knocking the feet out from under them. If no consumer any longer needs – or wants – some product, process or ideology that hurts the environment, then obviously it becomes extinct.
This is not to say all of our problems can or should be solved technologically. It does suggest, though, that all of our problems can likely be solved through either technological or social changes that target the very purpose of the unsustainable things we do. We can rush along the point where something ceases to be sustained by intelligently affecting the reason it was created.
[email protected]
Pursuing obsolescence
Daily Emerald
January 27, 2009
0
More to Discover