Friday, November 30, 2007

The Tree Thing

We don’t have a tree. That’s because last year we had kittens. On Thanksgiving Day weekend last year (the “year of the kittens”), I pulled out our fake tree (pre-lit no less), set it up, and trimmed it. The kittens figured it was a plaything created especially for them. At first they batted the balls hanging low. We’d pick them up off the floor and hang them back on the tree. Gary called me at work, “the kittens figured out how to climb the tree,” he informed me. “They’ve been climbing out on the branches and smacking the ornaments off the tree, then they jump down and bat them around the floor.”

When I got home, I headed to the tree. Branches were bent at unnatural angles, ornaments were scattered about the floor. I looked over at Gary. He gives me this defensive look. “I tried. It was useless.”

The routine of coming home and putting the tree back together lasted one more day, then I said to hell with it. About a week later a kitten snagged its foot in the light cord wrapped around one of the branches. Gary had to cut the cord to free the cat. – wish I’d been there to watch the show. So much for pre-lit. I tossed the tree after Christmas.

The first year we were married, Bruce and Gloria (Gary’s parents), drove up to the national forest land where you could cut your own Christmas tree. They cut one for us too. We were quite grateful for their thoughtfulness; I watched with great anticipation as Gary hauled the tree into the house. Gloria came after with some old ornaments she’d culled from her collection. The tree looked a little sparse, and it was small, but what matter -- It was our very first Christmas tree. We spent the good part of an hour trying to put it in the stand so that it stood straight. No matter what we did it was crooked. Gary finally said he was “fuckin’ finished.” Okay, I thought, so it’s not exactly straight, it’ll look alright once we get the ornaments on and then we’ll shove it in the corner in such a way as to disguise the fact that it’s in the damn stand crooked. The ornaments didn’t do much to fill in the gaps. When we tried to find the straight angle we discovered that the tree was so twisted that it didn’t’ matter what “angle” it was sitting at it was going to look crooked (because it was). We named it our Charlie Brown tree (went with the house which is a story in and of itself). The next year we went up to the mountain and cut our own tree.

I had this Currier and Ives image of going to the forest to get our tree. Wrong. In order to go to the woods you have to drive up steep, twisty-turny, gravel logging roads. I was sure we’d end up going over the bank, never to be found again. Gary was in his element --I think he went farther than we really needed to go. He just had to show me the spectacular view of some mountain – maybe he figured as soon as I saw the view I’d forget just how close we were to the edge of the road. Heck, for all I know we could’ve been poaching the tree. I had not a clue where in heaven’s name we were. Once you’ve found a tree the right size and shape that isn’t crooked (no easy task) you’ve got to cut it down and haul it back to the car. Hopefully, the car isn’t too far away. The ride down the mountain is only better in that you know you are heading for safe ground. The price of gas was my rationale why that wasn’t a good idea for future years.

Our landlord gave us a tree every year when we lived on Everson-Goshen Rd. He had a little Christmas tree lot that he maintained himself. The branches wrapped around and around the tree. You could hang two ornaments on one branch and they’d be on opposite sides of the tree. We lived there ten years, every single Christmas tree we had was like that, almost as if it had been in a perpetual whirlwind.

When we moved to Acme, I bought a fake tree, on the premise that it’d save us money. Brenda hated it; she wanted a real tree. Tough. It might’ve been cheaper, but having a fake tree isn’t any less hassle than a real tree. You’ve got to put it together, and shape the branches so they look kind of real. Then after the holiday you’ve got to disassemble it and straighten out the branches so they’ll fit into the box.

From a purely ecological standpoint, I’d say that a live tree is the only responsible choice. That’s assuming that after Christmas you manage to plant the thing -- and it lives. I wonder how many live trees ever see another Christmas?

For years I dreamed of having a “designer” tree after the kids were grown – something that looks like a professional put it together. My brother Pat and his partner Greg have such a tree, but then their entire house looks like it came out of House Beautiful. Every year they decorate for Christmas, and then host an open house with a wonderful spread of food and drink. I’ve given up on the idea of a perfect tree. I lost the inclination once I had the opportunity to make it a reality.

A few years ago my mother said she didn’t feel like having a tree. No tree? -- We all thought she was depressed. Someone (not me) bought her a tree and decorated her place. I don’t know if that same person cleaned up the decorations after Christmas or if that chore was left to someone else. I suspect the latter.

So what to do about a tree? Somehow I just can’t get motivated, especially considering the work involved. First you have to find a spot to put it. – Where the hell are those furniture movers when you need them? Then you have to set up the tree. If it’s real you have to go get it then haul it in the house, then put it in the tree stand (a project in and of itself). Digging out all those ornaments from the attic, garage, or wherever is next. At my house the ornaments are behind and/or under a bunch of other junk. I guess that’s as good a reason as any to simplify. Trimming the tree is supposed to be the fun part. My family lets me have all the fun. Just think of the fun after Christmas taking down the ornaments, packing them up (I always seem to have ornaments still floating around in July), taking down the tree, cleaning up and rearranging the furniture. I’ve got to ask myself, why the hell go through the hassle?

I keep thinking of all those millions of trees, and all that plastic tree like junk and wonder at the impact if we all just gave up one of the most inane of traditions. – And then wonder how much of my thought process is really just tinged with my own growing aversion to participating in that very tradition.

This year I think I’ll go “green” and forego the tree. That ought to fit in nicely with my plan to boycott corporate retail outlets (which worked swimmingly last year). So what if my ulterior motive is that I’m lazy and cheap?

Monday, November 5, 2007

The Algae Solution: maybe this would be a good investment?

Guido Radaelli's rented house in the Berkeley Hills commands sweeping vistas of the San Francisco Bay. But the sparse furnishings inside hint at his status as a recent grad student. Last year, Radaelli made a peculiar addition to the décor. In a loft overlooking the living room, he installed four large fish tanks filled with a pale green liquid. Since then, Radaelli has tended to the tanks like a sick child, taking samples and checking temperature and pH levels several times a day.

"It's a challenging relationship," admits Radaelli. But, he hopes, a lucrative one as well.

The tanks contain modified algae strains which Radaelli claims could offer a solution to America's, and the world's, fossil fuel crisis. That's because the unicellular green goo produces up to half its weight in oil. Harvesting that oil has been the dream of alternative energy researchers for decades.

The make-shift laboratory is the brainchild of Radaelli and two grad school friends who founded Aurora Biofuels in 2006. Aurora CEO Matt Caspari has an M.B.A., chief scientist Burt Vick earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and Radaelli studied petroleum engineering in his native Italy and business at Berkeley.

Aurora is one of dozens of start-up companies rushing into northern California's booming clean-tech sector. Ten years ago, ambitious innovators like the Aurora guys were getting rich in the Internet or biotech sectors. But today, with oil prices soaring and global warming a looming reality, alternative energy is all the rage. And the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are at the epicenter of this new investors' frenzy. It's a green rush.


Aurora chief scientist Burt Vick and Noventi partner James Horn. Photo by Michael Montgomery
"Our business is about making money," says James Horn, a partner in the Silicon Valley venture firm Noventi, which is investing heavily in so-called clean tech. "And one of the drivers that we saw in Silicon Valley was that there was this migration of engineering talent and entrepreneurial talent moving into the clean tech space. California as a state has always been a leader in technology innovation. It's just that we're applying our skills and our talent in new areas."

Alternative energy, which is just one part of the clean tech sector, has seen a flood of new investors like Horn. Globally, more than $70 billion went into renewable energy in 2006, according to the United Nations.

"The energy business ... is a $6 trillion market," says Horn. "It is such a vast market that there really is sufficient potential to justify the investments that are going into the market right now. And again, we are very early on in this process."

What are BioFuels?

The two most common types of biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is an alcohol, the same as in beer and wine (although ethanol used as a fuel is modified to make it undrinkable). It is made by fermenting any biomass high in carbohydrates through a process similar to beer brewing.

Today, ethanol is made from starches and sugars, but scientists are developing technology to allow it to be made from cellulose and hemicellulose, the fibrous material that makes up the bulk of most plant matter. Ethanol is mostly used as a blending agent with gasoline to increase octane and cut down carbon monoxide and other smog-causing emissions.

Biodiesel is made by combining alcohol (usually methanol) with vegetable oil, animal fat, or recycled cooking grease. It can be used as an additive (typically 20 percent) to reduce vehicle emissions or in its pure form as a renewable alternative fuel for diesel engines.
Helping fuel the world with humble algae oil is not as farfetched as it may sound. Some 100 years ago, Rudolf Diesel designed his first engines to run on peanut oil (as well as coal dust). Today, bio-fuels made from soy and corn are a booming business. But there's growing concern that tapping food stocks as a source for renewable energy could backfire. Corn and soy use valuable farmland and freshwater. Increasing demand for ethanol is driving up the price of corn. This in turn raises food prices.

However, algae doesn't need soil and thrives in wastewater. All it needs to grow are sunlight and carbon dioxide. Algal oil can be harvested and converted into bio-diesel; the algae's carbohydrate content can be fermented into ethanol. Both are much cleaner-burning fuels than conventional diesel or gasoline. What's more, bio-fuels derived from plants like algae are considered "carbon neutral." While burning fossil fuels releases CO2 that was trapped underground for millennia, the CO2 released from burning bio-fuels was just pulled out of the air as the plants grew. So, according to proponents, bio-fuels are simply recycling the same gases over and over.

That's not all. Aurora claims to have developed and patented (together with Berkeley plant biologist Anastasios Melis) a technology that dramatically boosts algae's photosynthetic power to 100 times that of soy and other crops. It's a very profitable calculation considering the amount of diesel burned in America's transportation sector.

"We consume 60 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year," says Aurora CEO Matt Caspari. "So if our technology does what we are claiming it can do, it's a major opportunity and it's attractive for venture capital investors."

But it's not just the lure of profits that pulled the Aurora team into alternative energy.

"This is the type of business that has a double bottom line," says Burt Vick. "Not only [is it] very healthy from a financial standpoint, but also from a social and environmental point of view as well."

A key ingredient for any successful startup is attracting the right investors. But in a booming market, competition for investment dollars is fierce.

"The odds aren't with you to get venture financing," Matt Caspari tells us. "Once you get venture financing, the odds aren't with you that it will be at all successful. And even the successful ones, you hear the company's sold for $100 million. Well, how much do the entrepreneurs really own?"

To get ahead of the competition, and get Aurora's name in lights, the company entered one of the world's premier business plan competitions, the Intel/Berkeley Challenge. The annual Intel Challenge, as most people call it, is a bracing three-day competition that pits young companies from America against teams from around the globe.

In recent years, clean tech proposals have dominated top business plan competitions. On the first day of the Intel Challenge, Matt Caspari mulls over Aurora's prospects as he surveys teams from Russia and China.

"A lot of people who have done well in their careers are saying, 'What do I want to do next?'" he says. "They see energy in the news and they don't like the reliance on fossil fuels in the Middle East; they don't like high prices; they don't like the environmental impacts. So, a lot of people with political clout and capital are trying to solve this problem. Fortunately for us and the other entrepreneurs here, they're looking to some of the top universities around the world to try to find people who are willing to do the hard work day in and day out to make it happen."


Marianne Wu, a partner at Mohr Davidow Ventures and a judge at the Intel/Berkeley Challenge.
Photo: Bruce Cook/Lester Center
A major attraction of business plan competitions is hob-nobbing with the judges. At the Intel Challenge, many judges are investors from Silicon Valley's leading venture capital firms who pick the winners and scout out possible deals. One of the judges at this year's competition is Marianne Wu, a partner at Mohr Davidow Ventures. Wu has already been talking about a deal with Aurora.

"The area that they're focused on, which is algae as a feed stock for bio-fuel, is one that we have great interest in," Wu says. "Energy is the fundamental driver behind daily activity, behind industrial growth, behind our commercial infrastructure."

At the competition, teams make short pitches and are grilled by judges in small, wood-paneled meeting rooms. On day two, Aurora passes into the semi-finals where the team makes the pitch before four judges, including Marianne Wu.

Guido Radaelli opens in gravely accented English. "We are Aurora BioFuels. And we are doing something magic. We are turning wastewater into bio-diesel using our proprietary super-algae."

Company CEO Caspari sketches out the big picture.

"We're all aware of extremely high oil prices, geopolitical issues that are tied in with our dependence on fossil fuels that has resulted in subsidies and mandates on the federal and state level," he says. "Adding to that environmental concerns and it's really a perfect environment for alternative energy and bio diesel. The market itself is new and rapidly expanding. We had a production of 20 million gallons of bio-diesel in 2004. Last year, production was 75 million gallons."

But, he adds, "The problem with bio-diesel today is that it mostly comes from agricultural crops. Agricultural crops are expensive. They have better uses than being burned for fuel. Our method allows us to produce vast quantities of bio-fuel cheaply."

Aurora asked us not to reveal proprietary information discussed in private meetings with judges, but in an earlier public gathering at Berkeley, the Aurora team gave clues about their business plan.

"The heart of this business, we call it our secret sauce, is our biotechnology," Caspari told the audience. He explained that the "secret sauce" was derived from a strain of algae "whose bio-yields are three times higher than what occur naturally."

Back at the competition, Aurora's pitch ends smoothly. The judges give the team a round of applause. In the halls of Berkeley's Haas School of Business, home to the Intel Challenge, Aurora is generating buzz. Dan Lankford, a judge and partner at Wavepoint Ventures, tells us bio-fuel companies like Aurora could offer consumers, businesses and municipalities a simple way to reduce carbon emissions.

"There's no question," says Lankford, "that from a venture capital standpoint, the whole issue of global warming and [reducing] carbon emissions has become a very interesting space. This is real business, real money, with very draconian consequences for people who don't meet the standards."

Lankford tells us he's impressed with Aurora's business plan.

"In order to have any value at all, you have to have a big enough market," he says. "So you have to solve a need. You have to address, as we often say, somebody's pain. You have to make the pain go away. Two of the biggest problems we're trying to solve in society today, one is energy, the other's environmental. Aurora addresses both."

At the evening awards ceremony, each team gives a one-minute "elevator pitch," a rapid-fire monologue set in an imaginary elevator ride with an investor. When the first-place winner is announced, Aurora Biofuels name flashes across a large screen. Matt Caspari and his partners stroll to the stage in fashionable black suits to collect the $25,000 winning check.

Investors, including Noventi's James Horn, take notice of Aurora's success at Berkeley.

"Winning the competition clearly means a lot about the viability of their idea. So it kind of started the ball rolling for us," he says. Soon after, Horn's firm Noventi agrees to fund Aurora.
The idea of getting fuel from aquatic plants has existed for decades. But it seems to take an emergency to push America away from petroleum. A generation ago, the United States was facing another energy crisis brought on by the OPEC oil embargo. Oil prices quadrupled. The federal government sought to counter the OPEC cartel and solve wrenching energy shortages. The most ambitious effort to tackle the crisis was announced by Jimmy Carter in 1979.

"The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation," Carter said in a major televised address.

Carter outlined plans to cut oil imports and boost domestic production and energy conservation. He also charted a third path. Today we call it "green energy."

"To give us energy security," Carter said, "I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel."

President Carter invested millions in new government research centers like NREL, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. As part of NREL's Aquatic Species Program, researchers spent 20 years studying micro-organisms like algae. They were startled by algae's capacity to produce oil.


Al Darzins, a senior manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado.
"It's amazing," says Al Darzins, a senior manager at NREL.

Given the right conditions, Darzins says algae could double its volume overnight. And unlike other sources, such as soy or corn, algae can be harvested day after day.

"If you could actually generate an algae strain that produces lots of oil, you could use this oil for a variety of bio-fuels," Darzins says. Including "fuel for ships and trains, jet fuel and even green gasoline."

"There is no other resource that comes even close in magnitude to the potential for making oil," says John Sheehan, an NREL energy analyst who worked in the aquatic species program. One of algae's great strengths, Sheehan recently told the journal Popular Mechanics, is its ability to grow robustly in brackish water. NREL's research initially focused on identifying natural algal strains that were then tested in outdoor pools in New Mexico, where much of the groundwater is saline and unsuitable for other forms of agriculture.

The government's alternative energy initiative was strong while oil prices stayed high. But in the early 1990s, the cost of crude oil plunged. So did interest in alternative fuels that were not cost-effective against petroleum. In 1996 the Department of Energy shut down the aquatic species program.

But just before work stopped, NREL researchers made an important breakthrough. Using new techniques, the scientists discovered it might be possible to boost algae's capacity to produce oil through genetic engineering. While NREL didn't actually produce oil from these strains, the work provided a road map for others to follow.

"Before then, people really had not been able to do any genetic transformation, that is the introduction of new genetic material into these organisms," Al Darzins says. "NREL at the time found methods of getting foreign genes into some of the strains they were working with. That serves as the basis for what a lot of people are going to be doing in the future."

Today, NREL is hoping to create new algae strains through genetic engineering, as part of an ambitious collaboration with private companies. Aurora's Matt Caspari will be watching closely. A lot of his company's work is based on the government's pioneering research.




The Heat of Competition

Flush with investment funding, Aurora moves its team and fish tanks into spacious, glass-enclosed offices in an industrial park perched on the east side of the San Francisco Bay.

But as the company prepares to hire more staff and step up operations, competition moves in on its home turf. A number of other small California start-ups announce plans to gear up algae-to-bio-fuel programs. Then oil giant British Petroleum announces it will invest $500 million in an alternative energy research center on the U.C. Berkeley campus. Elsewhere, Boeing, Virgin Atlantic and the Department of Defense also say they are studying ways to produce fuel from algae and other plants. It was daunting competition for three guys and their fish tanks.

As he reviews his company's successful launch, Matt Caspari spies storm clouds on the horizon.

"I'm not just worried about little start-ups," he tells us. "I'm worried about big companies too, because they can pour potentially as much or more money into an idea and put a lot of smart people to work on it. And the one advantage you have over a big company as a small entrepreneurial start-up is you can move really fast and make decisions really quickly. So, I feel a huge pressure to get results."

Aurora's chief investor James Horn says results may not be around the corner, but that's part of the adventure for early-stage venture capital firms.

"Aurora was a very raw company at the first conversation," he says. "It was effectively three guys with a plan on how to create a new energy supply for a growing world. But it was not a stretch to think that we could adapt algae to produce bio-diesel. So we made the investment. And it may take longer than we expect, but we're risk-takers by nature and we believe there is a chance to be successful here."

How do investors measure success in clean tech? It's clearly about making a profit. But for James Horn, saving the world from global warming is a welcome benefit.

"Using algae is effectively carbon neutral, it's not competing for food stocks, it's not competing for scarce water," Horn says. "In many ways, it is kind of the ultimate solution for powering our cars. You know, 18 months ago, I never thought I would be investing in an algae company."

Horn tells us Aurora's success depends on its secret, oil-boosting technology developed at Berkeley. Government scientist Al Darzins cautions that Aurora's claims seem impressive, at least on paper.

"But have they actually proven that?" he asks. "I suspect it's theoretical at this point and maybe [based on] some small-scale lab stuff that they've done and they extrapolate. But let's take that organism out of the lab and let's see what it does in the environment."

Scaling up lab experiments in large, outdoor settings is the biggest challenge facing Aurora and many other alternative energy pioneers.

"You're talking about hundreds or thousands of acres of algae growth," says CEO Matt Caspari. "So it's money and time to scale that up."

"They are trying to do something on a very large scale which hasn't been done before," says James Horn. "There are a number of hurdles that we haven't even addressed yet and that we won't be able to address until we can actually test it."

With more hurdles ahead, scientists are projecting it may take five years or more before fuel derived from algae is widely available. But one company in New Zealand is already marketing a new diesel blend. Five percent is from refined algae oil.

Alternative energy - whether from solar, wind or even algae - is no longer a tale of science fiction or distant dreams. That's obvious. Just look at the billions of dollars flowing into the market to back new, earth-friendly products such as green credits cards and bio-fuels. Investors insist intense competition in this green marketplace is no passing fad.

"Energy is the number one driver in the world," says James Horn. "And if we can migrate to alternative energy supplies, it can be an enormous industry both in California and worldwide."

Marianne Wu says, "It's a much more fundamental change that we're going through. So, it's not some little blip that it's hot today and tomorrow it's going to be some next hot thing."

The marketplace can deliver wealth of course, but it's hardly been eco-friendly up to now. More than 150 years ago, the California gold rush produced riches for some people, but environmental devastation and hardships for many others. And the gold rush wound down in just a few years. It will be up to contemporary consumers and eco-entrepreneurs and their shareholders to see that today's green rush evolves from an economic frenzy to a fundamental planet-saving change.
link

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Peak tech?

by James Howard Kunstler
Published on 23 Jul 2007

energy bulletin

Go anywhere in America, among any class of people -- from the Nascar morons to the Ivy League -- and one expectation is pretty universal: that technology will only bring us more wonders and miracles, and it will certainly save-the-day where our energy problems are concerned. This would seem natural for people living in an age when a simple cassette SONY Walkman is superceded by an 80-gigabyte iPod in one generation. But what if this assumption is off? What if peak technology occurs roughly in the same wave as peak energy?

Of course, another nearly universal expectation is that we will go through an orderly transition between the end of the oil fiesta and whatever comes next -- implying, naturally, that some new sovereign energy resource is out there in destiny's green room, getting prepped up, waiting to be sent on-stage. The confusion about this, induced by strenuous wishing, is such that most people expect the next energy resource to consist of technology itself.

This has been the heart of my beef with the rosy future crowd. Energy and technology are not the same thing, not interchangeable or substitutable. If you run out of one (energy), you can't just plug in the other (technology). I certainly believe other energy resources exist besides oil and methane gas, but I maintain that we will be grossly disappointed by what they can do for us, given what we are currently running in society. Nor am I categorically against the idea of using these other things: solar, wind, bio-fuels, what-have-you. I can even be persuaded on nuclear with its many hazards, if that's the only way to keep the lights on. But all of these things will not preclude the extreme necessity to make severe changes in our manner of daily living -- and to do so rather quickly.

Far from evolving triumphantly to yet-higher realms of technological nirvana, I'd expect a raw struggle to preserve much of the knowledge and applied technique that has already been acquired. I do happen to believe that the petroleum twilight will bring quite a bit of disorder to our society, which almost certainly means that the institutional context for research and development will suffer. Most particularly, I doubt that the big universities will be able to carry on in an energy-and-capital-starved future. Exactly how they might disintegrate is an open question. Last year, for example, I was shown the new bio-medical research "facility" at the University of Michigan, a building at least the size of a Cunard ocean liner, and wondered as I beheld it exactly how they were going to heat the goddam thing ten years down the line. But one might as well ask how the U might fund the paychecks of the building's occupants as Michigan's economy falls into an ever-larger crater. Such is the hubris-induced weakness of mind among those in charge of things that these mundane questions are not even asked.

The same pretty much goes for the big corporations. Their world is going to change pretty rudely, too. Far from expecting them to take over our lives even more comprehensively than is the current case, I expect them to wobble, fall to their knees, and expire as the tonic of globalism vanishes down the drain of economic history. Just as most people expect technology to save-the-day for energy, the same people expect the world to keep becoming an ever-smaller place of more intricately co-wired parts. Not me. I expect the world to become a larger place. I expect the wiring to unravel in a contest over the world's remaining oil. I expect that the nations of the world will eventually retreat back into their own continental regions (while that retreat may be violent and messy). I expect our energy problems to limit any organization's ability to project power and influence -- whether it is a government or a corporation. I expect that anything now running at the giant scale will either have to downsize real fast or go out of business.

Few of the rosy futurists foresee anything but ever-greater peaks of affluence among an ever-larger pool of players. I think they have been watching too many installments of "Richistan" on cable TV. My own notion is that capital will dry up quicker than rain on a Scottsdale patio as our energy predicament becomes apparent, since expectations of future growth (of economies and the capital representing them) are keyed to an assumption of unlimited energy resources. When the truth finally hits -- that there are real limits to the things of this world -- it will knock the capital markets on their asses. We will see large numbers of men wearing Rolex watches weep into crumpled certificates as the tranches of hallucinated wealth dissolve in the mists of their hopes and dreams. This means, at least, that investment in technology R & D on the grand scale will probably not meet our current expectations.

In any case, it is getting pretty late in the day for us to just kick back and nurture fantasies about the future of technology while the prospect of an oil export shock resolves more vividly before us -- the first symptom of an industry that will shortly fly to pieces. Of course the very last thing we should be doing -- which everyone from the Nascar morons to the Ivy League "greenies" is doing -- is focus all effort on how to keep the American automobile fleet running by some magic means other than gasoline. I say, just as a mental jump-start, let's put at least some of that effort into getting the choo-choo trains running again -- but this is too silly for the boys at MIT or even the Pentagon.

A few years ago, I went to the famous TED conference in Monterrey, where the mandarins of computer tech gather every year to hear talks about the neat things happening in the world beyond Silicon Valley. (I was part of the "entertainment.") By far the most popular presentation of the whole conference was the one on flying cars. Yeah, I know. It was straight out of a 1937 edition of Popular Science Magazine. But that's where their heads were at. All those twenty billion dollar heads, and that was what really lit their wicks. In case you wonder why I'm skeptical about where we're going in this country.