There is a blind spot in the massive spending that is to come that binds expectations, rankles investors, and ruins results.
Call it a product of the disposable, single-use economy mindset. Call it a blind faith from acolytes of the quasi-Church of the Transcendent New Tech.
But how do we avoid throwing out all the good that has been done? All the capital-intensive and immovable work already done? Why should we abandon so much as we move forward?
A whole bunch of squares are being hammered into circles by fools, akin to toddlers with a simple toy set, that are testing if perseverance and sheer force can overcome reality.
All the while, better options exist right now.
I’ve long had a theory for how we really should be addressing the infrastructure issues we face in the USA. One that is far less aspirational than White House press releases frame them to be.
One that is panning out now, though it is barely covered, is tying into a far deeper issue.
The USA built a massive amount of infrastructure over the last century. We are dependent upon it as our baseline.
We’ve built so much that we should not neglect. The cost to society and taxpayers is so much higher to completely reinvent and replace. A hurdle ignored from the top-down perspective, but one that dominates the bottom-up reality.
Last year, 31 major wind projects were vetoed, along with 13 solar projects. That’s about on par with 2020. It’s a theme for most years over the last decade, most years with even more.
These are not viable projects. They never could be. They consistently fail once someone actually does the math.
True solutions, I’m convinced, recognize the difference between progress and paying an ever-increasing fortune to replace some aspects that truly matter, for budgets and viability.
Here are two examples that tie into exactly how we should be framing our problems that merge new tech with deeply entrenched and reliable assets we paid for, are in place right now, and can last for many decades to come.
Ask anyone what the best renewable energy out there may be, and you’re going to get a whole bunch of wrong answers. Top-down analysis with little to offer for details on how we bridge the gap.
A whole bunch of squares people keep trying to hammer into circles.
Solar? Wind? They have their places, but their limitations are profound. What if we do not need to rebuild so much power generation from the ground up? What if all we need is another way to boil some water?
That’s what’s behind a small, private company pushing to advance what was thought of as the most inefficient — yet most reliable — renewable energy. One we’ve known about for over a century.
Let’s start with a picture of what we don’t want to replace, and go from there. Behold! A coal power plant turbine:
The scale of this picture is hard to imagine, but look at the backhoe, mid-frame and to the left. This cost a fortune and will never move. What if we moved to it?
Two ideas stand out for how to make these impossibly large feats of engineering work in our favor on the cheap. One is a way off, but a great example of how we should approach the problem, and one is available now and is in the works.
A small, privately owned company has a novel approach — bring new power sources to the power plants.
Quaise Energy — small, privately owned, and recently pulling in capital for a pilot program — wants to dig beneath power plants that use these kinds of massive steam turbines. The massive steam turbines will never move, but the heat source can move to them.
Digging for heat is not new. The idea has been in play in the real world for over a century. You can look to Iceland for how it can provide nearly limitless geothermal energy. The question is how much it takes to dig deep enough to tap into Earth’s innate energy.
Pressure and temperature ruin drill bits. They warp and fail. They have to be pulled back up and replaced at an ever-increasing pace the deeper they go. Time and materials cost a fortune.
Instead, a high-power millimeter wave drill vaporizes rock and vents it out. No moving parts that are destroyed in the process, with vapor instead of solid backfill to lift out.
Thus, it can bore holes directly below power plants that tie directly into the steam turbines that actually create power. Thus, the company can do work on site without new turbines, or power lines, or zoning issues.
This kind of on-site modification tech really shines with its potential to use what we’ve already paid for to match the kind of efficiency we take for granted.
The second tech is as well-defined, but more modern in its application to the power grid. We need to store what we can for baseline energy supply.
Tons are trying but catastrophically failing. Look no further than Tesla building megawatt-scale batteries. Look at how its marquee pilot programs literally rip themselves apart on the atomic scale and create runaway fires. Look at how it takes years to install, and the first battery banks it installed already must be replaced.
One size does not fit all, as much as Tesla and others want to cram their square solution into any round hole. Other tech, also long in play, is far better adapted.
We have batteries, extensively tested and easy to maintain, that can last decades with no drop off. No runaway fires. No premium for over-hyped branding.
We have batteries that can last for decades with no loss of power, no constant need to mine problematic materials. No perpetual replacement.
We just have to use what we have well, and tailor what is to come to work in harmony.
Everything doesn’t have to be shiny and new. We don’t have to abandon all we’ve built before. We just need to add the right tech to what we have now.
