An editorial in the Washington Post on Aug. 10, “Blackouts Are Inevitable”, argues that it’s not possible to prevent future blackouts. Instead, they suggest we should focus on fulfilling the mission of the electricity system and making the kind of changes that successfully transformed the air traffic control system.

They write:

“While making obvious improvements in control and operation of the grid, we should focus the greater part of our effort on fulfilling the mission of the electricity system, not on trying to prevent blackouts. When hurricanes, tornadoes, ice storms or other problems black out the system, backup generators at hospitals, airports and other critical institutions prevent their missions from being interrupted.”

The editorial suggests a very different approach than that being articulated in Washington, such as using cost-effective and creative engineering approaches to accomplish critical missions. It ends with listing four tasks to accomplish their proposed objectives:

“The first task is to list the important missions that are accomplished by the electricity system. The second is to rank these missions in order of priority. Third, we must identify which missions are already protected. The fourth and final task is to find cost-effective ways of accomplishing the most important missions when the power fails.”

Matthew Wald writes in today’s Science Times that last August’s blackout “spread so quickly that day largely because hundreds of components acted exactly as they had been programmed to do.”

Meaning the nation’s largest blackout was an unintended consequence, and a sobering reminder of the difficulties decision-makers face as science and technology become more powerful and complex. In this case, relays designed to protect electrical equiptment in the event of damaging currents tripped domino-like shutting down transmission and generation facilities. Not exactly a graceful failure, but not a catestrophic one either.

Anyone interested in more should check out the Kennedy School’s Electricity Policy Group’s site detailing information and analysis on the event.

A recent report by Britain’s Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering entitled ‘Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties’, calls for public debate regarding the development of nanotechnologies and research into their health and environmental effects.

The report has occasioned editorials such as one posted on SciDev.Net by David Dickson.

Dickson suggests the report points to two key challenges facing nanotechnology and nanoscience: adequately ensuring that nanotechnologies address the needs of the world’s poor and building social markets favorable to nanotechnologies.

To address the risk of a “nano-divide” between the world’s rich and poor nations, Dickson calls for the development of nanotech skills among poorer nations, dissemination channels for nano products, and informed public debate.

Characterizing the content of this debate, Dickson writes: “informed public debate…must include authoritative information about potential health and environmental consequences; there is no room for those who dismiss all such concerns as merely the unreasonable demands of whose who seek a risk-free society.”

It is not always clear on what basis information should be considered “authoritative” nor who should decide this. The approach outlined by Dickson would seem to include information and demands that might otherwise be disqualified on the grounds of being “unreasonable.” This type of approach may be encouraging to those who would make such demands, but it stops short of outlining what counts as “reasonable.”

While defining “reasonable demands” is risky business, without clear parameters, what gets debated could too easily be determined by the agendas of those who get to decide, rather than by a reasonable process.

In an editorial this week about science in the political process Nature makes the following assertion:

“In the current polarized political climate, it is hardly surprising that some scientists should swing behind Kerry in this way — the research community traditionally votes overwhelmingly Democratic.”

I am unaware of any data that might support this claim. I don’t disagree with the claim; I just have no basis on which to accept it or disagree with it. I am leery of conventional wisdom that lacks an empirical grounding.

So here is the challenge for you: Is anyone aware of a study or survey that would support or refute the Nature claim of the partisan tilt among researchers? Send us (pielke@colorado.edu) your thoughts and we’ll post the results.

NASA issued a press release today detailing a reprieve of sorts for the TRMM satellite. (For our earlier discussions of this topic see this post. The press release states that “NASA will extend operation of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) through the end of 2004, in light of a recent request from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”

But the press release also states that “NASA and NOAA have asked the National Academy of Sciences to convene a workshop next month to advise NASA and NOAA on the best use of TRMM’s remaining spacecraft life; the overall risks and benefits of the TRMM mission extension options; the advisability of transfer of operational responsibility for TRMM to NOAA; any requirement for a follow-on operational satellite to provide comparable TRMM data; and optimal use of GPM, a follow-on research spacecraft to TRMM, planned for launch in 2011.”

This statement seems a bit odd to me because it appears that NASA has already decided when and how to deorbit TRMM. And it seems unnecessary to convene a workshop in September to provide advice on how to use TRMM for its last 2 months (through November) after 7 years of successful operations. NASA and the scientific community know very well how to use TRMM.

The press release includes this statement, which seems to contradict the above, from Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Deputy Associate Administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, “It’s important to note that we are able to extend TRMM for this brief period and are vigilant in maintaining our requirement for a safe, controlled re-entry and deorbit of the spacecraft.” So what role exactly will the NRC Workshop play?

One concern is that the NRC Workshop will be used to provide a post-hoc rationalization for decisions already made about the future of TRMM. If so, then this would amount to a form of politicization of the NRC. By paying attention to who is invited to participate in this workshop (and who is not) we can get a sense of what perspectives are being advanced and which are not. As I have argued here in an earlier post the NRC would be better served by not recommending a single option, but a diversity of choices and their implications for decision makers to consider.

We’ve created a permanent link to my recent op-ed in the Rocky Mountain News on the role of science in the stem cell debate.

The interview I participated in last week on the show “Against the Grain” can be found here (scroll down), but it will only be online for a few weeks.

Today, the Washington Post reports, “NASA officials said yesterday that the costs of returning the grounded space shuttle to flight have risen as much as $900 million over original projections, raising the possibility that the agency may have to seek extra money from Congress next year or cut other space programs to fund the shortfall… NASA’s announcement came 12 days after a key congressional committee passed a bill cutting the Bush administration’s 2005 NASA budget proposal by more than $1 billion, dealing a sharp blow to the president’s initiative to return humans to the moon and eventually send them to Mars.”

This situation raises a difficult situation for Congress. Should Congress provide more money for the Shuttle or accelerate its termination? And if Congress provides more money, where should it come from? Other NASA funding in human spaceflight (Mars?) or space science? From money going to Veterans or Housing? There are no easy answers.

In the Post article an unnamed source commented on these challenges, “One knowledgeable Republican source, who refused to be quoted by name because of office policy, acknowledged that Congress had heard about the shortfalls last month, and lawmakers “don’t know what to think about it.” While NASA is “acting responsibly” by voicing its fears early, the source said, the news “puts additional pressure on an already impossible budget — and what are you going to take it from? And is this as high as [the shortfall] is going to get?””

The escalating costs are just the latest example of the dynamics that have shaped U.S. space policy for two decades now. These dynamics have their origins in NASA’s commitment to a large, interdependent program focused on eventually going to Mars. When the whole mission to Mars was rejected decades ago NASA adopted an approach focused on “logical steps” – shuttle, station, and then Mars. But NASA’s ambitious plans lack resilience to perturbations, whether the perturbations are engineering-related or budget-related. When an unforeseen event occurs, like the loss of a shuttle or a budget overrun, its effects cascade through NASA disrupting plans and performance across the agency as it scrambles to adjust. NASA deals with the disruption and we start from scratch again. Meanwhile as NASA deals with these disruptions it makes inefficient progress towards its formal goals (e.g., lowering the costs of access to space) or even its decades-long desire to go to Mars. If this explanation is anywhere close to explaining NASA’s current situation, then simply adding more money in the absence of fundamental policy change may exacerbate rather than dampen these dynamics.

For more on these dynamics see the following two papers:

Pielke Jr., R. A., 1993: A Reappraisal of the Space Shuttle Program. Space Policy, May, 133-157.

Brunner, R., R. Byerly, Jr., and R.A. Pielke, Jr., 1992: The Future of the Space Station Program. Chapter in Space Policy Alternatives, edited by R. Byerly, Westview Press, Boulder, 199-222.

A Prometheus reader posted a few questions after listening to a radio interview on climate change I participated in last week. Here are a few replies:

Comment: “Your points about separating climate and energy policy are interesting. You argue that the climate problem, for a variety of reasons, hasn’t galvanized the necessary support for mandatory GHG reductions. You then posit energy independence could serve as the real impetus. You may be right, but do you have any data (public opinion or otherwise) to support this argument?”

Reply: I don’t have any data simply because the approach I am recommending has not been tried. There is some indirect evidence, however. Opinion polls routinely show that among the public, national security is considered more important than climate change. Here is a recent example of such a poll conducted in the U.K. from the BBC. What we do have is considerable evidence on how well the current approach is working. And the evidence shows, as discussed here on numerous occasions, that the current approach is not working very well. At some point it may be worth considering alternative strategies, even if they are untested (or perhaps because they are untested). This was the gist of our 2000 article in the Atlantic Monthly. It may be that the current approach to climate is the best one possible; however, it seems that such an argument is an increasingly hard case to make, particularly since there are many options yet untried.

Comment: “Also, with increasing mandatory action on GHG emissions at the state level (with climate change serving as the rationale) and growing support for legislation like McCain/Lieberman, might we be near a tipping point where the climate problem resonates with politicians enough to influence energy policy effectively ? Or do you still believe energy independence/efficiency arguments will make a more compelling, sensible case?”

Reply: The latter. The state actions and McCain/Lieberman are in my view watered down versions of the current, failing approach to climate policy. For many folks these policies are no doubt symbolically important and emotionally satisfying, but from the standpoint of addressing future climate impacts, these policies are, to say the least, substantively wanting. Ultimately, the proof of performance of any of these policies will lie in (a) the global level of greenhouse gas emissions, and (b) the vulnerability of people and ecosystems to climate.

I had an op-ed in Saturday’s Rocky Mountain News in which I try to make sense of the current debate over stem cells. It starts out like this:

“If you want to liven up conversation at a dinner party, ask the following question: How much money would you take for your pinkie toe?”

Read the whole thing here. Your comments are welcomed.