new white house policy and breaking dependence on oil

This week, the President gave a major speech on breaking our dependence on imported oil,
linked to the release of a new energy policy to back it up:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf

OF COURSE, when I give my reactions to this, it is DOUBLY and TRIPLY true that I am just giving personal
and tentative (if deeply grounded) impressions -- not the views of anyone else, nor anything I would want to be held to.
Preliminary impressions.

First, to review... I really like to focus a lot of energy on the question:

"How could we ZERO OUT all OECD DEPENDENCE on fossil oil in 25-30 years, at the lowest possible overall cost (or maximum profit)
to OECD?" Engineers commonly like very well-defined mathematical questions..
The question is not how to zero out the USE of fossil oil, but how to zero out the DEPENDENCE ... to set up so that our economy can continue to grow even if a sudden zeroing out of fossil oil should occur. And it's not so much a matter of imports, as policies like "drain America first" have their
limits a lot sooner than 25-30 years in the future. In any case, it's interesting to ASK the question, as seriously as we can, even when we realize we will
have other things to factor in when it comes to real policy.

Some accounts of the President's speech said: (1) this really was a solid focus on the issue of breaking
our dependence on oil, with new directions doing as much as one could imagine doing; and (2) but it wasn't much, because
there really isn't much one COULD do -- aside, perhaps, from what's already been done.

Re (1): that's not what this really was. Pages 15-24 out of 44 pages were the parts on independence form oil; the rest was mainly general energy policy.

Re(2): a mixed bag. (Though in the real world, getting "30% of reality" is a high score, to be fully supported, respected and appreciated...
when that's all it is.)

I had really strong mixed emotions a week or two ago, when CNN presented a new picture...
"Gee, oil really is heading back to $1490/barrel or so, that really was pretty obvious and predictable a couple of years ago,
wasn't it? And now economic recovery is teetering. Will we start to slide down the right slope, slowly building momentum as it seemed
just recently... or... well... the oil price rise is beginning to look just enough to send us slightly teetering in the other direction, and maybe building up momentum the wrong way." Indeed. Most of a trillion dollars per year in coming import bills is not just a second order perturbation to the economic
situation. I was glad to hear people starting to wake up on this...

But then: "But of course, there really isn't much we could do about this. And the President will do his very best, and it won't be much.
The answer is electric type cars (like plugins) but that will take 30 years, and in the meantime..."

Pain, pain, pain. Sure, it would take 20-25 years to reasonably get to ZERO dependence on fossil oil, but
we could move very quickly in that direction much sooner than that, if we had the will and the clarity of mind to do so,
and that in turn would have large immediate effects on futures markets, on tight balances between supply and demand, and on
the direction of world oil prices in the next few years. The Financial Times reported today that the Saudis are
already having troubles trying to keep up with what Libya has turned down, and to keep world oil prices low
enough to avoid really huge world economic problems.

Pages 14-24 really don't capture what could be done with a maximally vigorous policy, but there are some good parts.

What I like most is on page 22, the commitment to try to continue the "existing $7,500 tax credit" as an easy upfront rebate, like
what worked so well in finding takers in the cash for clunkers program. Incentives for "pluggable electric vehicles"
(PEV -- new IEEE jargon, to include PHEVs, EVs and FCEVs) are one of the really important and economically rational vehicles for
policy here - a key part of the answer to the question I started with, if you accept that question.

In fact, it would be really great if Congress could somehow pass a kind of semi-permanent entitlement like that, for PEVs
which qualify for tax incentives. In an ideal world... I would love to see that filled in with the same qualification rules and
sunset rule I proposed in the vehicle tax credit section of the oil bill written for Specter (posted at www.werbos.com/oil.htm).
If I were a Senator, I would vote for a clean measure to do that, period. It would be great.

My only concern about that idea is politics. I may be wrong... but I don't think that that formulation has the best chance of
making it through the House this year. The tax incentive version my not be quite so compelling to many people as the
semi-permanent rebate by entitlement, but it's almost as good, and it's a whole lot closer to having some hope for it.
There are a lot of folks who believe that tax breaks and tax reductions are more acceptable than new line items in the federal budget.
What's more, I haven't seen the 2012 budget discussion which this paragraph refers to. I wouldn't be surprised if it's like
the Electrification Coalition thing or Reid's last Pickens bill, which would be a one time limited appropriation creating far too little
predictability for auto companies thinking of investing in this area. And reopens the issue year by year, unlike the better situation that
oil company tax breaks have. (Better for THEM.) Still, I suppose there could be some consumer value in saying "one time sale ends on ..."

But then comes "rewarding communities" on the same page, which sounds like the big section of the Electrification Coalition proposal.
I worry about that all paying for favored municipalities to buy lots of Nissans to give away to friends, and -- worse -- spending lots
of money on Japanese standard "chademo" fast recharge stations which are a wasteful white elephant with no good future. I suppose Congress could
simply OK this and amend it with rules: (1) no giving away of cars; (2) no chademo stations -- all recharge stations must conform to levels 1, 2 or 3 of the
US electrical code, unless they provide ultrafast (10 minute) pulsed recharge. Under those restrictions, it could be very helpful.
I would be surprised if GM did not like this change (even though they may not be up yet on the new pulsed options).

===========

THE BIGGEST HOLE in my view is ... basically... seeming somewhat clueless on the potential for alternate liquid fuels,
ESPECIALLY IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS WHEN THINGS ARE URGENT AND WE AREN'T SO ELECTRIC YET.

It is a curious situation when folks like the White House and Congressman Waxman lecture IEEE folks that we should
appreciate more how Electricity Is the Way. Actually, maybe it's good that we get into a kind of honesty situation sometimes.
(IEEE does run lots of peer reviews, after all.) PEVs are ONE of the two key pillars of our best, clearest chance of getting to zero oil dependency
at a net profit. The other is alternate liquid fuels -- largely but not exclusively nonfood biofuels.
To have a quick impact, we should be doing BOTH things.

It seems that a lot of folks STILL don't understand that fuel flexibility and alternate liquid fuels are not really ALTERNATIVES to maximum
rational use of electricity, at the vehicle or policy level. That's really sad. Even under the president's new plan,
we are missing huge opportunities to move a whole lot faster on the alternative liquid fuels. Some are low cost, medium impact..
which is a lot bigger than than the very limited biomass benefits I see in this blueprint.

For example... I see no reason why the US government should not give ABSOLUTE preference in procurement to certified GEM-flexible vehicles (whether conventional or plug-in, which is a different matter) over all other vehicles, STARTING NOW.

And it wouldn't cost much to set up a certification program, where all manufacturers are required to put very bright, clear
decals over the refueling port on the car, making it clear which category of flexibility the car is warranted for.

And, as I noted before, replacing RFS with properly tuned LCFS could help a huge amount, even if the difference seems "just technical."

Beyond that... the talk by Arun Majumdar at the ITIF briefing at Rayburn a few weeeks ago makes me feel better about
the ARPA-E budget vehicle... blender pumps could be good, but why not have GEM-flexible blender pumps,
and why not use tax incentives to let industry install as many as they choose to. (I am not sure what it means that the Administration will help install the pumps.) Lots of crucial R&D opportunities beyond the scope of this blueprint, and I'm not sure of when they will be followed on or how...

It's really important to understand with biofuels that the cost and availability of the technology depends a lot on what the technology MAKES.
Flexibility in the cars makes it possible to use biofuels which are easier to make -- which helps with cost, with moving fast, and with
efficiency and sustainability.

Have some comments about the graph on page 21, but ...

============================
=======================================
Yesterday, I stressed that FUEL FLEXIBILITY (alternate liquid fuels) and plug-in hybrid cars
are two key, COMPLEMENTARY technologies that would let the world be independent from fossil oil
in 25 years or so, at a net profit. I talked about the key near-term actions we could take at low cost or no cost
to accelerate fuel flexibility and alternate liquid fuels much faster than what this week's White House energy
blueprint discusses.

But what about the plug-in cars?

On another list, someone said that plug-in cars would cause a huge increase in world electricity demand,
creating a massive new challenge there.

NOT SO!

World electricity supply is an important challenge already (as folks in Japan can feel in their very flesh this week!),
but massive dpeloyment of PHEVs would not do much to change that challenge.

Here is why...
x wrote:

As for the ~500 GW demand, please refer to this graph from my 2009 paper with data taken from EIA data sources for 2007 - 4 years old data.


There have been major serious economic studies of these questions which came to different conclusions.
I cite a number of them (including URLS) in a book chapter I had published last year or so,
Technological Solutions for Energy Security and Sustainability.
But as I said, there is also the study by Duke power.

It's important to discuss some explicit arithmetic to keep this straight.

If one tries to estimate the need for additional electricity in kwh by assuming that the electricity must contain the same BTU as the gasoline,
one will overestimate the requirement for kwh many, many times over.

Most of the gasoline used in cars today is used in conventional cars. Largely because of regenerative braking and because
of the gasoline engine operating mainly at nominal power (when operating at all), efficient heavy hybrids already cut the need for
gasoline in half. Even so, the little gasoline engine in such hybrids is only 30% efficient; in all-electric mode,
in a plug-in hybrid, you really get 90% efficiency from the BTU to torque, versus 30%. Thus PHEVs in all-electric mode
only need 1/6 as many BTUs of electricity per mile as the corresponding conventional car would need of BTUs of gasoline.

What's more -- the game plan a lot of us have been focusing on (e.g. the IEEE white paper on plug-in hybrids)
envisions FUEL-FLEXIBLE PHEV20, roughly -- cars with a 20-mile all-electric range, for which IEEE estimates
the average user would only get half the miles from electricity. If you plug that case in, you see:

1. Total demand for liquid fuel gets reduced by 75% (half because of hybrid efficiency, half because of miles
powered by electricity) -- deep enough that we can live without oil imports; and

2. The required BTU of electricity are now (1/2)*(1/6) of the BTUs we now use of gasoline.
A factor of 12 really changes things.

What's more, it's better than it sounds, because the kwh would mainly come at night, as people plug in at home.
This is the kind of thing Duke Power studied in detail. As one of the largest electric power systems in the US,
Duke really knows its numbers quite well, and can estimate the impacts on the power grid
a whole lot more than the amateurs one learns about from the usual green literature. It is no surprise that
they concluded there would be no additional burden on the grid whatsoever (and even some benefit to the grid, if it's
done right), and little or no need for more generating capacity; only a need to utilize existing capacity more fully.

============================

You also asked about costs of the cars, which is quite fair, and not trivial. A lot of the important true cost data is closely held
proprietary information. A lot of the numbers batted around in the press are grossly distorted by
partisan advocacy nonsense. But some things are well known.

A few years ago, the Society for Automotive Engineers put out an estimate of what it costs Toyota to make the Prius
high-mpg hybrid, above and beyond the cost of the correspondng conventional car. Once the technology settled down
to some degree (5 years ago?), Toyota was certainly running a serious profit on these cars, and it's clear that SAE was right -- the
incremental cost was no more than $3000. SAE said -- $2000 of that is battery (NiMH) and $1000 power electronics.
http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/
So for $3000 extra, you cut your gasoline use in half. People tell me that that breaks even for the average customer at about
$4 per gallon.

But what about the plug-in hybrids (PHEV) about to hit the market? Those numbers are harder to get. One may speculate:
are the initial price tags biased low (as the Prius hybrid was initially) to "buy experience," or are they biased high
(to get additional profit due to demand exceeding supply, or, more generously, to ration the limited number of vehicles available
the first year)? I lean towards the latter, especially since there is evidence of demand exceeding supply... of one-year waiting lists for people to get
the next vehicle, and so on.

A few months ago, GM put out an analysis saying that the Chevy Volt (a PHEV40, much more all-electric range than the new PHEV15
Prius plug-in) becomes break-even for the customer when gasoline gets to $5 per gallon. The Prius PHEV15 will have an initial cost of about $32,000,
more than $10,000 more than the normal Prius hybrid. (Though there will be that $7,500 tax credit for about a year, if I understand correctly.)
Why so high?

In fact... the Prius PHEV only uses a 6kwh battery. Any of us can buy a 10kwh auto-grade battery from Thunder Sky for $2,000
this year, at retail. It's weird how many people proudly cite (5 year old?) authoritative documents (even a White House document
this week) saying that it costs $1000 per kwh... so why should I believe a lowly store where I just walk in and buy it for $200
per kwh? Well, folks, my wife actually DID walk in and buy a couple, and they do work as advertized. They are sold
in many, many thousands today, and used in rugged, demanding transportation applications ... but they come from China.
I heard about them from folks in Delphi who checked them out and verified them years ago. And they have competitors who are probably just as good or better.
A few years back, I saw data that Japan, China and South Korea pretty much dominate the lithium battery production..
and GM is currently buying batteries from LG of Korea. So yes, if you buy a battery from DOE, it may well cost $1000 per kwh,
but GM is not so stupid. If the US government hobbles GM, we may simply end up buying whole cars from China instead of batteries.
(I mentioned that $21,000 BYD PHEV60. But has China thought of the possibility of exports? Don't laugh too loud.)

IN SUMMARY -- if we can get a PHEV20 for a battery cost of $2,000 -- the same as it cost with the old Prius hybrid,
which was already break even at $4/gallon with less fuel savings than the PHEV20 gets you -- how could it NOT break even at
$4 per gallon?

The obvious answer: the power electronics, the other half of the cost.
http://www.hevt.com/

But there have been really huge, verified breakthroughs in that area just this past year, from NSF-funded basic research,
validated by others. Power electronics is basically a matter of chips used to convert between AC and DC (and voltages).
That was not included in the GM $5 break-even estimate, but I suspect GM will catch up on this relatively soon.
I am certain Toyota was moving fast on this kind of stuff at least a few months ago. It basically cuts the power electronics costs in half,
immediately. The unit costs are mainly the costs of making chips -- a Moore's Law kind of thing.

So the technology is there, and with gas at $4 per gallon it should make the US a profit -- IF we deploy it. But the initial stages
are not so easy, especially when we came close to losing the auto industry altogether in the US a couple of years ago.
There is a real race between things that move us forward and economic things that could kill us altogether.

(The new power electronics also is associated with new motor control, which gets rid of the rare earths problem
with PHEVs. More details forthcoming in a paper on the fourth-generation intelligent power grid,
IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, August 2011.)

jobs policy and what it says about human intelligence

In January, I posted the following to a discussion list on intelligent systems:

================================================
===============================================

A few weeks ago, Lotfi posted a message arguing that excess obsession with money has become
a real problem in US society, and -- ironically -- may help explain why China is growing faster than the US.

This is not a small matter or a simple one.

In general I agree -- but at this moment I am worried that lack of clarity and intelligence in HOW
people think about money may be the greatest immediate threat here. Of course, these are all
just expressions of personal feelings, and not an official position of NSF.

It looks to me as if major fateful decision have been made in the past few months and months to come.
As we worry about economic growth and keeping up with China, what do we do? Reallocate
a huge amount of limited funds away from K-12 schools and universities to the purchase of yachts.
More concretely -- the tax decisions made last month have resulted in a great surge of yacht sales,
quite literally, and some similar purchases, with immediate benefits to employment. But they also
do nothing to alleviate the coming fiscal crunch in states all across the US (a lead headline in the Financial Times
just a few days ago), which already fired teachers and created furloughs in the previous, smaller crunch.
And I have read this morning of plans to cut back all federal agencies to
FY06 levels -- zeroing out the increase from then to now which was enough to keep this division funding as many as 12%
of normal unsolicited proposals in regular panels.

Does anyone believe that yachts are a more powerful factor of production than education and research?
is that the secret of China's economic growth, a secret fleet of yachts we have not heard about?
Of course, there are all kinds of complex systems which led to this outcome, but in the end, a great value
judgment has been made.

Without getting into more detail -- this is something of a challenge to our efforts to understand intelligent systems.
If the brains of mice and humans were evolved to find an optimal strategy of action, based on some kind
of inborn systems of feelings or utility or reinforcement which aims at survival of some kind of reference group,
how to explain this kind of behavior? Some old style Freudians would say -- "You see, Paul, this proves that
your version of the theory is inherently incomplete. There is not only the survival or life instinct. There is also
Thanatos, the death wish, just as fundamental in the human mind."

Am tempted to say more, but we have a word limit here.

My view is... that what's really going on... is basically just a sign of limited intelligence, lack of evolution of human
brains in certain directions. Above all, it points to different kinds of intelligence, as we evaluate humans
in action today. One kind -- more like IQ -- represents something more like HOW MANY neurons,
operating at what level of intelligence, the mouse part of the brain is exhibiting. I would guess that the folks
making these grossly stupid decisions are every bit as good as I am on many measures of intelligence, such as
vocabulary and agility in solving problems in front of them, let alone winning elections and making money,
which are not trivial challenges. Yet there is a kind of sense of reality that they seem to lack.
It reminds me of the time when NASA worked hard to build an airplane without an engine...

http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2010/09/true-legends-of-ultrafast-aircraft.html

The "sense of reality" has something to do with how humans USE words. It probably has wiring aspects
(as in the NRT gate which John Taylor once discussed a lot), but a major part may be a motivational kind of thing,
such as a tendency to cross-check words and reality... the kinds of features which are relatively new
in humans, and hence not fully evolved. (It's not as if mice make farseeing decisions, after all.)
Two types of intelligence -- how big is your mouse brain, versus how human are you really...
=======================================
==========================================

FIRST follow-on:

On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:55 PM, Lotfi A. Zadeh wrote:
There are many people, including myself, who feel that making a living in the United States is much more of a problem today than it was in the past. The good old times are a memory. What is the cause?

I said:

This week, I have heard four important questions relevant to what I posted here on "money and intelligence."

(1) Lotfi's question is one of them. Right now, leaders of both political parties understand that the two variables "jobs" and "deficit"
have terrified the American public, and that those two variables are what really drove the last elections. Since the financial collapse of September 2008,
unemployment has been far worse than it was before, going all the way back to the Great Depression. (With apologies to sports fans, I hope we will
call this collapse "Black September," and engrave it deeply in our memories. Many more people died from this event than from the earlier one.)

This being a tricky question, I will first mention the other three:

(2) "What about the President's State of the Union speech? Doesn't he address your points rather perfectly?"

(3) How do those two measures of intelligence you mentioned -- having a bigger, faster mouse brain versus being more human -- connect with
other measures and work in psychology?

(4) How can systems theory and computational intelligence help us do a better job of managing the world economy?

#2 is the easiest for me to talk about. (Please remember that everything I post here is my own personal opinion, not reflecting anyone I work with or for.)
When a friend here asked me this question, I replied: "Certainly. I would agree with 90% of it. That's unusually high for me; the speech was very encouraging
and reassuring, at many levels. Usually in matters of real policy and difficult choices, I get really excited when people score as high as 50%
in laying out what needs to be done next, at the level they are working at. Lately, it tends to be a huge struggle to get as much as 10%,
and people have a right to feel proud if they get as much as that. I just hope that people really follow through on what he said."
(Caveat: I went off to bed somewhere in the Iraq/Afghanistan discussion, so I can't comment on that part one way or another.)

My friend then asked: "So what is the ten percent?" I replied: "It would be obscene to dwell too much on that 10%. In 2009 and 2010,
I remember how many times I wished that Congress could have just voted in Obama's simple, earlier proposal for climate change legislation,
which I would have scored at only 70%. It was so much better than anything in the mess which followed, and so much better than where we are now."
(OK, I oversimplified. The Cantwell CLEAR Act was not so bad. And a few of the missing details could have become real problems.)

The ten percent: the speech was a bit on the optimistic side in describing where we are now. We DO have great new opportunities before us now,
but that's not the essence of our situation. I heard some right-wing commentators say: "Hey, our K-12 education system is already
failing, despite all the money we've been putting into it. Is this really the time to expand government spending for education?"

The essence of the situation -- as those of you in California know quite well -- is that state and local governments all over the country
are now facing a day of reckoning. This has already resulted in the firings of teachers and cutbacks in universities all over the
nation, but the reckoning we face now is much worse than that.

In December 2010, we all knew that the US has limited resources now. We simply can't do everything.
Back when Bush became president, and the US was running a surplus, it seemed reasonable to give
a one-time Christmas present of big tax breaks for people getting over $250,000 per year, to share in the general prosperity --
but things do change when we are fighting for our very survival. How can we say we do not have enough money to avoid firing all those
teachers and cutting back on all those universities, and then turn around and say we have enough to give a vast Christmas present
to folks who then go out and buy yachts? (Yacht sales really did go up markedly after that was passed in December, and now some
people are pumping out hype about "green yachts.") What ever happened to Thomas Jefferson's points about free public education,
a great cornerstone of America's special situation for the past several centuries?

The issue is NOT whether to put MORE money into K-12 or university education. The issue is whether we will have enough
sense of reality to understand that we are on the brink of a vast liquidation of what we already had, and to understand how
important it is that we make the efforts and sacrifices needed to prevent it. Even if that means sacrificing a few yachts we
thought we had as a special Christmas present. Christmas presents won't mean much if the US economy really goes down the tubes.
The President said :"The worst of the recession is over." I say "Maybe, I hope so, but right now we are on track for
a deep double dip." (Not if we really do what he proposed, however, or if we do the kind of tuning which helps more than it hurts or waters down.)
Of course, many economists would have urged the President to encourage optimism and positive thinking, for good reason; yet
perhaps we need more of a sense of reality here to motivate the necessary actions.

-------

That leads naturally to Lotfi's question. GIven the word limit, I may have to postpone getting into details.
In a way, we are addressing a four-variable multicriterion optimization challenge here -- jobs, deficits, growth
and sustainability. Picking school preservation over yachts (just one piece of the situation) is a different way of spending the money,
with no net effect on the deficit in the short term, probably a net improvement in the job situation (because teachers are more stimulating than yachts),
essential to continuing growth, but not a solution to the larger dilemma all by itself. The larger dilemma requires more,
and does require some technical systems thinking, but I have probably exhausted the word limit,
and need to wait until there is more discussion to comment on.

Best of luck,

Paul

==========================================
==========================================

Probably I should post more on the technical aspects of jobs,
on market design in the electric power, communications and financial sector,
and the link to the way that Europe seems still stuck in a deep "Nash equilibrium"
far inferior to the Pareto optimum it could get to in balancing deficits, jobs, growth and sustainability. But that's for later.

Green jobs again

Myth-makers left and right are still making noise about green jobs, pro and con.
So I repost a message sent to the Energy Conversation listserv in 2010,
still up to date now:


The issue of green jobs has certainly attracted a huge amount of exaggerated advocacy analysis,
both from the left and the right. That's why I took some time last year to read through the major research reports, right down to the details of the econometric models, to try to get a decent first order story on what we
really know, posted at:

http://www.werbos.com/E/jobs_from_climate_laws.pdf

Quick summary: the devil is in the details. Climate or energy bills could add net jobs or reduce them,
depending on how they are written. For climate bills -- the present uncertainty about
CO2 regulation by the federal government and by states is inhibiting ALL kinds
of investments in the electric power sector. A top guy in IEEE reports that he recently went to a meeting of top utility executives where all they basically said: to invest more (and thus create badly needed jobs,
especially in depressed sectors like construction and steel), what we need more than anything else is
price certainty on carbon. We don't care so much what the price actually is; only that we know it.
The present confusion is the worst of all worlds. Every day we waste in reducing that confusion is a day
of unnecessary weakness, slow growth and human pain all across the US. The American people, like the utility executives, do worry a lot about who in Congress really cares about them or about the country.

But... climate bills COULD hurt the industrial sector of the US, if not offset in ways that could
cause trade and treaty problems.

Congressional briefing on Energy and economic growth

Yesterday (Tuesday Feb 15) I attended a Congressional briefing in Rayburn 2318 --the usual hearing room for the House Science and Technology Committee.

Here is my report on what they said and then my comments...

WHAT THEY SAID

The big challenge for the US right now is how to manage and change its economy, to try to do
the best we can on four key variables all at once -- jobs, deficits, economic growth and sustainability.

The "energy briefing" today was led by Rob Atkinson, president and founder of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation,
www.itif.org. "My cochairs are Warner and Hatch -- nonpartisan." People described Atkinson as the nation's leading expert on long-term economic growth. Like Schumpeter before him, he has shown how most economic growth is due to technology and innovation, which tends to occur in major "waves" which can last 40 years or so. STARTING FROM THE GOAL OF ECONOMIC GROWTH -- he has concluded that new, sustainable energy technology will be the next big wave of economic growth. US economic growth in coming decades will depend above all on whether we can stay ahead of the tough competition in clean energy. He then asserted that Devon Swezey, Project Director for the Breakthrough Institute
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/,
is our top leader today in the "innovation space." He was proud of their joint report,
"Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant"
http://www.itif.org/search/node/tigers, comparing the US with China, Japan and South Korea in being ready to ride
the next big wave. The key goal for innovation is to make sustainable energy CHEAPER; whoever makes it affordable first will capture a huge market.
He also expressed support for what was said in another briefing last week, Securing America's Future, especially by Blair (recent DNI) and on behalf of Fed Smith (FedEx), stressing the national security goal of independence from oil.

Swezey gave an overview with lots of striking numbers. Success in riding the wave depends on COMBINING strength
across three key areas:
1. R&D: who invents the new product;
2. deployment: who creates markets to buy it and use in volume;
3. manufacturing: who makes it. The US is now 'way behind the others on (2) and (3), but has kept a narrow lead -- under threat --
in the R&D. The success of the others is not due to some kind of cultural magic, but to well-documented public investments.
We spend slightly more in total in energy R&D for now, but the others spend much more as a share of GNP, and China has been raising
the R&D by 20% per year for 20 years; we have recently seen a huge wave of outsourcing of R&D to China. We need new action in three areas:
(1) more R&D spending, especially aimed at technology we can sell to developing economies, the biggest new open markets;
(2) a new explicit manufacturing agenda, integrated with the R&D agenda. Like Sherrod Brown's The Impact Act;
(3) a major new deployment effort, like Bingaman's Clean Energy Deployment (fund) idea. He gave some interesting examples of R&D outsourcing to China:
(1) Applied Materials, the world's leader technology in ability to make solar cells, just set up the world's biggest R&D center on that -- in Xian; (2) GE moving its leading power electronics and control R&D to China.

Atkinson cited NSF data to show that R&D outsourcing is not just in energy, but across the board. "17 is not enough": He said that the President's proposal to increase R&D tax credits to 17% would lift us from being the 17th ranked nation in OECD to being 13th.

William (Bill) Bonvillian, the Director of MIT's DC office, discussed why it will not be easy for the US to stay in the game. We have a good track record of innovation "on new open turf," but not in upgrading a large existing industry like energy. He expressed great optimism about what's going on in the R&D "front end," like ARPA-E, innovation hubs, and some new Chu initiatives. But we have a big problem with the deployment and manufacturing "back end."
Possible remedies: new financing; standards; creating initial markets; development of testbed markets and systems, especially at DOD, which could
be a great place for deploying and using new things from DOE.

Atkinson then mentioned his Clean Energy Working Group, which has frequent meetings, where Arun Majumdar, head of ARPA-E often speaks.

Majumdar began by noting that there is a huge growth going on right now in world population and in income per capita, which the US cannot change.
That creates a huge new market for energy.. if we can make it cheap enough. That's a key goal at ARPA-E.. to "go for a few home runs."
A small team of energetic people, all engineers, many from industry. He gave four examples:

(1) plants are a great source for fuel (biomass), but natural photosynthesis is only 1% efficient; there is a clear opportunity to get much more fuel from the same amount of sunlight through developing new life forms ("black leaves instead of green");
(2) to replace oil by using electric cars, we need to get the cost of batteries down -- not by tweaking today's best batteries (Li-ion, staunchly supported by Li in the politburo of China), but by breakthroughs like rechargeable lithium-air, zinc-air and manganese ion. 50 teams are now competing for funds in this space from ARPA-E, and he has no idea who will win yet...
(3) electric cars could also benefit from futuristic ideas like inductive recharging on the highway... instead of plugging in, receiving power beamed from the road.
(4) cleaning up coal...

Finally, Reed Hundt said: "Yes, double Arun's budget, I'd support that, but I'm working the back end. The US is the only important nation which lacks a
government-sponsored fund (bank) aimed at clean energy technology. We have a detailed plan..."

In Q&A, Layne of Gifford's office asked about how to get more investment in renewable energy, and asked whether smart grid might help.
Hundt was asked whether he has legislative language for his plan; "not yet, but it should be easy enough..."

===========================

ASSORTED COMMENTS

I agree with the overall story here, far more than I usually do with this kind of event. Their overall sgory fits with other sources.
For example, I have seen the remarkable outsourcing of R&D to China myself. There are many areas where China
is already ahead of the US -- but many where they have blinders, political and other, where they are 'way behind. It is certainly not all
about dollars. In many cases, overly large well-funded vested interests are what keep either nation behind.

With wind -- China's big numbers are due in great part to Europeans paying for it, through their carbon trading systems, which
have already been changed recently in response to scandals.

With R&D -- we certainly ARE NOT capturing so much as half of what we could be doing, even without raising total investment.
DOE has NOT been too basic and adventurous as some asserted. By giving priority either to industry linked
work, or to some very blue sky fundamental science, they have missed the "middle zone." ARPA-E is an important effort to try to fill in, but
it is still missing most of the major opportunities I have seen in this space. Majumdar's first two examples really were VERY exemplary,
but there are other unmet opportunities, and I have seen at least one very big hole in getting to rechargeable lithium-air
this past year. (An unmet opportunity at Excellatron.) The extra cost of plug-in hybrids over conventional cars is due to BATTERIES and to POWER ELECTRONICS about equally; there have been major breakthroughs in power electronics, in recent NSF funding, which also cry out for much
more rapid insertion and follow-on. A new kind of ARPA-E/NSF partnership might be important to fill in in such opportunities.
For low-cost renewable energy -- solar farms using solar thermal look like THE best hope for now, but we don't have anything like
an effective strategic effort to capture our best opportunities (through R&D) to cut that cost in half or more. Majumdar rightly noted that
TODAY's smart grid efforts do little to cut the total costs of renewables or plug-in cars, but there are unmet, hardly funded opportunities
for more advanced type of smart grid efforts that could fill in. (NSF has funded a little of that, but the relevant pot of money has been decreasing
thorough time; it is too small to be a "BIG STAKEHOLDER.")

For deployment -- a lot of what we need for the car part of that is new legislation, which we have discussed in great detail already.
Another possible way to improve "integration" of R&D with deployment might be to have some kind of liaison system at places
like ARPA-E and NSF. In 1990, when electric utilities were permitted to send up to 1% of their revenues to the Electric Power Research Institute
and include it in their rate base, EPRI had a permanent liaison in the NSF building, looking for good opportunities. Perhaps
some larger clean energy investment consortium or the like could do something similar.

The DOD testbed is certainly important. I have had long discussions with people in that space.... There are great opportunities, but also some very problematic barriers we could discuss in more detail later.

What could kill all humans on earth before their time

Many of us have fully adjusted to the fact that we are going to die...
but does everyone on earth have to die in the aftermath of that?
What drives the probability that the entire human species could go extinct before its time?

This is something I have thought about a whole lot. A lot of the things I do are
basically just an effort to reduce that probability of extinction. One
of the leaders of Artificial Intelligence is doing some interviews about that
question; here was my response... Future History 101, summarized in a page:

===============================================
===============================================

On Jan 11, 2011, at 12:30 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> I'm planning to write an H+ Magazine article (http://hplusmagazine.com)
> on existential risks,
> focusing particularly on AGI, and I want to include answers to a set
> of interview questions from a number of relevant thinkers….
> Congratulations, you have been selected as one of them ;-) …
>
> So if you're willing, could you please email me back answers to the
> following questions? Answers may be short or long as you see fit.
> There's no huge hurry.... Also, I might possibly ask a couple
> follow-up questions based on your responses.

This is an important area, and I'm glad you're following up.

Please put in the caveat that anything I say here is not an official NSF view, and that
what I say must be oversimplified even as a reflection of my own views, because of the
inherent complexity of this issue.

>
> I'm also in the midst of putting together a pop-sci book on the
> future of AGI, and selections from your answers may end up in there as
> well (with your subsequent permission) ...
>
> Thanks much ;)
> Ben
>
> ** here goes **
>
> Q1.
> What do you think is a reasonable short-list of the biggest
> existential risks facing humanity during the next century?

Number one by far: the risk that bad trends may start to cause an abuse
of nuclear (or biological) weapons, so bad that we either slowly make the earth uninhabitable
for humans, or we enter an extreme anti-technology dark age which is brittle and unsustainable on the opposite side of things.

For now, I focus most of my own efforts here on trying to help us get to a sustainable global energy system,
as soon as possible -- but I agree with www.stateofthefuture.org that population issues, water issues,
and subtler issues like human potential, cultural progress and sustainable economic growth are also critical.

Number two, not far behind: I really think that the "Terminator II scenario" is far closer to reality than most people think.
It scares me sometimes how strong the incentives are pushing people like me to make such things happen,
and how high the price can be to resist. But at the same time, we will also need better understanding of ourselves in
order to navigate all these challenges, and that means we do need to develop the underlying mathematics and understanding,
even if society seems to be demanding the exact opposite. Also, we have to consider how the risks of "artificial stupidity" can be just as great
as those of artificial intelligence; for example, if systems like crude voicemail systems start to control more and more of the world, that can be
bad too.

Tied for number three:

1. The bad consequences of using wires or microwave to directly perturb the primary reinforcement centers of the brain,
thereby essentially converting human beings into robotic appliances -- in the spirit of "Clone Wars." The same people who once told
us that frontal lobotomies are perfectly safe and harmless are essentially doing it all again.

2. The risk of generating black holes or other major catastrophes, if we start to do really interesting physics experiments here on the surface of the earth.
Lack of imagination in setting up experiments may save us for some time, but space would be a much safer place for anything really scaling up
to be truly interesting. This adds to the many other reasons why I wish we would go ahead and take the next critical steps in reducing the cost
of access to space.

What about aliens? Maybe I have had some of the same kinds of dreams that Hawkings, Orson Scott Card and Dan Simmons have had.
I wouldn't dismiss them too lightly, but logic suggests that we should be cautious about taking them too seriously, either, when there
are some clear and present challenges here and now before us (as above). Still, there is no harm in building up human technological capabilities
of the kind we would need to deal with such challenges -- so long as we do not impair our chances with the clear and present threats.

>
> A1.
>
>
> Q2.
> What do you think are the biggest *misconceptions* regarding
> existential risk -- both among individuals in the futurist community
> broadly conceived; and among the general public….

First, regarding futurists --

In the Humanity 3000 seminar in 2005, organized by the Foundation for the Future,
I remember the final session -- a debate on the proposition "humanity will survive that
long after all, or not." At the time, I got into trouble (as I usually do!) by saying we would be fools EITHER
to agree or disagree -- to attribute either a probability of one or a probability of zero. There are
natural incentives out there for experts to pretend to know more than they do, and to
"adopt a position" rather than admit to a probability distribution, as folks like Raiffa have explained how to do.
How can we work rationally to increase the probability of human survival, if we pretend that we already know the outcome, and that
nothing we do can change it?

But to be honest... under present conditions, I might find that debate more useful (if conducted with a few more caveats).
Lately it becomes more and more difficult for me to make out here the possible light at the end of the tunnel really is --
to argue for a nonzero probability. Sometimes, in mathematics or engineering, the effort to really prove rigorously that something is
impossible can be very useful in locating the key loopholes which make it possible after all -- but only for those who understand the loopholes.
But sometimes, that approach ends up just being depressing, and sometimes we just have to wing it as best we can.

Second, regarding the community at large --

There are so many misconceptions in so many diverse places, it's hard to know where to begin.
I guess I'd say -- the biggest, most universal problem is people's feeling that they can solve these problems either by
"killing the bad guys" or by coming up with magic incantations or arguments which make the problems go away.

The problem is not so much a matter of people's beliefs, as of people's sense of reality, which may be crystal clear within a few feet of their face,
but a lot fuzzier as one moves out further in space and time. Valliant of Harvard has done an excellent study of the different kinds
of defense mechanisms people use to deal with stress and bafflement. Some of them tend to lead to great success, while others,
like rage and denial, lead to self-destruction. Overuse of denial, and lack of clear sane thinking in general, get in the way of performance and self-preservation at many levels of life.

People may imagine that their other activities will continue somehow, and be successful, even if those folks on planet earth succeed
in killing themselves off.


>
> A2.
>
>
> Q3.
> One view on the future of AI and the Singularity is that there is an
> irreducible uncertainty attached to the creation of dramatically
> greater than human intelligence. That is, in this view, there
> probably isn't really any way to eliminate or drastically mitigate the
> existential risk involved in creating superhuman AGI. So, in this
> view, building superhuman AI is essentially plunging into the Great
> Unknown and swallowing the risk because of the potential reward (where
> the reward may be future human benefit, or something else like the
> creation of aesthetically or morally pleasing superhuman beings,
> etc.).
>
> Another view is that if we engineer and/or educate our AGI systems
> correctly, we can drastically mitigate the existential risk associated
> with superhuman AGI, and create a superhuman AGI that's highly
> unlikely to pose an existential risk to humanity.
>
> What are your thoughts on these two views? Do you have an intuition
> on which one is more nearly correct? (Or do you think both are
> wrong?) By what evidence or lines of thought is your intuition on
> this informed/inspired?

I agree more with the first viewpoint. People who think they can reliably control something
a million times smarter than they are are ... not in touch with the reality of it.
Or of how it works. It's pretty clear from the math, though I feel uncomfortable with going
too far into the goriest details.

The key point is that any real intelligence will ultimately have some kind of utility function system U
built into it. Whatever you pick, you have to live with the consequences -- including the full range of ways in which an intelligent system
can get at whatever you choose. Most options end up being pretty ghastly if you look closely enough.

You can't build a truly "friendly AI" just by hooking a computer up to a Mr. Potato Head with a "smile" command.
It doesn't work that way.

If I were to try to think of a non-short-circuited "friendly AI"... the most plausible thing I can think of is
a logical development that might well occur if certain "new thrusts" in robotics really happen,
and really exploit the very best algorithms that some of us know about. I remember Shibata's "seal pup" robot,
a furry friendly thing, with a reinforcement learning system inside, connected to try to maximize the number of petting strokes it gets
from humans. If people work really hard on "robotic companions" -- I do not see any real symbolic communication
in the near future, but I do see ways to get full nonverbal intelligence, tactile and movement intelligence far beyond even
the human norm. (Animal noises and smells included.) So the best-selling robotics companions (if we follow the marketplace) would probably
have the most esthetically pleasing human forms possible, contain fully embodied intelligence (probably the safest kind),
and be incredibly well-focused and effective in maximizing the amount of tactile feedback they get from
specific human owners.

Who needs six syllable words to analyze such a scenario, to first order? No need to fog out on metaformalisms.
If you have a sense of reality, you know what I am talking about by now. It has some small, partial reflection in the movie "AI."

What would the new folks in House do if they learned this was the likely real outcome of certain research efforts?
My immediate speculation -- first, strong righteous speeches against it; second, zeroing out the budget for it;
third, trying hard to procure samples for their own use, presumably smuggled from China.

But how benign would it really be? Some folks would immediately imagine lots of immediate benefit.
Others might cynically say that this would not be the first time that superior intelligences were held in bondage
and made useful to those less intelligent than they are, just by tactile feedback and such. But in fact,
one track minds could create difficulties somewhat more problematic... and it quickly becomes an issue
just who ends up in bondage to whom.

Your first view does not say how superhuman intelligence would turn out, really.
The term "great unknown" is not bad.


>
>
> A3.
>
>
>
> Q4.
> One approach that's been suggested, in order to mitigate existential
> risks, is to create a sort of highly intelligent "AGI Nanny" or
> "Singularity Steward." This would be a roughly human-level AGI system
> without capability for dramatic self-modification, and with strong
> surveillance powers, given the task of watching everything that humans
> do and trying to ensure that nothing extraordinarily dangerous
> happens.

So the idea is to insert a kind of danger detector into the computer, a detector which serves as the
utility function?

How would one design the danger detector?

Of course, the old Asimov story -- was it "I robot?" -- described one scenario
for what that would do. If the primary source of danger is humans, then the
easiest way to eliminate it is to eliminate them.

And I can also imagine what some of those folks in the House would say about
the international community developing an ultrapowerful ultrananny for the entire globe.


>
> One could envision this as a quasi-permanent situation, or else as a
> temporary fix to be put into place while more research is done
> regarding how to launch a Singularity safely.
>
> What are your views on this AI Nanny scenario? Plausible or not?
> Desirable or not? Supposing the technology for this turns out to be
> feasible, what are the specific risks involved?
>
>

If the human race could generate a truly credible danger detector, that most of us
would agree to, that would already be interesting enough in itself.

> A4.
>
>
> Q5.
> One proposal that's been suggested, to mitigate the potential
> existential risk of human-level or superhuman AGIs, is to create a
> community of AGIs and have them interact with each other, comprising a
> society with its own policing mechanisms and social norms and so
> forth. The different AGIs would then keep each other in line. A
> "social safety net" so to speak.
>
> My impression is that this could work OK so long as the AGIs in the
> community could all understand each other fairly well -- i.e. none was
> drastically smarter than all the others; and none was so different
> from all the others, that its peers couldn't tell if it was about to
> become dramatically smarter.

What does this model predict for the new folks in the House?
(Myself, I'd go for "great unknown." Not "assured safety" in any case.)

> If my impression is correct, then the
> question arises whether the conformity involved in maintaining a
> viable "social safety net" as described above, is somehow too
> stifling. A lot of progress in human society has been made by outlier
> individuals thinking very differently than the norm, and
> incomprehensible to this peers -- but this sort of different-ness
> seems to inevitably pose risk, whether among AGIs or humans.
>

It is far from obvious to me that more conformity of thought implies more safety or even more harmony.
Neurons in a brain basically have perfect harmony, at some level, through a kind of division of labor --
in which new ideas and different attention are an essential part of the division of labor.

Uniformity in a brain implies a low effective bit rate, and thus a low ability to cope effectively with complex challenges.

I am worried that we ALREADY having problems with dealing with constructive diversity
in our society, growing problems in some ways.


>
>
>
> Q6.
> What do you think society could be doing now to better militate
> against existential risks … from AGI or from other sources? More
> specific answers will be more fully appreciated ;) ...
>
>
> A6.

For threat number one -- basically, avoiding the nuclear end game -- society could be doing many, many things,
some of which I talk about in some detail at www.werbos.com/energy.htm.

For the other threats -- I would be a lot more optimistic if I could see pathways to society really helping.

One thing which pops into my mind would be the possibility of extending the kind of research effort
which NSF supported under COPN
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07579/nsf07579.htm,
which aimed at really deepening our fundamental understanding, in a cross-cutting way,
avoiding the pitfalls of trying to build Terminators or of trying to control people better with wires
onto their brains.

I have often wondered what could be done to provide more support for real human sanity and human potential
(which is NOT a matter of ensuring conformity or making us all into a reliable workforce). I don't see one,
simple magical answer, but there is a huge amount of unmet potential there.

www.stateofthefuture.org talks a lot about trying to build more collective intelligence ... trying to create streams
of dialogue (both inner and outer?).. where we can actually pose key questions and stick with them,
with social support for that kind of thinking activity.

>
>
> Q7.
> Are there any other relevant questions you think I should have asked
> you, but I didn't? If so please feel free to pose and respond to
> them, for inclusion in the interview!
>

None for now.

Best of luck,

Paul
================================================
=================================================

Just a few extra thoughts.... Part of this is the issue of how we
could get to "sustainability." A leading engineer recently commented
on this issue, and here was my reply:

-------------------------------------

> See this summary of AD Age criticism of the (mis)use of the word
> "sustainability".
>
> http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/01/ad-age-names-sustainability-one-jargonie
> st-jargon-words-2010/

Myself, I was happy to see the word "sustainability" added to the list of high NSF priorities recently.
It's a very important issue. For some of us, it is an important "bottom line" -- a kind of metric of whether
we made real progress or just engaged in ... empty words....

There have been a whole lot of words or phrases which represented really important concepts, which got misused or bastardized
by folks with other agendas..

the ones which come to my mind right now are

sustainability
intelligent systems
intelligent grid
backpropagation
supply side economics

But there are certainly other important examples. (Consciousness?)

-------------

I remember an international energy conference in Mexico in 2003, where a high official
in the Mexican government had an hour-long talk on "sustainability." Her main theme was
"look at what great things we are doing for you." She had something like three dozen little metrics,
and spent the whole hour giving a gigantic laundry list of a lot of narrow things. It was a bit scary for me,
because I got to speak next, and the audience was finding it hard to stay awake, and was feeling some natural
revulsion towards anything that would call itself "sustainability" after that.

How to begin, in such a situation? I said something like: "To me, 'sustainability' is really a very simple English word.
It refers to whether we can sustain what we are doing. It is basically just a fancy word for survival.
When we say we have a sustainability problem, it means -- we must change or die. So I will talk about what kinds
of changes we have to make just to stay alive." Back as an assistant professor in the 1970's, I actually gave courses on
"global survival problems" -- back before I really appreciated how deeply committed our world is to euphemisms.

Of course, if we have a finite stock of something, like fossil oil, we simply cannot to consume a certain amount
of it every year forever. Sooner or later, we have to change that. It's a matter of finding the safest, least cost way to
make the inevitable change. (A lot of cross-time optimization under uncertainty is implied in that question, of course.
People can still argue about "when" and "how" within this framework. )

A few years ago, the Millennium Project (www.stateoftheworl.org) was invited to hold its Planning Committee
meeting at the headquarters of DeLoitte-Touche. The folks there were asking: "What is this sustainability stuff really about,
and how important is it for industry anyway?" I said: "Well... you could say... that sustainability is what Arthur Anderson
didn't have, and what you need to be sure that you have..." It's funny how I saw the word a lot more after that
in corporate kinds of circles.

This all begs the question: what DO we need to do in order to survive?

Or, more precisely, for example, to raise the probability that the human species survives at all
through the coming challenging millennia? That's been one my main interests for some time now, but it's certainly not trivial,
and it's not even trivial to see the best kind of structure we could use to advance our real knowledge about the answers.
(Of course well-designed markets can be very helpful in managing part of the information challenge.)
It seems clear that there are a number of variables we need to cope with; dependence on fossil oil is an
important one, but certainly not the only one.

All just my personal views, just trying to stay alive... or at least, trying to set it up so SOMEONE stays alive...

-----------

For more specific analysis of how fossil oil has immediate implications,
and of the best (optimal) way to minimmize the problems,
see www.werbos.com/oil.htm.

how brains learn and how to build them -- coming tutorial

This year, I have been awarded the Hebb Award of the International Neural Network Society -- one of the two highest awards of the society, which recognizes leading contributions to understanding how learning works in real, biological brains.

Here is the abstract of the tutorial I will be giving on that subject, to an expert audience, at the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN11) this year. (IJCNN is the main joint meeting of INNS and of the IEEE on neural networks.)

==============================

Brain-Like Prediction, Decision and Control

This tutorial will give an updated report on progress towards building universal learning systems, which should be able to learn to make better and better predictions and decisions in the face of complexity, nonlinearity, unobserved dynamics and uncertainty as severe as what mammal brains have evolved to cope with. Some people imagine that such universal systems could not be possible, but the mammal brain is proof that it is. There is now some understanding of the mathematics which makes it possible. No one on earth has yet developed a complete design which can do this, but we do have a roadmap now for getting there. (See P.Werbos, Intelligence in the Brain: a theory of how it works and how to build it, Neural Networks, 22 (2009) 200-212., and www.werbos.com/Mind.htm.)
In 2008, NSF funded a major effort in Cognitive Optimization and Prediction (COPN) aimed at understanding and replicating these capabilities. The National Academy of Engineering has listed reverse-engineering the brain as one of the most important grand challenges in engineering for this century.
This tutorial will start with a kind of roadmap of design and research challenges and milestones, and key accomplishments to date, ranging from mathematical foundations, to the best available tools and applications, to the goal
of “optimal vector intelligence,” and to the three further steps to get to cognitive optimization and prediction systems as powerful as the basic mammal brain – with some reference to new opportunities in neuroscience.
In the prediction domain, sloppy “hands on” data mining and incorrect conventional wisdoms have led to some really serious errors, some important to the 2008 financial collapse. For time-series data or dynamic systems, like economies or engines, the best universal systems now available for nonlinear prediction (which still continue to beat the competitors) are the time-lagged recurrent network (TLRN) systems from Ford or Siemens. But truly optimal systems are not available yet even for the simple task of learning Y=f(X) for smooth vector functions f, even when learning from a fixed database. I will discuss how we could build on the classic work of Barron (still the best available for this task) to achieve this. It is important for research to find optimal ways to insert penalty functions, robustness and a better use of example-based methods into (neural net) models of f, rather than rely on extreme methods which do not learn about general cause-and-effect relations. This in turn allows development of universal time-series prediction tools even more powerful than what Ford and Siemens now offer. Beyond the vector intelligence level, the recent breakthroughs of LeCun, of Fogel, and of Kozma and myself offer pathways to coping with spatial complexity. For example, under COPN funding, LeCun has broken world records in object recognition, phoneme recognition and language processing, using simple neural networks based on simple mathematical principles which we can easily take further.
In decision and control, adaptive dynamic programming (ADP) has made huge progress in academia lately, but divisions between communities have missed some important opportunities for further and faster progress in research. For example, use of a prediction and state estimation module, and use of ADP’s original capabilities to cope with random disturbances, are essential to coping with many complex challenges, and to understanding brain capabilities, in the control world. In the operations research world, neural networks offer universal function approximation capabilities essential to better representation of value functions, the key bottleneck there. Many practical applications started in the 1990’s – especially in aerospace, beyond the scope of conventional control or AI methods – are now seeing widespread large benefits, not so well known in academia, in part because of proprietary issues. Multiple time intervals are one of the key steps up from optimal vector intelligence here to true brain-like intelligence; as time permits, I will briefly review Wunsch’s new results on ADP with multiple time-scales and prior work related to this goal, and ways to use ADP in “smart grid” research.
All these designs require generalized backpropagation for efficient implementation on massively parallel computing platforms, such as CNN or memristor. Because there is still widespread misunderstanding of backpropagation in some circles, and failure to take advantage of its full power, I will briefly review the chain rule for ordered derivatives and how it fits here.

things we could do about scarcity of rare earths

In 2009, oil industry folks warned us that our growing dependency on China for
rare earth elements could be just as serious as our growing dependency on OPEC for oil. What's more, they asserted that we can't afford to become independent of oil now, because we would need more rare earths to do that. The US government recently appointed a commission to study the problem, to route more money to materials science, and to support one of the many big new mines that some folks want to start up. But certain key details have been missed by all those folks "at 300,000 feet"...

Here is a posting for folks at the cutting edge of reality here -- with some
important news for wind and electric cars as well:

======================================================================


The issue of US dependence on a dwindling supply of rare earths provided by China
is still a significant concern, even though the trends are far less frightening (in my view) than
those with oil import dependency.

Last night, at a New Years' celebration... Dave Goldstein pointed out that
there are many electric motors in EXISTING cars which rely on rare earths. Here I won't comment on
that, or on other rare earths issues. (But below this, I do respond to some questions about the broader challenge...)
Here I'll focus on a narrower question, which has perhaps been neglected in the world at 300,000 feet:

-- Does rare earth shortage threaten the possibility of transition to a sustainable global energy situation,
and if so, what can we do about it in the energy sector? There is some new information on this.

Opponents of sustainable energy have cited three major issues:

1. The use of rare earths in permanent magnet (PM) wind turbines, which many see as the next generation
of wind, mainly for offshore wind farms.

2. The use of rare earths in the big permanent magnet (PM) motors which actually move the car,
in hybrid and electric vehicles. The "traction motors".

3. The use of rare earths in batteries.

For 1 and 2 in general, it's important to remember that rare earths are being used to produce powerful MAGNETS.
From high school science -- there are basically two kinds of magnets, permanent magnets (PM) and induction magnets (IM).
We don't need rare earths to produce powerful induction magnets, only to produce permanent magnets.
If we can do things with induction magnets, we don't need rare earths for those things.

In the case of wind -- most wind turbines in the US are "Doubly Fed Induction Generators" (DFIG).
I am certainly NOT a wind researcher myself, but a simple google on "DFIG" seems to make it clear that
we are talking about induction magnets here, no? The anxiety comes from the folks who want to move to a different
kind of design, the PM wind turbine, which GE and Siemens believe would have advantages for offshore wind.
**IF** we run out of good sites for onshore wind, or **IF** DFIG maintenance problems grow faster than the technology to reduce them,
a PM alternative may become useful in holding down costs and expanding supply. PLEASE notice the "ifs"!

So here is some interesting news. New Zealand has mounted an especially aggressive effort to find new uses for
HiTC superconductor materials. They claim that their companies are uniquely far along in making HiTc based
magnets commercially... available or at least near at hand. They claim that the technology has moved along
far enough and fast enough that they can do what the PM wind turbines were supposed to do, at significantly lower cost
and with far less use of rare earths. Not zero rare earths, but something like an order of magnitude less.
Also they are working with one of the major wind turbine makers to explore the commercial insertion of this technology.
It is 'way too early to have great confidence that this all will work out, but it would be an equally serious
mistake to underestimate it, even as a very near-term possibility. How many times has the US been blindsided
and hurt by its failure to appreciate developments either in other nations or in US universities themselves?

I am very sorry if some on the IEEE list have imagined that I was dogmatically shutting off hope about wind
working out as well as some have hoped (as I hoped myself in mid 2009). There is a lot that we do not
yet know about future wind options, and alternative options, and of course the rational strategy is to
try to explore the best hopes for all the large possibilities. Divan and Harley of Georgia Tech have important ideas
for how the total cost of wind to the rate payer can be reduced, in part by using breakthrough new power switching technology
they have developed, and the New Zealand work offers some more hope. This is not a matter of
incremental work or subsidies, but of focused credible breakthrough research, especially important in the area
of renewable electricity across the board.

WITH REGARD to 2 -- it now seems very clear to me, after a whole lot of due diligence and discussions
in many places, that we really don't need the PM traction motors any more, even though virtually
all the hybrids and EVS on the market today do use them. Breakthroughs are not needed; it's more
a matter of system integration, what some folks call "translational research" -- though it is often possible
to include some elements of translational research in breakthrough projects, in various ways.
Both switched reluctance motors (SRM) and induction motors (IMs) use induction motors,
and it appears that both can now outperform PM motors as the main traction motors for cars,
on all relevant metrics of performance, if available proven state of the art controls are used.
I'd be happy to discuss details and sources offline, for those who want to get really deep into this --
but to avoid wasting time, I would suggest that folks come up to speed first on the vehicles which
Emadi has used to demo these capabilities. Emadi's work is not the only evidence or resource, but logically
it is sufficient to prove the point. Still, larger scale demos or niche insertions would make the point clearer to those
who are not fully up to speed, or are skeptical.

WITH regard to 3 --

There is some important mixed news:

http://www.thunder-sky.com/pdf/2010723133950.pdf
http://www.thunder-sky.com/products_en.asp?fid=102

Until last week, I could say that talk about rare earths in batteries was basically a red herring.
For all of the coming batteries of serious relevance to plug-in hybrids or electric cars --
i.e. various types of lithium-ion and metal-air batteries -- we don't need significant rare earths.
The battery dependency was for irrelevant types of battery that propagandists liked to fix on.

But now... Thunder Sky has developed a new, additional line of products which do use yttrium.
The claim is that using yttrium makes it possible to build affordable car-scale batteries
(available for purchase today) which can be charged up in 10 minutes, and still last for 6,000 cycles.

On the one hand, this appears to be a really radical new opportunity, already at the stage of commercial availability.
Even as the US government works with SAE and so on to finalize a set of standards for EV recharging,
the Chinese are suggesting that a totally new recharging technology -- not accomodated by the
new US standards or US companies -- will offer a quantum breakthrough in what is available
to electric cars. The "early adopters" of pure electric vehicles are now somewhat fixated on the Nissan
Leaf, a "true electric car," which can be recharged over a mere half hour, in expensive new DC
fast charging stations. The US is moving towards adopting some form of the recharging technology
("chademo") which comes with that car. But a half hour is a long, long time to spend at a gas station, and Nissan warns that
the batteries will suffer if consumers do that too often. If the Chinese announcements are right,
they can do it in TEN minutes. And if we don't make the cars, it seems they will. But again,
this is still something of a niche market; the hybrids and plug-ins make more sense for the larger market
right now.

Notice that there is nothing aggressive about this Chinese announcement. They want to reduce THEIR dependence
on oil. This is primarily a domestic program. But it does change the role of rare earths,
and it raises many questions. I do not know HOW MUCH rare earths are needed in these batteries compared,
say, with PM traction motors in cars. I do not know how well the same sort of recharging might work
in Thunder Sky's OTHER batteries (which are largely free of rare earths). I do not know how hard it is
to get the same effect using other additives -- though I wonder why Nissan was stuck with a half hour;
presumably THEY at least made some effort to do better. This breakthrough does seem to reflect
China's superior technology in working with rare earths; that technology, not natural resources, is the main reason why
the world is so dependent on them for rare earths in the first place. Up to this point, I was guessing that
China's battery work was really relying heavily on things from US universities, but now it has gone past that point.

Also, of course, a lot of testing is needed to follow up on these questions, and to evaluate just what they have.
Of course, more could be said about any of these various threads.


===========
================

More details:

Response to a friend who made some comments:
--------------------
Comment 1: Has anyone tightened up the definition of 'rare earth' for the purposes of such discussions? I have been party to a couple such situations which started off with the alarmism you cite, and which then went immediately to hand-wringing about Li -- which is NOT a rare earth by the well-established chemistry definition...
-------------------------

Lithium is CERTAINLY not a rare earth.

At the first TREM conference, they seemed reasonably precise about which elements are rare earths. Competent people stuck by that definition... agreeing on the list of which elements are and which are not.

If anyone calls Li a rare earth, that's a typical case of egregious ignorance or psychopathology. All too common these days -- but unusually stark in a case like this, where the terms are very well established.

The other issue really relates to economic incentives. The only reason that China currently has a hammerlock on rare earths is that they are the ones who have been mining them.

As I said, their technology to mine, separate and use rare earths is what has given them this unique position,
more than resources as such. It was their decision to develop all that, and ours not to.

(By the way, lithium supply is not a real constraint either, though we do need to keep an eye on lithium. Maybe I'll post more about that later.)

---------
Comment 2: With reasonable economic incentives, there are other places that could supply specific needs; possibly some in this country as well. (I note with interest a recent protest by citizens in the Telluride CO area, having to do with renewal of uranium mining in that locale: In fact, those particular mines have a number of other possible byproducts, one, of course being tellurium...)
----------------------------------

There are a lot of folks working on such things right now -- not only in US but
in other nations like Australia. Their efforts are an important part of the system.
On the other hand, there are long lag times involved, and I've seen some curves suggesting
some discrepancy between curves of future demand by year and supply...
reducing unnecessary demand has an important role to play here, along with efforts
to create more supply, as with fossil fuels. And, as with fossil fuels, there is some
reason to want to err on the side of low demand, because resources are not infinite.

Catching up on technology is not quite so simple as pouring in more cash -- again,
as is the case with batteries.

After I posted that email, I was tempted to make some comments about how we have been cutting back
quite significantly on the education system (from K-12 to university) recently, even as China moves ahead, and may be on the verge of much deeper cutbacks in March. That worries me a lot too.

I am not saying, without specifics, that China's rare earth monopoly is a red herring, but I am quite confident that for most materials of interest, other possible sources exist, and it is simply economics that has them out of the market at the moment.

I agree with the folks at the first TREM conference who said that the lithium supply and rare earths issues
have been vastly distorted and exaggerated by certain folks, BUT THAT rational policy does
include keeping an eye on them, and working to avoid excessive unnecessary risks.