π Faster, Please! Week in Review #56
Please check out some highlights from my essays and interviews!
My free and paid Faster, Please! subscribers: Welcome to Week in Review. No paywall! Thank you all for your support! For my free subscribers, please become a paying subscriber today.
β‘ One other thing: I have a book coming out on October 3. The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised is currently available for pre-order pretty much everywhere, including Amazon. Iβm very excited about it!
Melior Mundus
In This Issue
Essay Highlights
β Explaining irrational tech pessimism
β Super superconductors aren't needed for high-speed rail in AmericaBest of 5QQ
β 5 Quick Questions for β¦ infrastructure policy analyst Aidan Mackenzie on geothermal regulation
Essay Highlights
βΉ Explaining irrational tech pessimism
After last Decemberβs net-energy fusion announcement, we saw a similar strange silence as after the recent LK-99 announcement. I think ideology is what the (non)reactions to the possible superconductor breakthrough and to the actual nuclear fusion breakthrough have in common β and, to some extent, generative AI where the reactions have been about risk rather than reward. For some environmentalists, particularly where they crossover with degrowth activists, the problem isnβt how to fuel more economic growth in an ecologically sustainable way, itβs the growth and consumption itself. That, either because (a) they think weβll use up all of the resources on Spaceship Earth β¦ (b) they donβt like the role of market capitalism in the process β¦ or (c) they have a cultural or aesthetic personal preference for a certain type of βsmall is beautifulβ future that rejects globalized society at scale and yearn for a localized, artisanal economy powered by solar and wind. Nuclear fission/fusion and room-temp superconductors would counter that decades-old desire stemming from the 1960s emergence of βlimits to growthβ environmentalism. In short, a reaction to big technological advances is a great litmus if you want a world of mass abundance or one of managed scarcity.
π Super superconductors aren't needed for high-speed rail in America
In May, the California High-Speed Rail Authority released updated cost estimates, forecasting it will cost as much as $128 billion, up from $100 billion a few years ago, $40 billion in 2008, and $25 billion when the concept was first proposed back in 1999. (And the current goal is to merely have a starter segment between Bakersfield and Merced operational between 2030 and 2033.) As CNBCΒ reports, "Inflation and higher construction costs have contributed to the high price tag.β California canβt do much about the price surge of recent years, but construction costs are another matter β as is the fact that after 15 years of effort, not a single mile of track has been laid.
π€ AI has risks. So does regulating it.
Itβs not surprising given the current geopolitical climate that the emergence of large language models such as ChatGPT immediately prompted questions about Chinaβs generative AI capabilities. Now imagine: What if the consensus appraisal of Chinaβs AI abilities was that it was not two or three years behind but two or three years ahead? That would mean a communist, authoritarian state was on track to create one of the most powerful technologies ever devised by humanity. As it is, the specter of falling behind China should provide a powerful incentive for policymakers to show great caution in any effort to create a special regulatory regime for AI. As a reminder of the potential of AI to do a lot more than replace rote and boring tasks, AI might be able to boost scientific and technological progress in domains as diverse as fusion energy, materials science, drug discovery, genetic editing, astronomy, climate modeling, and agriculture. The potential here is vast, and I donβt want it to get lost among hand-wringing and negativity β a dispiriting 72 percent of voters prefer slowing down the development of AI compared to just 8 percent who prefer speeding development up β and suffocated by wrong-headed regulation.
Best of 5QQ
π‘ 5 Quick Questions for β¦ infrastructure policy analyst Aidan Mackenzie on geothermal regulation
Aidan Mackenzie, infrastructure fellow at the Institute for Progress, recently published βGeothermal Energy Needs Permitting Reform.β
Why haven't oil and gas regulatory exemptions been extended to geothermal already? Are legislators unaware? Are counter-lobbying efforts succeeding?Β
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave oil and gas exploration drilling a specific carve-out from NEPA. Those exclusions havenβt been extended to geothermal. This means thereβs a remarkable imbalance between the regulatory difficulty of drilling for geothermal heat, and the difficulty in drilling for oil. Itβs even stranger when you consider that many of the well-drilling technologies are functionally identical: in fact, many of the cutting-edge geothermal drilling techniques were adapted from traditional oil and gas, or from the shale revolution. Geothermal development requires several stages of development, such as exploration drilling to test for good subsurface production conditions, and those separate stages force the industry to complete several NEPA reviews instead of one. It can take up to 7-10 years for geothermal projects to go through all the permitting steps.Β
The oil and gas exemptions are a good example of how complex regulatory processes can disadvantage newcomers. Established industries have practice working with regulators, and their lobbyists have sway with policymakers. New industries donβt have many lobbyists and have to move up a steep learning curve.Β