[FoRK] Closing funny bits, was Re: Malthusian machinations
aaron at bavariati.org
Wed Jun 16 09:52:30 PDT 2010
(picking and choosing to minimize time-wastage)
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 03:30:23PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 08:16:02AM -0500, Jeff Bone wrote:
> > Contrary to Dave's point, present futures market conditions do not have
> > this priced in; the instruments today do not operate on a long-enough
> > time horizon to do so. They may encourage the necessary economic
> > monotonicity to HELP bridge the gap at each tactical step along the
> > way, but without more coverage of the future value curve by instruments
> > with (much) longer tenor, I am skeptical that pure market forces in
> > today's markets can accomplish the necessary allocations of capital
> > required for building the bridge.
There is a market mechanism that gets sustainable-energy projects built:
Future price stability. The price of sunshine doesn't change, so when you
amortize the cost of a solar process-heat or PV system over its useful
life and divide by its useful output, you get effectively a 20-year
contract for delivery of services at a fixed price.
Sentiment and public image may be opening the doors to these kinds of
projects, but price-stability is what is sells them to The Board.
> > As Geege jokingly reminds us: we've got to do something. Multiple
> > somethings, in my opinion.
Gov't logic: "We must do something. This is something, therefore we will do it."
> Data centers passing overhead in the sky make a lot of sense,
> if you think of it.
We're on it: http://server-sky.com/
If that doesn't work, add "datacentre capacity" to your "Peak X" scenario.
As much as I want to work on large-scale computational efficiency,
datacentres are just as subject to the efficiency paradox (increased
resource efficiency leads to more resource demand) as any other resource.
More information about the FoRK