[FoRK] Closing funny bits, was Re: Malthusian machinations

Aaron Burt 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 mailing list