nerdgirl

Since it's unclear to me from my reading of your response -- withdrawal of troops versus continued military engagement is not the discussion or issue here. (Another topic, yes ... just not this one.) As I read your response, you have alluded to (perhaps without even realizing it ) one part of the on-going debate between the counterinsurgency/COIN/SSTR folks and the ‘traditional’ militarists (or what I call “Fulda Gap” or un-reformed Soviet specialist mentality, when I’m frustrated). It also reflects the ongoing debate between as epitomized between LTC John Nagl (USA) and LTC Gian Gentile (USA). The underlying issues (here) are about how ‘winning’ and ‘success’ are defined and about how (the ways & means) we go about pursuing those ends in the 21st century. Again, don’t take my word for it: refer back to SecDef Gates' quote above on the importance of public relations and strategic communications, or the comments of GEN Sir Rupert Smith: “The new paradigm is war amongst the people [in the US, more commonly known as ‘asymmetric warfare’ – nerdgirl] where the strategic objective is to win hearts and minds, and the battle is for the people's will, rather than the destruction of an opponent's forces. “The essential difference is that military force is no longer used to decide the matter … The strategic objective being to alter the opponent’s intentions rather than to destroy him.” We can blow things up like no one else can; innovative technology for blowing things up is not a problem, but can we re-build them? And rebuild them so that when we leave they don’t crumble/disintegrate completely? Altho’ I probably would not express it with quite the same verbiage, essentially yes. You encapsulated the SSTR conundrum – if a post-conflict state only reaches “Security” and does not proceed to “Stabilization” “Transition” and “Reconstruction,” the slide back to insecurity, conflict, and opening a gaping vacuum for opportunistic individuals to seize power, e.g., rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Somali warlords, etc., is the historical precedent of the late 20th Century. (NB: Liberia may emerge as an exceptional case of the start of the 21st Century.) We don’t do SSTR well, and we don’t train (most) of our uniformed military to do SSTR. The $50B question remains: *who* is going to do SSTR effectively and *how*? Whoever can provide an executable answer is worthy of an Undersecretary position. If we are not even recognizing what is the opinion of larger citizenry is (not ours, *theirs,* i.e., the ones we want to change). It’s not about changing attitudes of ‘terrorists’/coddling insurgents/‘hating America’/historical revisionism/whatever – it’s recognition that the civilian population provides tacit or direct support of the ‘terrorists’ or insurgents and why & how important that is: those are the men (mostly) that in some combination we will have to convince, cajole, capture, or kill (… and compromise with …) if we are to win. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, altho' I see it from two additional perspectives as well. Most introductory biology classes already *do* discuss other competing hypothesis that were eliminated, e.g., spontaneous generation and "vitalism," and *why* they were eliminated, i.e., the evidence. Showing why other hypothesis were eliminated is a powerful pedagogical tool that strengthens understanding of science and the process of doing science. Most introductory biology (& chemistry) classes discuss the significance of the first synthesis of "organic" molecules from "inorganic" ones. I'm not refering to Miller's synthesis of amino acids but work that predates that by at least 100 years when Wohler synthesized urea (an "organic" molecule) from inorganic precursors. Otoh, would you (general, not necessarily specific "you") advocate discussion or teaching -- they have different connotations -- of competing hypotheses to gravity? Or competing hypotheses to germ theory, i.e., something contradictory to the theory that diseases can be transmitted by bacteria, virus, rickettsia & that washing your hands is important, especially before surgery? Or competing hypotheses to the theory of electro-magnetism? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Can you provide links to 10 posts (that's only 10% of the "hundreds" you claim) from SC that assert pathology of anyone who practices any form of organized religion or expresses spirituality? That's a very different assertion than what DSE made. Thanks. I went to church yesterday morning; I'd be very curious who's including me in their unauthorized armchair diagnoses. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Can you provide the specific statistical analysis that you did to support your claim? I'm curious to see the math, thanks. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, I would *very much welcome* reading your observations and comments. How did you go from Saddam's Military to the Iraq military to the US military? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's fantastic! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Approximately 50% of the US civilian nuclear power is produced using down-blended HEU from dismantled nuclear weapons. Through the US “Megatons to Megawatts” program, Russia has also converted material from nuclear warheads (HEU from 13,000 warheads eliminated per the USEC) to fuel for civilian nuclear power generation. Plutonium stocks can be converted into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel. Last summer construction began a MOX fuel facility at the Savannah River Site. France, the UK, and Japan want MOX fuel from us. Russia has its own MOX program. The majority (none?) of the US’s 104 operating nuclear power plants do not use MOX. IIRC, neither of the two proposals submitted to the NRC last Sept for new nuclear power plants (in Texas) were MOX. These are fabulously fascinating issues (im-ever-ho) at the intersection of science, security, energy politics, environmental politics, NIMBY, homeland security, international security, arms control ... and decreasing the 'shiny-metal-death' threat. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You must have watched Conspiracy Theory recently.

Why do Americans always insist on that simple word "free"? It's an implicitness in nearly all [Western] nations and covers all in one: Personal freedom and protection of an individual within the/as well as a society itself according to standard guidelines of that country, known as laws. And that's standard here and in most countries I know of. So, what's new in "beeing free"?? It's just a basic law. Oh, purely speculatively & completely non-scientifically … on a beautiful Friday morning watching the sun rise over downtown Atlanta drinking fair-trade coffee … more writing from my own romantic idealism and classical liberalism than pragmatic realism: It’s in our psyche & our history. It’s a cultural meme that we were taught and that we teach our children: “Manifest destiny” and “rugged individualism” necessitate and simultaneously feed the strong sense of individual liberties and personal freedoms. It permeates the characters that populate our national mythologies. It’s an accident of history & geography, along with guns, germs, and steel . Americans probably owe (or the rest of world can blame) the French for our fascinations/obsessions with individual freedom more than any other people. The French were (comparatively more) constrained in their realization of liberté, égalité, fraternité, by their own history & geography (nevermind other people with guns on the continent), whereas the early Americans did not have those restrictions and took those French Enlightenment ideals to an extreme. (And really focused on the first one – maybe we’re the first nation founded and developed by a bunch of ADHD-children whose attention never held beyond “liberté”?) It's also a cause & effect of American exceptionalism. America – the nation-state not the geographical land masses – was formed by rabble-rousers. Iconoclasts. Stubborn, tenacious folks. Those who left Europe, particularly in the late 1700s and 1800s, didn’t do so because life was good for them in the old country. Those are broad generalizations and 243 words can’t capture the substance, nuance, or complexity of history. And I could probably quibble and provide counter-examples to each statement myself. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Such things as "best" and "freest" are qualitative statements that are mere "puffery." They aren't objectively verifiable by their own nature. "Freest," while not absolutely quantitative, is much more so than "best," ... Freedom House does the highly-regarded, annual index of Freedom in the World. The criteria used are: PR: Political Rights CL: Civil Liberties Status: F-Free; PF-Partly Free; NF-Not Free Sub-Categories: Political Rights A: Electoral Process B: Political Pluralism and Participation C: Functioning of Government Sub-Categories: Civil Liberties D: Freedom of Expression and Belief E: Associational and Organizational Rights F: Rule of Law G: Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights I don't recall specific rankings, rather categories. (And yes, the USA is considered "Free.") VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I agree, the attitudes from one end of the country to the other are far to different to really get a nationwide poll thats accurate. If they perhaps broke the polls down by provinces and ethnic groups that would shed a lot of light on why exactly we aren't welcome in some areas I’m going to challenge on a couple of different bases. Again to acknowledge, as I wrote in the OP, opinion polling in a unstable security state is “admittedly an even more challenging and subject to interpretation task than counting dead bodies.” The poll results aren’t all bad … they aren’t all good either. Like much of the real world – it’s complicated. I’m okay with complicated. Individual accounts *do* provide powerful narratives. Friends and colleagues of mine who are or have been ‘in the sandbox’ (uniformed, retired-now-contractors, and USG civilian; FOBBIT and non-FOBBIT) have shared stories ranging from it’s “a complete hole” to heartbreaking stories of individuals and families trying to maintain vague ‘semblence to normalcy to “here’s the latest project/cool thing we did with [X] group” to “check out the video of the intercepted ordnance we detonated last night!” (paraphrasing on the latter) From a strategic communications (IO) perspective, those stories are powerful – both the ones that support the US mission and the ones that don’t. Stories and individual observations (even a whole bunch of them) can lead us to ask the right questions, but that’s still not data. To invoke kallend’s axiom: “the plural of anecdote is not data.” Also goes to the whole correlation versus causality conundrum – they are not the same. In consideration of ‘accuracy’ (or precision), yes, those are geographically large areas … & yes, both sets of data *are* broken down by Sh’ia, Sunni, and Kurdish identification. To no one’s surprise (who has been paying attention ), Kurds rate things as better; substantially in some areas: “Sulaymania – the Berkeley of Iraq.” What happens to the overall data, if the positive Kurdish data is removed? Prolly doesn’t shift in the direction we would like to see. Anthony Cordesman did a robust analysis of the Feb 07 BBC/ABC/NHK data along regional, ethnic, sectarian and tribal lines in Iraqi Perceptions of the War: Public Opinion by City and Region. If I was advising on this (rather than pontificating on the internet ), I would be strongly advocating that any effort (COIN, military, or civilian) must carefully consider individually the patterns in Iraqi perceptions and civil conflicts. As well, as cultural, which is more Montgomery McFate’s territory. That’s not, however, the point at which the thread started. An additional complication and one required for a more robust analysis is consideration of the effect of the internally displaced persons and those who have left the country altogether. According to the 2007 CIA Factbook “approximately two million Iraqis have fled the conflict in Iraq” and another 1.9M internally displaced persons (aka ‘balkanization’ along ethnic, sectarian, & religious lines). (NB: other sources give higher numbers but used the CIA figures as most conservative estimates). So >7% of the population (or more) have voiced their opinion with their feet and left. Another 7% of the population has relocated far enough to be internally displaced. The BBC/ABC/NHK survey has been done 5 times (2004, 2005, Feb07, Aug07, Feb08). The five iterations of polling data have been collected from different individuals. Do the variations/changes make sense? Yes. Or are the responses so wildly variable as to make one question the accuracy or precision of the data? No. I cited two data sets, the BBC/ABC/NHK survey and the WPO survey. Do the two independent surveys vary substantively in their results from similar times? No. I’m still waiting on *publicly available* surveys, with similar robust analytical methodology, to offer counter-evidence suggesting that “they *DO* want us there.” ---- ---- ---- Again, polls are not a measure of (traditional) combat operations. They are a measure of effectiveness of strategic communications. You guys know – better than I do – counter-insurgency success/SSTR does not happen overnight. How long did it take in Malaysia? In a larger context than these 7 opinion polls (two data sets) and my cursory analysis, I am not alone in recognizing this: “Public relations was invented in the United States, yet we are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals. It is just plain embarrassing that al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.” Okay, now tell me where my analysis is wrong … really(!). Without challenges, my thinking does not get sharper. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

[playing devil’s advocate] Are all y’all implicitly advocating that the US play the ‘world’s policeman’? Take a more active role as such? Who do you imagine invading Vatican City, San Marino, or Monaco? And do you doubt the efficacy of San Marino’s Crossbow Corps? [big-'ol-silly]- “Although once at the heart of San Marino’s army, the Crossbow Corps is now an entirely ceremonial force of about 80 volunteer soldiers. The Crossbow Corps since 1295 has provided demonstrations of crossbow shooting at festivals. Its uniform is medieval in design, and although it is a statutory military unit, it has no actual military function today.” [/devil’s advocate] The analysis wasn’t for “best country;” it was for “most stable and prosperous nation.” The latter must have been per capita. Speculate it’s for advising on investments or insurance risks. Might it be easier to be stable and prosperous when a state is small & homogenous? Monaco isn’t known for its exports of durable or consumer goods (or missile components ) or intellectual prowess, but from an economic perspective, they’ve got a great, stable business plan. I’m not sure how Jane’s measured “stability.” Gibraltar is a contested British territory. Altho’ I’m not sure the likelihood of the UK going to war with Spain over a small island … uh … wait … nevermind … More importantly: One could build a very strong argument that the prosperity and global technical & innovation leadership of US is based on the (controlled) instability that our entrepreneurial capitalist system fosters. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. In both the absolute & in a relative sense, the US nuclear weapons stockpile & individual nuclear weapons are incredibly secure. Additionally, the DoD’s nuclear facilities & complex are better secured – substantially – compared to the Dept of Energy’s. Really? I’m not sure I accept that … I’m not opposed to being convinced, either. How many nuclear weapons have we lost in the ocean? Off the coast of Georgia? Dropped on Spain? How many nuclear incidents have there been? (Albeit smaller numbers than USSR/Russia.) I would assert that the US is being more transparent with the response to (relatively) smaller incidents. Remember the Minot incident was originally a leak & there’s been discussion/speculation as to how isolated that incident truly was. Unsure of the chain of exposure w/r/t this one. Many of the type of incidents that occurred before the Soviet Union collapsed won’t happen now because of changes in procedures and doctrine, i.e., no more training flights with nuclear weapons. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for additional information from the ground. Appreciate it very much. The methodology is given in detail: randomized sampling from all provinces and ethnic groups. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

So many interesting ways to go on this story: Taken in connection w/the Minot incident – what’s going on with organization in the nuclear weapons stockpile management? Are we watching the fulfilment of Charles Perrow’s conclusions that “Normal Accidents” with highly-coupled technologies will occur. Nuclear weapons being one where he asserts that the potential negative consequences to “Normal Accidents” outweigh the benefits. Or Scott Sagan’s “Limits of Safety” argument (at its most distilled) that when no one individual is in charge, likelihood of such incidents increase. I found SecDef Gates’ memo curious in that it was not copied to the ATSD(NCB). (The ATSD(NCB) falls under USD(AT&L) but for nuclear weapons-related issues is supposed to report directly to the SecDef.) Time to resurrect Admiral Rickover? (Don't know if Adm Donald, who SecDef Gates names in his memo to lead the investIgation, is a submariner of Rickover lineage.) “Unless the individual truly responsible can be identified when something goes wrong, no one has really been responsible. With the advent of modern management theories it is becoming common for organizations to deal with problems in a collective manner, by dividing programs into subprograms, with no one left responsible for the entire effort. There is also the tendency to establish more and more levels of management, on the theory that this gives better control. These are but different forms of shared responsibility, which easily lead to no one being responsible—a problem that often inheres in large corporations as well as in the Defense Department.” I don’t think this falls under violation of the Nuclear Supplier Group Guidelines or Zangger Committee. It does seem likely to be a violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime’s Category II export controls. The US is a member of the MTCR. Neither China nor Taiwan is member of the MTCR; China has its own. Technologies that can be used as fuses for re-entry vehicles (high acceleration gyros and accelerometers) are subject to control. And then there’s the Chinese conspiracy theory … VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Wow! Well-deserved. Thanks for the link. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I would invite everyone. All y’all have something interesting & provocative (in a good way) to say - really! [big]-

Split this off from the “Iraq war & Vietnam war comparisons” thread, as it’s a substantive topic shift. ----- --- ----- Can anyone provide a link to the data mentioned in the 2nd quote? (And methodology?) And does anyone have a link to similar data on Afghanistan? The 2 polls of Iraqi opinion (admittedly an even more challenging and subject to interpretation task than counting dead bodies) with which I am familiar suggest a different conclusion w/r/t Iraqi opposition to US presence. (1) The March 2008 BBC/ABC/NHK poll (UK/US {not Australian ABC News}/Japan) that DZJ cited (& thanks for the primary data!). On one hand: “In the fifth survey of Iraqis taken, in February 2008, 55% of those questioned say their lives are good, compared to 39% in the last poll in August 2007.” 39% Feb 07; 71% 2005, 70% 2004 “Broadly, people think life in the country will continue to improve, although there are still problems with the supply of basic facilities such as electricity and water and the availability of jobs, to which 70% of those questioned said was quite or very bad.” “The survey suggests most people think security in their own area has improved since last year [62% Feb08, up from 43% Feb07], but that it is still the greatest problem facing the nation.” The 2nd greatest problem reported was “Terrorist attacks.” The “US occupation/presence” ranked higher as a problem than “Presence of Al-Qaeda/foreign jihadis.” On the other hand: 72% oppose US and coalition presence, which is down from Aug 07 when 79% opposed … altho’ in 2004, it was only 51%. “The majority of Iraqis believe the presence of US troops makes the security situation worse – 61% think the presence of US forces in Iraq makes the security situation worse, down from 72% last August – yet the number who want the Americans to pull out immediately has fallen from last year. 38% want US and coalition forces to leave now” [the single largest response] – down from 47% in Aug07; Feb 07 it was 35%. Instead 51% (largest portion) credit the “Awakening Councils” for improvements. Of those who said the Security Situation has “become worse,” when asked “Who do you feel deserves the most blame for this worsened security?” 20% (the largest single response) indicated “US forces operations.” 57% now indicate that attacks on US or coalition forces are *unacceptable* up from 43% (Aug 07), 49% (Feb 07). Altho’ 42% still indicated attacks were acceptable. IM-ever-HO – the first ‘So What? Who Cares?’: The Iraqi public sees things as getting better, but the US and coalition efforts are not getting “credit” for it, to some extent rather the converse, which makes it more dangerous for US service members and more difficult. (2) World Public Opinion Organization poll (released Sept 06) “71% wanted U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year.” “78% believe that the U.S. military presence is provoking more conflict than it is preventing.” “61% approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces in their country, a 14% increase from [January 2006].” Correlating w/a US poll, they found (in Sept 06) that “American perceptions (or misperceptions) of how Iraqis feel about the U.S. presence are also highly related to their attitudes toward a withdrawal timetable. Support for an open-ended commitment is much higher (49%) among those who believe (incorrectly) that only a minority of Iraqis approve of attacking foreign forces than among those who think that half or more of the Iraqi population approves of such attacks (27%).” ---- ----- ---- What does that mean?, aka the second ‘So What? Who Cares?’, im-ever-ho: Polls are not a measure of (traditional) combat operations – wars aren’t conducted as popularity contests. (‘Shoulds’ or ‘shouldn’t be’ are normative assertions; normatives aren’t particularly relevant to realists [like "St Carl" Clausewitz], unless useful for leveraging for the desired political outcome.) Opinion polls _are_ a measure of effectiveness of strategic communications, i.e., ‘winning the hearts and minds,’ and a measure of effectiveness of counter-insurgency (COIN) operations. Are we still (re-)learning counterinsurgency & struggling with SSTR for the 21st century? The results from the Pew report that I posted last week suggests that the counter-insurgency efforts are working with/for/on the American public. In looking at the BBC/ABC/NHK data (from Feb 08, Aug 07, Feb 07, 2005, & 2004), there are *improvements* in the Iraqi perceptions reported for Feb 08 from the Aug 07 and Feb 07 data. Now, there’s a lot of data in the poll. And it really deserves a (much) more thorough analysis than I gave it here. Not sure how many points we need to make a line either. If counter-insurgency operations are working, substantial improvements should continue w/the next poll. Last Friday’s briefing by Dan Roper, (USA COL) suggests/re-iterates pieces are moving in a positive direction: “The general Iraqi population was tired of the guys that would come into the neighborhood and cause bad things to happen. They knew they couldn’t trust them” Transcript / Audio …Altho’ I am less sure/certain/convinced w/r/t the stabilizing influence of ‘Concerned Local Citizens’/‘Sons of Iraq’ groups. Paying people to fight for one side or another probably goes back to the origin of war & commerce; when payment stops what does history tell us happens? He went on to note that “They [coalition forces] weren’t saying ‘winning’; they were saying ‘succeeding,’ because ultimately, winning or losing is a political decision of all parties involved. Guys who had been kicking in doors a month prior to me getting in their particular neighborhood were describing how they had evolved to get into the soft-knock scenario, and spent more time passing out candy and playing with the kids in the street than they did firing their weapons.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You mean Joe Wilson? The one who lied about yellow cake? That husband? You know, the same one the 911 commision said provided a misleading report? Ya, I remember Marc - Laying aside, momentarily, the specific assertions, I think you may be confusing the “WMD Intelligence Commission” (aka the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction) with the 9-11 Commission? The 9-11 Commission Report doesn’t say anything about Iraq-Niger-yellow cake-Ambassador Wilson. W/r/t the WMD Intelligence Commission’s findings on attempts to procure uranium ore & yellow cake (personally I prefer chocolate cake ) from Niger, most of the blame was directed toward CIA’s WINPAC, which is part of the CIA DI (Directorate of Intelligence). These are the folks who do intelligence analysis on proliferation of WMD & missiles and are the same folks that got the blame for the aluminum tube debacle. Secondary culpability was assigned to CIA DO (aka Directorate of Operations, the ‘spies’ and those who do intelligence collection) and the National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs (NIO/SNP). I’m really curious as to the origins of the interpretation and analysis you described? Thanks. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Bill – I think you may be confusing previous work w/those I cited. Rotary cuff (magnet) based heel strikes systems, etc. generated 2-10 Watts. Otoh, one of the examples hasn’t been published yet and the other was published last month in Nature. Wang and co-workers grew ZnO nanowires on Kevlar. The microfiber-nanowire hybrid system builds on the nanogenerators that Wang, et al., described in Science in April 2007. Actually the biggest pragmatic problem with ZnO nanowires integrated into clothing at the moment isn’t amps, it’s reactivity w/H2O, i.e., you can’t wash them & they would ‘short circuit’ in the rain. Nonetheless, rather than dismissing out of hand, it may be worth to revisit some now-infamous dismissals of emerging technology: “I think there's a world market for about 5 computers.” (Thomas J. Watson, Chairman of the Board, IBM, circa 1948) “It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible to achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with such statements, as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years.” (John Von Neumann, circa 1949) “But what is it good for?” (Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, commenting on the microchip, 1968) “There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.” (Ken Olson, President, Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977) “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” (Bill Gates, 1981) Or maybe it's just the difference between scientists & engineers? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Perhaps I’m in the minority. One can argue that nearly all advanced knowledge is acquired/built at some level by standing on the shoulders of preceding intellectual giants … unless referenced/quoted/cited or general acquired knowledge, what I write is original analysis/speculation/thought or genuine questions. That's one of the great thing about this forum -- I can speculate w/relative anonymity. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

From the annals of Dept of Homeland Security, keeping us ‘safe’ from radioactive pet felines on being chauffeured down the freeway: “A radioactive source detected in a car driving on Interstate 5 in Washington state was found to be a cat. “The incident involved a U.S. Border Patrol agent who was monitoring the highway for potential transport of a radiological ‘dirty bomb,’ said agency official Joe Giuliano. ‘Vehicle goes by at 70 mph,’ Giuliano said last week during a meet on San Juan Island. ‘Agent is in the median, a good 80 feet away from the traffic. Signal went off and identified an isotope (in the passing car).’ “The agent stopped and searched the car. Turned out to be a cat with cancer that had undergone a radiological treatment three days earlier,’ Giuliano said. “‘That’s the type of [detection] technology we have that’s going on in the background. You don’t see it,’ he added. ‘If I hadn’t told you about it, you’d never know it was there.” It was probably Iodine-131. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes! (In addition to 3rd Gen PVs!) As well as on the other end of the size scale – wearable piezoelectric ZnO nanowires arrays (e.g., Georgia Tech’s ZL Wang) or other piezoelectric inorganic nanowires intercalated w/polymer(s) at/near metabolic or environmental Tg’s ('glass' transition temperatures), (e.g., LLNL’s Alex Noy). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The 1st generation cells that you described represent ~70% of terrestrial PVs. Yep. As I *noted* (1) 2nd gen PV, (2) confirmed by the national testing facility, and (3) Mitsubishi, i.e., commercial. 90% of space-based power is generated via 2nd gen PV cells. I’m not sure what you mean by “exotic.” Maybe 2nd Gen non-Si (Group III-V/chalcogenide CVD) PVs were “exotic” 10 years ago or are still considered “exotic” in some large scale commercial applications (?) Gratzel cells aren’t even “exotic” anymore. The truly “exotic” are the quantum dots, the CNT-conjugated systems (e.g., that Richard Smalley (RIP) advocated), Group III-V inorganic nanowires, diamond films (maybe), & fullerenes (non-Gratzel applications). At this point my recommendation remains significant investment in basic and applied research on 3rd Gen PV and DT&E on most promising 2nd Gen. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Technical advisory comments on your strategy, I would strongly recommend you consider photovoltaics playing a more prominent role. (There was a silly part of me that was tempted to do this in 13pt INFO MEMO format. ) The theoretical limit of energy conversion from plants (biofuels) is 10% efficiency. Pragmatically, the best conversions rates for biomass are non-corn-based, e.g., switch grass & sugar beets … living in the southern US, I’ve wondered about kudzu. Algae is another renewable biomass energy source. The globally requirement for power is ~13 trillion watts (or terawatts/TW) currently. By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. If every acre of arable land on the planet was converted to biofuel production, only 7 TW would be generated. (Nevermind, no food to eat, no crops to feed livestock, no natural fibers {sans silk}.) Even with the addition of 5,000 new nuclear power plants, thousands of additional wind turbines, and using every available flowing water source for hydroelectric power, it still will not approach 28 TW. Otoh, 165,000 TW of sunlight hit the Earth every day. Because fossil fuels have been relatively ‘cheap and easy’ (to put it crudely) there hasn’t been the incentive to invest in development of PVs. Plus the solar community does not traditionally have a substantial industrial lobbying base. W/r/t 2nd generation PVs: just last Friday, 18.6% efficiency on a polycrystalline silicon (Si) PV from Mitsubishi was confirmed by Japan’s version of NIST, which represents the world record for the thin film PV. Particularly promising are the 3rd generation PVs – Gratzel-type cells, dye-sensitive ITOs, organic polymers, etc, which are not based on semi-conductor technology but mimic photosynthesis, e.g., the work of Dan Nocera and Angela Belcher at the basic research level and commercially Konarka’s flexible PVs, which are even available in a camouflage pattern, and Global Photonic. From an economics/investor perspective, it’s a hugely untapped market. Investment in basic and applied research in photovoltaics is paltry and should be increased substantially. From a citizens' interest perspective, a 2006 study by the independent Program on International Policy Attitudes found that a majority of the public wants the federal budget for renewable energy research like solar cells to increase by 10-fold. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying