Public Utilities: An Alternative Auto Fuel?

Power/Fuel
101

The Japanese approach is to keep tight control of design and manufacturing processes, while gradually farming out the manufacture to dveloping countries. That way the quality stays up, while costs are kept in line. When I lived in Malaysia, most elcetronics plants there were Japanese, with Japanese managers and Quality Assurance personnel. The Panasonic products made there are every bit as good as those from Japanese plants.

This process is something American companies have not quite mastered as well. Dell may be an exception.

102

Interesting approach; keep the high value work at home, export the technology/management to do the low end stuff elsewhere, and export the final product to third countries. You end up with a positive trade balance without having to deal with your own overpriced labor market, sounds like a win/win situation. The U.S. will eventually get there, once the give up trying to preserve the domestic manufacturing sector (assuming they have the management talent to pull it of).

103

Yup, software and most electronics are now old technology

I can only assume by that statement that you really have no idea what software is.

Software is a very evolving entity as advanced as anything in the world today. It still takes very skilled and educated people to write proper software.

The U.S. needs to be working on the next new thing

The problem with that is that if we keep exporting our technology then there will be no body left to CREATE THE NEXT NEW THING. Some other country like India or China will be creating it because that’s were we sent all our intellectual jobs.

104

Interesting approach; keep the high value work at home, export the technology/management to do the low end stuff elsewhere, and export the final product to third countries. You end up with a positive trade balance without having to deal with your own overpriced labor market, sounds like a win/win situation.

HUGH problem with that theory…We’re starting to see it now.

Many companies kept certain key engineering architects here in the states and shipped the engineering jobs overseas. Great idea…Keep the design here. After 5 or so years the problem companies are seeing now is…the architects are no longer the most technical knowledgeable people of the product. The engineers where the engineering was shipped to are. So the architect jobs are being shipped overseas too. It’s called Brain Drain.

105

That’s very good news indeed. European and Japanese labor costs are higher in car manufacturing; even Canada is higher now. US car firms cutting back are cutting faster in canada.

Electronics (consumer)is probably a lost cause, since Asian countries both engineer and make the stuff cheaper than we could hope to do so.

NAFTA was supposed to have US designed products manufacturesd in Mexico by cheaper labor. Ross Perot (opposed to NAFTA) when he ran for president referred to the “Giant Sucking Sound” from Mexico taking US jobs.
It never happened; the giant sucking sound came from Asia, in particular China.

106

Agree there is a fine line between farming out and delegating out. GM has detail engineering and testing on a number of their products done in India, under the supervision of a GM engineer. The key factor here is control and retaining it. Toyota has design and engineering shops in the US to address product needs there. They totally control that process.

Likewise, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner has parts made in China, Korea, Japan and several other countries. But control is retained by Boeing. That does not mean that at some time in the future, the Koreans will not want to built airplaned with what they have learned.

107

GM has detail engineering and testing on a number of their products done in India, under the supervision of a GM engineer.

For NOW. I’d like to see what’s going to happen in 10 years.

108

Over a period of time all technology diffuses and dissipates around the world. The Dutch and British learned to glaze china from guess who? Americans were very quick to learn British steel making and other technology and improve on it. Smart countries, as Craig points out, spend a lot on R&D and stay ahead of the technology curve. Japan is doing just that, as is Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland and France with their nuclear power and high speed train technology, although they have licensed this to Canada’s Bombardier as well. Each of these countries is a world leader in some areas. Canada is a world leader is commuter planes and short haul jets, for instance. They also make the best hockey sticks!

You seem to either imply that the US should not transfer any technology to any country or you are afraid that GM will lose control of the technology ball, and India and China will take over. If they do, that is natural evolution.

Rubber seeds were smuggled from Brazil to Asia early in the last century. Most of the world’s natural rubber now comes from Malaysia, Thailand,and Indonesia.

The US has the opportunity to retain its leadership in aerospace, weaponry, nuclear power, pharmaceuticals, and other specific areas. It should, with government assistance if necessary focus on these NEW technologies, among others:

  1. Nanotechnology
  2. Fuels from cellulose and algae
  3. Supersonic and hypersonic travel
  4. Carbon capture and sequestration and clean fuels from coal
  5. Fuel cells for vehicles and home application
  6. Photovoltaic cells; design and economical manufacture.
  7. Hydrogen manufacturing economics for fuel cell application
  8. Ultra-strength and light weight materilas for cars, planes, etc.
  9. Low cost superinsulation materials for home construction
  10. Ultra-sophisticated software to parrallel human thought proceses
  11. More effective technology for oil extraction from very deep and difficult reservoirs.
109

You seem to either imply that the US should not transfer any technology to any country or you are afraid that GM will lose control of the technology ball, and India and China will take over. If they do, that is natural evolution.

What’s happening is we are moving so much technology to other countries we are experiencing what’s called Brain Drain. We currently have the technological edge over countries like India and China…but if we keep moving technologies we will no longer have that edge…WE WILL BE THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

110

HUGH problem with that theory…We’re starting to see it now.

Many companies kept certain key engineering architects here in the states and shipped the engineering jobs overseas. Great idea…Keep the design here. After 5 or so years the problem companies are seeing now is…the architects are no longer the most technical knowledgeable people of the product. The engineers where the engineering was shipped to are. So the architect jobs are being shipped overseas too. It’s called Brain Drain.

I really don’t see the problem (and keeping the design “here” isn’t always such a great idea). Just make the on-site guys the key people for that project and put the stateside guys to work on the next project (who wants to do grunt work on an old project anyway). Use those experienced on-site guys to to set up the next overseas project when they become available. Who cares what time zone the key people are located in, as long as the project gets done? Why would you want to retain design control of a 5 year old project in the home office, the home office should be looking at the next 5 years anyway? How can you have “brain drain” within your own organization? The goal is to have as many knowledgeable people in as many places as possible for the minimum cost. Why is finding a way to have on-site design/engineering done without paying U.S. wages a “huge problem”? I wish I had those kind of problems, that is exactly how the process should work. We need to stop looking backwards and trying to protect old jobs and old technology and start paying attention to whatever is next, pass off the old stuff as quickly as possible to free up your best people to work on the next project. Make the labor costs for the established “cash cow” projects as low as possible to free up capital for the next project. Repeat indefinitely if you want to stay ahead of the curve (and the curve keeps moving faster). Do that successfully for a few decades and you will have a significant international operation. These are not problems, they are opportunities for growth.

111

What’s happening is we are moving so much technology to other countries we are experiencing what’s called Brain Drain. We currently have the technological edge over countries like India and China…but if we keep moving technologies we will no longer have that edge…WE WILL BE THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

Just the opposite is true, we need to export old technologies as soon as they are mature and pay attention to the next new technology. We don’t want to export “stuff” we want to be the ones selling last weeks technology to the rest of the world so they will be ready when we want to sell them next weeks technology (after we’ve taken the next step). The U.S. is not going to stop the developing world from obtaining technology, we might as well get paid for it. If we can’t operate at that pace, we are toast anyway. Why would we want to sell airplanes (for example) when we could sell the technology to design and build the next airplane, that’s one step higher on the food chain. If we are afraid they will pass us by, we have no business being in the airplane business in the first place.

The alternative is to hold onto the current technology and wait for India and China to leapfrog us.

112

Agree that transferring technology without retaining control is not wise. Canada transferred nuclear technology to both India and Pakistan in the 60s and 70s. Both signed agreements that the know-how was “FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES ONLY”. Both countries now have the bomb.

On the other hand you can’t be a world leader in everything. Small countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, etc. pick their technology niche, and often with governemnt research assistance develop their unique leading edge technology.

MITI, the Japanese Ministry of Industry and Technology, selects niches where they believe Japn can compete and stay that way. In the 50s and 60s they picked precision items requiring high levels of skill (cameras, optics) and electronics since these needed few raw materials, something Japan does not have. Cars came as a result of the Korean war, where the US pushed the small Japanese car industry in making vehicles. They learned an immense amount; early Toyota Jeep engines were carbon copies of the Chevy 6, but smaller.

This method is called Industrial Strategy, and most developed countries have one. Britain’s strategy is basically (with some exceptions) to de-industrialize, and keep doing research for sale to others, since neither their detail engineering or their manufacturing is cost-effective. Ricardo Engineering (and Lotus Engineering) is a good example of a leading edge firm that does not build the engines it helps design for others.

The problem the US has it its federal nature with all states wanting to do their pet things, not necessarily in the national interest. As well as influence peddling, favoratism, etc. By contrast, the French president is not married to the nuclear power industry; it’s a collective decision that this industry is good for all of France.

A very strong federal government such as in Germany or Sweden will decide what type of technlogy has a future for the country as a whole and procede to help it develop accordingly.

Sophisticated public transit is good for America, but it needs government stimulation to develop it further. Aside from Arnold Schwartzenegger, I don’t know who would support it.

113

I really don’t see the problem (and keeping the design “here” isn’t always such a great idea).

You’re missing the point…

Let’s look at Software…since I’m MOST familiar with that.

In order to be the Software Architect you need to be familiar with the code and it’s design. If the coding is shipped overseas…the Architects knowledge the software vastly diminishes. Software is something you need to keep your hands in. It’s NOT something you can just look at and understand.

Why would you want to retain design control of a 5 year old project in the home office, the home office should be looking at the next 5 years anyway?

Because it’s that NEXT release or the NEW project based on the old one that you need to design and write. If you don’t have the engineers here then you’ll have to ship that out too…

I really don’t think you have the slightest idea how engineering projects work to make these assumptions.

114

Well, I am pretty familiar with sizable engineering projects, however I don’t know much about software development. I do however believe the same principles apply. What I don’t understand is why you would want to worry about keeping an existing piece of software under the control of the home office. If it’s cheaper to perform it’s maintenance and updates overseas, why wouldn’t you? I assume you have proprietary agreements with these designers so they won’t steel your product, or that these people are your employees or contractors. Why would you pay american wages to maintain old software when you can have the same work done overseas for less cost?

If you want to base a future product on that updated software, and the most familiar people are overseas, why not give them the new project too, assuming it is less expensive. That will allow you to reduce you home office staff or use them for something bigger and better. It still sounds like win/win.

115

" 1. Nanotechnology
2. Fuels from cellulose and algae
3. Supersonic and hypersonic travel
4. Carbon capture and sequestration and clean fuels from coal
5. Fuel cells for vehicles and home application
6. Photovoltaic cells; design and economical manufacture.
7. Hydrogen manufacturing economics for fuel cell application
8. Ultra-strength and light weight materilas for cars, planes, etc.
9. Low cost superinsulation materials for home construction
10. Ultra-sophisticated software to parrallel human thought proceses
11. More effective technology for oil extraction from very deep and difficult reservoirs."

Most of them already are funded by the US government. NASA and DoD pay for 1, 2, 3 and 8. DOE pays for at least 3 and 5. Not in total, but they do fund research.

116

“HUGH problem with that theory…”

It doesn’t seem to be hurting Intel. They have operations around the world and have for over 10 years. When you consider how old Intel is, 10 to 20 years is a long time.

117

"Let’s look at Software…since I’m MOST familiar with that. "

Maybe those whose jobs are displaced should look for other gainful employment. It could still be software, just in a field that is likely to be conducted here.

118

I think that is our fundamental difference of opinion with Mike, he seems to be primarily concerned with protecting current U.S. technical jobs (a legitimate concern), while I (we?) am more concerned with keeping ahead of the technology curve by not using our resources (people and money) for the care and feeding of older technology (let someone else do the grunt work). In other words, I’m willing to give away the old technology and gamble on our ability to come up with something better and make it obsolete within a short amount of time.

Back to the subject of this tread, I think we need to apply the same approach to energy; let’s get to work on the “next big thing” and let someone else worry about getting the last few mpg out of the IC engine (refer to Gordon Gecko’s famous speech about the last buggy whip company).

119

It doesn’t seem to be hurting Intel. They have operations around the world and have for over 10 years. When you consider how old Intel is, 10 to 20 years is a long time.

…and that’s because intel is not concerned with protecting their current chip design, they are already working on the next two or three generations (keeping ahead of the curve).

120

It doesn’t seem to be hurting Intel. They have operations around the world and have for over 10 years. When you consider how old Intel is, 10 to 20 years is a long time.

Intel hasn’t been outsourcing for 20 years either.