2019 State of the Union

The State of the Union speech is typically described as an opportunity for the President to present their administrations priorities for the year. This usually means a discussion of the status of the country, typically a positive statement even if far from true. There is a sizable chunk of the speech devoted to foreign policy and administration policies. The last major part of most State of the Union speeches is an enumeration and often times discussion of additional funding requests that the President will have in his budget. This portion of the speech typically has the potential for the most impact on technology and more specifically the intersection of technology and government policy. I will focus on those items that were brought up by the President in his State of the Union speech.
President Trump proudly stated that the United States is a net exporter of energy. The President supported this statement by stating that the U.S. has the most oil and gas production in 65 years. I will not take the time to fact check whether this claim is true, but it should be taken with a grain of salt. The growth of the oil and gas industry in the U.S. to its current state has been fueled by hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is the use of pressurized water, sand, and chemicals to open cracks in shale to allow trapped natural gas and oil to be released. Hydraulic fracturing has been combined with horizontal drilling to achieve significant oil and gas production in areas like the Bakken and Marcelius shale. The complex advanced technology used to procure unconventional oil and gas deposits have been developed with support from the U.S. government research laboratories. In addition to the subsidies provided directly to the oil and gas industry the research and development done at national research laboratories has supported the countries increased oil and gas production. This is a very clear case of policy directly supporting a specific industry.
Notable absent from the President's speech was any reference to Climate Change. This would seem amazing as just last December the IPCC report in time for the COP 24 climate conference. The analysis was grim in regards to meeting the stated goal of the Paris Agreement. In addition there was the additional report released by climate scientists that stated that in order to avoid a two degree Celsius increase in global average temperature the World needed to reduce CO2 emissions by 45% eleven years.Oil, coal, and gas have relied on direct subsidies to producers in addition to federal funding of research and development activities at national research laboratories. In the face of the obvious looming disaster it would seem that the President would want to present solutions that would lead the United States to a safe and sustainable future. To not mention or tackle climate change would be professional malpractice in my opinion. The President unfortunately continues to act as if climate change is unfounded science or denies the impact of humans on the climate. Climate change may not have been directly mentioned during the state of the Union there were some thinly veiled comments made in regard to it by President Trump's ardent defense of capitalism and attack on socialism. This is probably due to the fear of the Green New Deal becoming popular.
Infrastructure investments seem to be a very popular topic for politicians to discuss in the last few years.  The ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, has rated in its 2017 report card the state of American infrastructure a D+ so this topic is definitely worthy of action by politicians. President Trump took time to mention that he wants to work on an infrastructure bill. Unfortunately he didn't propose an amount that he envisioned being appropriated and the goals of any such bill should be. I would think that with the number of times the Trump administration has declared that it is infrastructure week there would be an extremely detailed plan to upgrade the deteriorating American infrastructure. It appears that President Trump threw out a line about infrastructure to check off a box rather than to give America, and the citizens listening, a direction to improving our society. This was a great topic which was thin on substance and is normal for the Trump administration.
President Trump followed up his brief remarks on infrastructure by stating that the government is making investments in cutting edge technologies. Unfortunately this was not followed up by any substantive support. As is the Trump administration's motus operandi a big announcement followed by very little to no detail. It is really difficult to understand why this line was even in the State of the Union as it can be easily argued that the Trump administration is not interested in cutting edge technologies based on its regulatory decisions. The FCC repealed net neutrality rules thereby allowing Interent Service Providers, ISPs, to slow down internet data speeds. This action essentially has allowed the ISPs to pick the winners and losers in the battles for users between rival internet based application technology. It can be argued that the repeal of these rules are a major barrier to the development of new technologies. The administration's fervent support for coal, oil, and gas has defined its decisions on regulatory issues. Rolling back the planned increases in vehicle fuel efficiency standards will slow down the development of new fuel efficiency technologies. Technology is typically developed based on a need by the customer or supplier to meet certain requirements. If the fuel efficiency requirements are stalled or slowed down then more efficient engines and electrification of cars will be delayed. The electricity generation sector is still primarily powered by fossil fuels. There has been a significant reduction on coal usage due to the lower price and cleaner emissions of natural gas. The new clean energy technology will be slowed down by the reversal of Obama era policies such as the Clean Power Plan. If as mentioned previously we are going to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid achieving dangerous levels of global temperature rise then a key cog will be new technology that has not been developed or scaled up at this time. Time will only tell if the Trump administration will help spurn new technologies to be developed or continue to support archaic technologies developed in the 19th and early 20th century.
President Trump proposed eliminating the HIV epidemic in the United States. This is a noble goal that I fully endorse, but once again like a broken record Trump was thin on substance. The efforts over the last 30 plus years has turned HIV from an uncontrolled epidemic with a death sentence prognosis to a disease that people can live full lives for decades. The great strides include the development of anti-retro viral medications that enable people to live and Prep. Prep is a medication that reduces dramatically the transmission of HIV when taken. For more information on the HIV epidemic check out this link on the history of HIV . The biotechnology that has developed these life saving medical treatments has not been cheap for the federal government. In this type of research and development typically there is partial funding from the government and private industry due to the risks associated with development of potential solutions. At this point there are currently treatments that are successful for people with HIV/AIDS and to reduce the risk of transmission in people at most risk.  It was particularly disappointing to hear the President not articulate a clear plan since from what I can gather we are at a point where the technology, medical treatments, have been developed and they need to implemented. President Trump could have used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to advance the effort.
There have been several different people who have written about what it would take to end the HIV epidemic so I won't repeat their statements again. The history of the Republican party in regards to the key ways to stop the spread of HIV is dubious at best. It is generally accepted that one vein of transmission is the use of dirty needles by illegal drug users. Needle exchange programs have routinely been on the funding cutting block with Republicans in charge. In fact, Vice President Mike Pence while governor of Indiana had an HIV epidemic in his state due to the lack of needle exchange programs. The other major vector for new HIV infections is unprotected sex, particularly in at risk populations. Republican politicians have usually been reticent to implement policies that would encourage protected sex. This is probably due to a fear that the religious right, which is a significant part of their base, would revolt at anything other than abstinence. This is one place where one could hope that President Trump, who is proud to talk about his supposed sexual prowess, could lead by mentioning its importance from the Presidential podium.  The two policies that historically Republicans have not backed wholeheartedly would have more impact on the HIV epidemic than any additionally investment in technology in the short run.
President also proposed spending 500 Billion dollars over the next ten years to fight childhood cancer. This line of the speech is very much in line with President Obama's moonshot on cancer. I appreciate the proposal to work on childhood cancer as they are more likely not to receive the publicity and charitable funding other cancers receive. We are in a period where medical research is fundamentally altering the way we treat cancer. This is a lofty statement from President Trump, but the devil will be in the details. I must admit there was an actual budget line value attached to this proposal in the State of the Union. It should be pointed out that human produced carcinogens and neurotoxins are still in our environment. They affect adults and children who ingest them in the food and water that they consume. In children the impacts maybe more acute than adults depending on the toxin. The Trump administration has continued to take a lax approach to environmental and chemical regulation. The fight against cancer in general, and in particular childhood cancer, should include a strong dose of mitigation by strongly enforcing our environmental regulations. This could lead to a boom in toxin removal technology that will provide enhanced benefits to society.
I listened to Stacy Abrams democratic response and she did not mention any items that had an implication on technology. This is understandable since her speech focused on values rather than direct economic or political proposals. She is also a private citizen and therefore not in a decision making role. In general President Trump's State of the Union was light on proposals that would impact technology, and missing substance when mentioned.

First Presidential Debate of 2016

I thought I would listen to last night's debate and see how much technology was referenced. As I expected it was only briefly mentioned by candidates because most of the issues discussed in politics are not related to technology.
The majority of the references to technology was during the first section of the debate that focused on the economy. Hillary Clinton referenced advanced manufacturing at one point as part of her plan to invest in the economy. Unfortunately name dropping without explaining or expanding on the issue doesn't help the average person understand what it is. Advanced manufacturing includes additive manufacturing processes like 3D printing, laser cuttting and welding of materials, and the use of new materials. While advanced manufacturing will not produce the millions of jobs that traditional manufacturing did from the 1920's to the 1970's it has the ability to bring back jobs to the rust belt. The key is that there needs to be an investment in training people who are capable of using and in most instances programming the machine. Unfortunately in a debate this usually gets left off the table.
Hillary Clinton subsequently at another juncture in the debate mentioned solar cells and a new energy grid. These two ideas have a tremendous amount of potiential for the American economy as we completely reshape our electricity delivery production and system. The new electric grid she mentioned is often called smart grid. It should allow us to move from a 19th century system of electric delivery to a 21st century system with many different sources of electricity from many different suppliers. Once again the brief reference is great, but the lack of articulation left many of those who aren't techies feeling like it was over their head. A brief explanation by the candidate would have been beneficial.
To the contrary Donald Trump never mentioned any technologies or technology and spent most of his time talking about trade deals. While I think that discussing trade and free trade deals is a very important topic of political discourse that merits it's own debate, the lack of mention of technology or new sectors of technology that the US economy could invest in showed a lack of complete understanding of the economy. Trade and free trade are significant parts of our economy, but they are not the only policy areas that impact our economy. Technology and investment in new technologies holds the potiential to increase our economy significantly, it did that in the 90's. Many of our most visionary presidents have seen technology as a way to improve and grow our economy and hence supported nascent and new ideas that would mature in the near future.
The last place that technology was mentioned was in the discussion of cyberwarfare under national security. In this instance I found that both candidates decided to take tough stands, which makes sense from a national security stance. The problem is that neither candidate had very strong ideas about countering the threat from a technology standpoint. I, the author, don't have any immediate answers either, but this could have been an opening to discuss the need for more people to learn programming as this is a skill of the future.
It will be interesting to see how much technology is discussed in future debates.

State of the Union: The Takeaway

The State of the Union is typically an opportunity for both sides of the political spectrum to propose their legislative agenda and also position themselves for the next election. This of course has an impact on technology as their is a strong interaction between government and technology.
President Obama decided to frame his legislative agenda on restoring America's competitiveness. I thought this was a rather refreshing speech compared to the usual listing of programs that fit either the Democratic or Republican agenda. I will just go through a few of the items that were brought up.
One of the major initiatives that President Obama mentioned was the on going research into clean energy. This is a topic that I have not discussed on this blog, but just from the companies and countries investing in this business it should be a major growth area in the next five to ten years. He specifically mentioned biofuels created using algae. This is one of the areas where government interest will help spur on more research and investment into a new technology.
The other area that the president highlighted was infrastructure. It is fairly well known that America's roads, bridges, tunnels, and railroads are in bad shape. The ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, has routinely in the last few years rated the status of the infrastructure mentioned above at a D rating. This means that much of it must be repaired and in many cases replaced. He specifically mentioned high speed rail as an initiative that was necessary to maintain America's competitiveness. This area has tremendous engineering challenges on all fronts, but opens up the possibility of some amazing innovations. I hope in the future to write a post about this topic.
There was also the general discussion of legislative issues that indirectly impact technology. Those are education and regulations. Educating scientists and engineers is essential to maintaining the United States as a leader in the innovation economy. Regulations sometimes act as a hinderence to new markets and other times are challenges that even engineers are willing to innovate around. I don't plan to look into these in more depth.

Reviewing Yesterday's results

In an ideal world technological development is not affected by elections for new representatives. Sadly the influence of government on the growth of certain technology markets has been historically been significant. Thus I think that it is important that this blog look at the results of yesterday's midterm elections and try to understand what impact it will have on technology for the next two years.
Yesterday's results were a massive change in the make up of congress. In both chambers of the U.S. Congress the Democrats took significant losses to their membership. The house of Representatives saw a shift of 60 votes and the Republicans regaining control. In the Senate the Democrats have a razor thin majority with no clear way to defeat a filibuster on their major issues. The key question is what will happen to major political issues that effect technology.
Some issues that I have written about will be completely unchanged because the key decision makers are presidentially nominated and already in place. Net neutrality and Broadband policies of the Obama presidency are not about to change. The broadband iniative may be slowed down due to the necessity of federal legislation that Republicans may oppose and any government spending that is proposed to implement the plan. I think that while there will be initial skepticism this concept will be eventually supported by both parties as it will lead to job creation and many other unintended benefits.
I wrote about the need for spectrum for new and growing technologies a while ago. This is an area where the FCC will be making decisions independent and insulated from congressional interference. This is good since sensible and complicated decisions have to be made in the near future to allow for more growth in the wireless device industry and prevent interference. We can chalk up this essential protection of decisionmaking in the people's best interest to lawmakers with plenty of foresight into the possible battles in the halls of congress.
Climate change legislation in the US Congress is dead for all intensive purposes. The combination of more Republicans and Conservative Democrats from fossil fuel producing states have made politically impossible. This is too bad since the technology sector with the greatest growth is in renewable energy and associated synergistic technologies. This means that technologies like biofuels, solar electricity, wind energy, and smart grid technologies will be delayed in their implementation in the United States economy. The good news is that some significant players which are major industrial multi-nationals will not change their game plan with the changing political landscape. The good news is that California's landmark climate change legislation survived an initiative that would have effectively repealed it for years or more likely permanently. Clearly the voters saw this as an important issue as did both gubernatorial candidates.
The real loser from the outcome of the election was the national laboratories and engineering institutions. There funding is heavily dependent on allocations from the federal budget which is decided in congress. With Republicans in charge of the house spending will be reduced for scientific studies. This is too bad as NASA and several of the national laboratories have led to the development of many technologies we take for granted today. Republicans have promised limited government and reductions in spending so we can expect that too happen.
There are several things that we don't know about the next congress which may change what I am prognosticating. Will innovation be a central theme for the US recovery? Will Republicans see technology as a way to strengthen American national security directly and indirectly? We have two years to find out the answers to these questions.

An update on Net Neutrality

I wrote about net neutrality two months ago, but new developments have been occurring recently. Verizon and Google have apparently been negotiating a plan to define the page load speeds and the costs. I for one am not to pleased as this is an indirect act of censorship to small out of the mainstream websites like this one. To find out more check this link out.

Smart Grids part 1: The distribution grid

Smart grids are a hot topic in technology, policy, and political circles. Smart grid technology is a rather complicated set of technologies. Smart grids are the general concept of changing the way we treat the distribution of electricity. The electricity provided to your house currently, 60 Hertz Alternating current, will not change with the implementation of smart grids. The key new technologies will give the grid operators a better understanding and control of the electric distribution grid that provide electricity from the power plant to the consumer.
Among the key parts of this new infrastructure is equipment that would measure the strength of transmission lines. If a transmission line shows instability this could be a sign that either their is insufficient supply or that a fault is about to occur. Both of these situations have devastating effects for consumers in the way of brownouts and service interruptions. The idea being proposed is that the electric grid operators could monitor for dangerous situations similar to those that created the Blackout of 2003. This continuous monitoring could allow system operators to allocate resources to avoid brownouts and to protect expensive transmission equipment like transformers and substations.
This system for one thing will allow companies to know information about use of electricity. The next step might be that electric companies would be able to control what appliances are on in households. The other possible impact is what technology will be used to communicate this data to the control centers. There are two possibilities broadband over power line or wireless using 4G or WiMax. Both of these would require some sacrifices by citizens. In one case power lines could cause interference to other wireless systems because they are not shielded. The later solution would require allocating some of the radio spectrum that is highly sought after in general and more importantly by cellphone providers. The biggest risk is hacking by foreign governments or terrorists. All the most recent studies done by the US military have shown that they can hack into electric grid control centers. If we add technology that can allow better management, we should be worried about the possibility of the equipment being hacked and used against us in some way.

New Technologies

A few weeks ago I attended the International Microwave Symposium to see and hear the latest cutting edge technology that is being discussed. This conference is about technologies ranging from the high frequencies of the tens of megahertz to greater than one terahertz.
I was able to listen in on some pretty interesting ideas and presentations of technology. Since many radio frequency waves need to be amplified among the many topics discussed was improvement in amplifier efficiencies. Several of the papers presented dealt with microwave amplifiers being used in the tens of gigahertz range. This is good since the more efficient an amplifier is the less energy that will be consumed. This can only help us achieve further energy consumption reduction.
A whole session was devoted to radar techniques and from the topics discussed it seems like a lot of innovative radar applications are being researched and developed. This should bode well for certain commercial applications of radar that can benefit human safety. This also means that there may be more defense research applied to more evasive munitions.
Another major area of discussion was Terahertz technology and projects that might be possible. A Terahertz signal has a wavelength on the order of the thickness of human hair. Light is in this frequency range but is treated differently. Several space projects were discussed as possibilities as this may provide more insight in to the cosmos. This projects are multi-million dollar multi-year efforts that rely solely on a willing government for funding. This is currently very difficult to do as the political climate is very stormy when it comes to government expenditure. The real difficult with terahertz technology is low efficiency components that are hard to produce. This is because we have only begun to start research in this area from an engineering perspective.
The new technology that is supposed to revolutionize many commercial products ar radio frequency minature electrical machines, otherwise known as RF MEMS. MEMS have been discussed as a future breakthrough nanotechnology that could alter medicine and other areas of life. I will discuss these technologies in a blog posting at some point in the near future. RF MEMS show promise since they will be able to allow filtering that can adapt to the demands required from the signal. This technology has the potential to alter much of our wireless life in the connected domain, but some of these designs require materials which are rare. It is only reasonable that any company that wants to commercialize this technology will think about the cost of the resource they are using.