Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Robots and Energy
One of the features of the first half of the 21st century will be rising energy costs. During the last part of the 20th century (post 1970), there were several "oil shocks" which caused energy prices to spike upward for short periods of time. These were mostly political. However, it now looks like we are in for a much longer "shock" due to demand for energy - which remains overwhelmingly oil-based - exceeding supply.
How do robots fit into this? On one hand, "deep Greens" expecting industrial civilization to collapse without cheap energy would lump robots into the general energy-intensive "tech" category - an idea fated to die with the cheap energy that spawned it.
On the other hand, people who believe that we'll shift to super-tech energy sources (e.g. fusion) might expect robots to be adopted simply because they will become cheaper to run than human labor.
I think there's a third take on this point. IMHO, those who believe that future energy will be cheap and unlimited are guilty of a quasi-religious belief that technology can solve anything. In fact, there is some evidence that our level of tech innovation is slowing down. The current "high tech" devices we used were all invented some time (> 50 years ago), and today we are simply refining them. In such a climate, automatically assuming that a new power source will come along is based on faith alone.
However, if we do have some energy shocks ahead, robots may come out of it better than other tech. Why?
Recall that the definition of a robot used here has been a machine that senses its environment, and tries to act in that environment. This is in contrast to the typical use of a PC today, which is solely to generate an imaginary "virtual" reality using symbols, animation, etc. that the user in the real world must enter.
Because of the focus on the virtual, computers are insensitive to the overall energy environment. Computers consume a great deal of power, more than most people realize. A high-end "gamer" computer might take 700 watts or more of power - more than a couple of square feet of solar cells can supply, or the output of a couple of people running fast on treadmills - take your pick. Overall, computers now form several percent of electrical use in the US, though they aren't as energy wasteful as, say, blow-dryers.
I might add that the more realistic a computer reality is, the more energy it uses. Double a computer's speed and you to the first approximation double the energy use. Halve the circuit size and you greatly increase the energy needed to manufacture the chip.
There is an additional energy problem with computers. Individual silicon microprocessors in computers aren't just complex to manufacture (you need a 2 billion dollar factory). They are energy-intensive. A single computer chip requires enormous amounts of power to form the chip, as well as energy used to maintain the ultra-clean environment in which the chip is manufactured.
Taken together, computers end up being energy-hogs, both in manufacture and in use. If energy prices really rise high, they will see reduced use. The tech-heaven of the Matrix will run out of power.
How will robots escape this fate? By their sensing nature. Unlike today's computers, robots are "aware" of their energy budget. Even now, robots take lots of effort to make their moves energy efficient.
In addition, the sensing nature of robots has led some researchers to develop robots which feed on their environment. For one robot developed in England, a tempting pile of feces attracts flies. The flies are processed, and their energy stored in their bio-molecules (protein, carbohydrates, fat) are converted to electricity to fuel cells. Like a living organism, the robot acquires food from the environment and must budget the resulting energy accordingly. It's only a short step from this to robots that can "justify" their existence, even in an energy-limited world.
The key is ROE, or Return On Energy. This is a measure of the energy that goes into a process, versus the energy that comes out. For example, it might take 1 barrel of oil to pump put 200 barrels of oil - a ROE of 200:1.
Or imagine a farm with all-human workers (no machines). If the humans are kept alive by the food the farm grows, the farm ROE must be greater than 1 - more energy must come out of the farm, stored in food, than goes into farm, measured as energy used by the farmers. On farms, this works because food plants capture energy from the sun. So, the energy expended by the farmers results in a greater amount of energy being absorbed from the sun. If more energy is used to grow the food than is put into calories in the food, the farm ROE is negative. This in fact is the current case with industrial farming - up to 10 calories of oil-derived energy is used to put 1 calorie of energy into food.
Because robots sense the environment and their own operation, it will be possible to design robots (actually groups of robots) with a positive ROE. These future robots would build themselves, and carry out activities which collect enough energy to do so. For example, we might imagine an automated, solar-powered factory. The factory uses solar energy to manufacture products - but also manufactures all the tools inside the factory. Given time, the factory can make all the parts for a second factory. The energy put into manufacturing a second factory in the long term is recovered - the second factory collects this energy and more. These self-reproducing factories would have positive ROEs just like a living cell.
They would be, in effect, very large robots.
Of course, the pace of robots might slow in an energy-limited world. Today, robots are not required to do work to allow their manufacture or repair - that energy comes from non-renewable energy sources. In the future, each robot would have to contribute to building energy-producing infrastructure. Because of this, they won't be the on-demand workers we imagine - they will be more like animals which must devote a part of their energy to maintenance and reproduction.
One can imagine a future where our current technology has vanished. In its place, technology much more like a giant plant cell, with robots taking the place of the enzymes in the cell. Like the plant, the technology would self-regulate itself by sensing its environment so it always kept its ROE constant. Humans would exploit the "excess" energy of the self-reproducing system just like they exploit the "extra" calories plants put into fruit and vegetables today.
Robots might help an energy-limited world in other ways. Today, human drivers waste fuel by their inefficient driving - too much passing, accelerating too fast, taking the wrong road. Future robotic cars, in contrast would be more efficient in energy use. One might imagine a future where you are not allowed by law to drive your car, in the interests of energy conservation.
Hardly, the robotic world we've expected, but a plausible one - even if we run out of oil.
One of the features of the first half of the 21st century will be rising energy costs. During the last part of the 20th century (post 1970), there were several "oil shocks" which caused energy prices to spike upward for short periods of time. These were mostly political. However, it now looks like we are in for a much longer "shock" due to demand for energy - which remains overwhelmingly oil-based - exceeding supply.
How do robots fit into this? On one hand, "deep Greens" expecting industrial civilization to collapse without cheap energy would lump robots into the general energy-intensive "tech" category - an idea fated to die with the cheap energy that spawned it.
On the other hand, people who believe that we'll shift to super-tech energy sources (e.g. fusion) might expect robots to be adopted simply because they will become cheaper to run than human labor.
I think there's a third take on this point. IMHO, those who believe that future energy will be cheap and unlimited are guilty of a quasi-religious belief that technology can solve anything. In fact, there is some evidence that our level of tech innovation is slowing down. The current "high tech" devices we used were all invented some time (> 50 years ago), and today we are simply refining them. In such a climate, automatically assuming that a new power source will come along is based on faith alone.
However, if we do have some energy shocks ahead, robots may come out of it better than other tech. Why?
Recall that the definition of a robot used here has been a machine that senses its environment, and tries to act in that environment. This is in contrast to the typical use of a PC today, which is solely to generate an imaginary "virtual" reality using symbols, animation, etc. that the user in the real world must enter.
Because of the focus on the virtual, computers are insensitive to the overall energy environment. Computers consume a great deal of power, more than most people realize. A high-end "gamer" computer might take 700 watts or more of power - more than a couple of square feet of solar cells can supply, or the output of a couple of people running fast on treadmills - take your pick. Overall, computers now form several percent of electrical use in the US, though they aren't as energy wasteful as, say, blow-dryers.
I might add that the more realistic a computer reality is, the more energy it uses. Double a computer's speed and you to the first approximation double the energy use. Halve the circuit size and you greatly increase the energy needed to manufacture the chip.
There is an additional energy problem with computers. Individual silicon microprocessors in computers aren't just complex to manufacture (you need a 2 billion dollar factory). They are energy-intensive. A single computer chip requires enormous amounts of power to form the chip, as well as energy used to maintain the ultra-clean environment in which the chip is manufactured.
Taken together, computers end up being energy-hogs, both in manufacture and in use. If energy prices really rise high, they will see reduced use. The tech-heaven of the Matrix will run out of power.
How will robots escape this fate? By their sensing nature. Unlike today's computers, robots are "aware" of their energy budget. Even now, robots take lots of effort to make their moves energy efficient.
In addition, the sensing nature of robots has led some researchers to develop robots which feed on their environment. For one robot developed in England, a tempting pile of feces attracts flies. The flies are processed, and their energy stored in their bio-molecules (protein, carbohydrates, fat) are converted to electricity to fuel cells. Like a living organism, the robot acquires food from the environment and must budget the resulting energy accordingly. It's only a short step from this to robots that can "justify" their existence, even in an energy-limited world.
The key is ROE, or Return On Energy. This is a measure of the energy that goes into a process, versus the energy that comes out. For example, it might take 1 barrel of oil to pump put 200 barrels of oil - a ROE of 200:1.
Or imagine a farm with all-human workers (no machines). If the humans are kept alive by the food the farm grows, the farm ROE must be greater than 1 - more energy must come out of the farm, stored in food, than goes into farm, measured as energy used by the farmers. On farms, this works because food plants capture energy from the sun. So, the energy expended by the farmers results in a greater amount of energy being absorbed from the sun. If more energy is used to grow the food than is put into calories in the food, the farm ROE is negative. This in fact is the current case with industrial farming - up to 10 calories of oil-derived energy is used to put 1 calorie of energy into food.
Because robots sense the environment and their own operation, it will be possible to design robots (actually groups of robots) with a positive ROE. These future robots would build themselves, and carry out activities which collect enough energy to do so. For example, we might imagine an automated, solar-powered factory. The factory uses solar energy to manufacture products - but also manufactures all the tools inside the factory. Given time, the factory can make all the parts for a second factory. The energy put into manufacturing a second factory in the long term is recovered - the second factory collects this energy and more. These self-reproducing factories would have positive ROEs just like a living cell.
They would be, in effect, very large robots.
Of course, the pace of robots might slow in an energy-limited world. Today, robots are not required to do work to allow their manufacture or repair - that energy comes from non-renewable energy sources. In the future, each robot would have to contribute to building energy-producing infrastructure. Because of this, they won't be the on-demand workers we imagine - they will be more like animals which must devote a part of their energy to maintenance and reproduction.
One can imagine a future where our current technology has vanished. In its place, technology much more like a giant plant cell, with robots taking the place of the enzymes in the cell. Like the plant, the technology would self-regulate itself by sensing its environment so it always kept its ROE constant. Humans would exploit the "excess" energy of the self-reproducing system just like they exploit the "extra" calories plants put into fruit and vegetables today.
Robots might help an energy-limited world in other ways. Today, human drivers waste fuel by their inefficient driving - too much passing, accelerating too fast, taking the wrong road. Future robotic cars, in contrast would be more efficient in energy use. One might imagine a future where you are not allowed by law to drive your car, in the interests of energy conservation.
Hardly, the robotic world we've expected, but a plausible one - even if we run out of oil.
