Dinheiro traz felicidade? Não, diz Nobel de Economia

 

O economista Angus Deaton durante coletiva de imprensa realizada nesta segunda-feira, após o anúncio de seu nome como vencedor do Prêmio Nobel de Economia 2015(Dominick Reuter/Reuters) Dinheiro traz felicidade? A pergunta, combustível para algazarrentas conversas de mesa de bar, também tem sido objeto de estudos de alguns dos cérebros mais brilhantes do mundo. O professor Angus Deaton, da Universidade de Princeton, nos Estados Unidos, anunciado nesta segunda-feira como vencedor do Prêmio Nobel de Economia de 2015, é uma das mentes que já se dedicaram à questão. A conclusão do professor: dinheiro não necessariamente traz felicidade - mas a falta dele pode acentuar a angústia de quem já não anda muito animado. Deaton escreveu sobre o tema em 2010, em parceria com Daniel Kahneman - também ele vencedor do Nobel de Economia, em 2002. No estudo publicado pela dupla, eles fizeram a correlação entre o nível de renda de diferentes estratos da população americana e uma série respostas sobre satisfação pessoal e bem-estar emocional colhidas entre 2008 e 2009 pelo Instituto Gallup. Ao longo desses dois anos, o instituto ouviu diariamente um grupo de mais de 1.000 pessoas que moram nos Estados Unidos. Ao fim do levantamento, havia mais de 450.000 respostas para ser dissecadas. Primeiro, escreveu Deaton, é preciso mostrar que existe diferença entre bem-estar emocional e avaliação de vida. Embora a diferença pareça ser apenas semântica, ela é fundamental para dar profundidade ao debate - e a confusão entre os conceitos é a origem de tantas pesquisas inócuas sobre o tema, afirma o professor. Bem-estar refere-se a sensações do cotidiano, como alegria, tristeza, raiva e estresse, e a avaliação de vida é a leitura "de fundo" que o indivíduo faz sobre si mesmo. "Como você estava ontem?" é uma pergunta sobre bem-estar. "No geral, você está satisfeito com a vida que leva?" trata de avaliação de vida. Ao separar esses dois grupos de respostas e cruzar os dados com os diferentes níveis de renda, Deaton e Kahneman descobriram que pessoas que ganham bons salários aparecem com mais frequência entre as que têm uma avaliação positiva sobre suas vidas - mas não necessariamente se dizem felizes. "Nós concluímos", diz a pesquisa, "que renda alta compra satisfação de vida, mas não felicidade." O que não quer dizer que o dinheiro não seja um bom estimulante para o estado de espírito: na pesquisa, pessoas com renda muito baixa foram as que disseram com mais frequência estar insatisfeitas tanto com seu cotidiano quanto com sua vida em linhas mais gerais. Deaton e Kahneman escreveram ainda que o grau de bem-estar é maior quanto mais alta é a renda, segundo as respostas da pesquisa, mas, a partir de uma renda de 75.000 dólares anuais (montante 25% maior que a renda per capita americana, que é de 55.000 dólares), o teor das respostas praticamente não muda. Em outras palavras: aumentar a renda indefinidamente não aumenta a felicidade indefinidamente. O tema do estudo publicado em 2010 pode soar demasiadamente "mundano", mas isso não diminui sua relevância. Ao dar ênfase à diferenciação de dois "tipos" de felicidade, os autores ajudam a dar norte para pesquisas de amostragem sobre renda, consumo e saúde pública, por exemplo, o que pode abrir novas perspectivas para a definição de políticas públicas. "Se ambos os aspectos de bem-estar subjetivo são considerados importantes, a separação de suas medidas é uma vantagem", dizem os economistas. Ênfase aos desiguais - É claro que não foi um artigo de cinco páginas, com a resposta (que não é definitiva, salientaram os autores) a uma pergunta tão prosaica, que deu ao escocês Angus Deaton o Nobel de Economia de 2015. Mas esse artigo é uma amostra dos temas abordados e também do modus operandi do professor: a valorização da voz dos indivíduos em detrimento de amostragens sem rosto, a recusa a mensurar bem-estar apenas com base exclusivamente em consumo - uma prática comum entre acadêmicos na atualidade - e o esforço de cruzar teorias e dados para encontrar onde está o ponto cego das conclusões de seus colegas. A primeira grande contribuição de Deaton à literatura acadêmica foi a de atestar que as medidas agregadas de consumo nacional não são a previsão exata do comportamento de cada indivíduo. Embora isso soe óbvio hoje, era um tema controverso quando Deaton começou a se debruçar sobre ele, no começo da década de 70. Ao se dedicar ao estudo da diferença entre os indivíduos - o que exige a criação de modelos mais precisos para estudar o conjunto da população -, Deaton acabou seguindo um caminho correlato: o de estudar o comportamento dos consumidores. Dessa linha de estudo surgiu o "Paradoxo de Deaton", segundo o qual o consumo varia muito lentamente, mesmo com variações bruscas de renda. Por se debruçar sobre a identificação de desigualdades, Deaton acabou enveredando para o estudo dos mais desiguais entre os desiguais: as economias pobres e emergentes. Nessa seara, o Nobel de Economia de 2015 tem tentado entender a origem e as consequências da pobreza dos países e apontar como são imprecisos os critérios de mensuração de consumo e pobreza adotados por acadêmicos e organismos internacionais, como o Banco Mundial. A Índia tem sido um objeto de particular atenção de Deaton. Mais uma vez, não parece ser casualidade: a Índia é o país mais desigual do G-20, segundo a Organização das Nações Unidas, e um dos mais desiguais do mundo.   http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/economia/dinheiro-traz-felicidade-nao-diz-nobel-de-economia

Creator of 5-hour Energy Wants to Power the World's Homes—With Bikes

 

The mystery man behind the popular caffeine shot plans to roll out 10,000 stationary bikes next year in India. Manoj Bhargava, creator of the 5-hour Energy drink, demonstrates his Free Electric bike. By pedaling for one hour, he says, a person can power a home's lights and basic appliances for an entire day. Photograph by Paul Sheppard The man who created the 5-hour Energy drink says he has more money than he needs—about $4 billion more. So he’s giving it away, spending his fortune on a quest to fix the world's biggest problems, including energy. Manoj Bhargava has built a stationary bike to power the millions of homes worldwide that have little or zero electricity. Early next year in India, he plans to distribute 10,000 of his Free Electric battery-equipped bikes, which he says will keep lights and basic appliances going for an entire day with one hour of pedaling. Bhargava, who dropped out of Princeton University after a year because he was bored and then lived in ashrams in his native India for 12 years, doesn’t stop at bikes. He’s working on ways to make saltwater drinkable, enhance circulation in the body, and secure limitless amounts of clean geothermal energy—via a graphene cord. “If you have wealth, it’s a duty to help those who don’t,” says Michigan resident Bhargava, 62, in a documentary released Monday, Billions in Change, about hisStage 2 Innovations lab. “Make a difference in people’s lives,” he says, “Don’t just talk about it.” Could his bike really work? Will people want to pedal for power? Could they afford it or even have room for it in their homes? It holds “huge potential and opportunity for rural households,” says Ajaita Shah, CEO of Frontier Markets, a company selling solar lamps and lighting kits in India. (Read about her work.) She says she’d like to test the bike with her rural customers. “It’s so simple that we think we can make it for $100 … A bicycle repairman anywhere can fix it,” Bhargava says in an interview. Pedaling turns a turbine generator that creates electricity, stored in a battery. The first 50 bikes will be tested in 15 or 20 small villages in the northern state of Uttarakhand before a major rollout in the first quarter of next year. He says they’ll be made in India but doesn’t give details.   Who Is He? Bhargava’s a bit of a mystery man. He grew up in an affluent home with servants in India, but his family struggled financially after coming to the United States when he was 14. He worked odd jobs and got academic scholarships. “It was worth a year,” he says of studying math at Princeton. After a spiritual quest in India, he built companies, including Living Essentials, maker of the popular two-ounce caffeine shot that’s sold at checkout counters. Though generally low-profile, he’s not without controversy. He’s sued to fend off copycats of his blockbuster product and countered challenges from state attorneys general for alleged deceptive marketing. The Center for Public Integrity dubbed him the “political kingmaker nobody knows,” saying he’s donated millions to mostly GOP political candidates via limited liability companies. Also unknown: exactly how much money he has. The documentary says his net worth is $4 billion, but Forbes does not list him among America’s richest 400 people, which includes those with at least $1.7 billion. Bhargava has said it’s difficult to put a specific valuation on his private companies, but he’s signed the Giving Pledge, a Bill Gates-led challenge for the rich to donate their fortunes to charitable causes. He says he didn’t want to “ruin” his son by giving him money. “I told him when he was 10, 'You’re not getting anything.' His attitude: 'Great. I want to do it on my own,'” Bhargava says about his now adult son. Instead Bhargava has funded hospitals in India and his cutting-edge Stage2 labin Farmington Hills, Michigan, begun in 2011 with former Chrysler CEO Tom LaSorda. “It’s the most well-funded playhouse for engineers you can possibly have,” lab engineer Kevin Moran says in the documentary. This is going to affect a few billion people. Manoj Bhargava   Big Problems, Simple Fixes Bhargava’s team has come up with innovative ideas in health, water, and energy. It’s pursuing Renew, a medical device that functions as an auxiliary heart by squeezing blood from the legs into the body’s core. To address drought, it’s building the Rain Maker to convert 1,000 gallons an hour of any kind of water into drinkable water. Bhargava says potable water could be piped from offshore barges with this machine, now being tested at a desalination research facility in New Mexico. He has an even grander idea—one aimed at nixing the world’s reliance on fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse gases when burned. Whatever people think of climate change, he says in the documentary, “pollution is a problem.” His answer: tap the heat from deep beneath the Earth. While geothermal energy is already widely used in some countries, including Indonesia and Iceland, Bhargava takes a novel approach. Rather than using steam—mixed with chemicals—to bring the heat to the surface, he would instead pull it up with a graphene cord. He notes graphene, stronger than steel, is an incredible conductor of heat. “You don’t need to burn anything…Once you bring [heat] up, you don’t change any of the infrastructure,” he says, explaining that utilities could simply distribute it instead of coal, oil, or natural gas. “That’s going to be, in my mind, the final answer,” he says, estimating this type of geothermal could replace 85 percent of today’s fossil fuels. He says maps show half of the world has plentiful underground heat, and since graphene cables could run horizontally, they could route it to the other half as well. “I think someone’s going to kill me,” he says with a laugh, noting how such an idea could upset geopolitics. He’s working with a graphene research center in Singapore to develop a cable and plans to have pictures available later this year. It’s not giving back. It’s what else am I going to do? Manoj Bhargava The Bike Ridden Round the World? Bhargava gets most animated when talking about his graphene cable, but he sees the most immediate potential in Free Electric. He says it could provide electricity for the developing world and offer post-storm backup power in wealthier countries. The stationary Free Electric bike has a battery to store electricity generated when the rider is pedaling. Its monitor shows how much the battery is charged. Photograph by Billions in Change “This is going to affect a few billion people,” he says, noting the main challenge will be distribution—a subject he knows well. He won’t give the bike away, because he says people won’t take care of something that’s free. Rather, he’d prefer to incentivize distributors with profits. He says a village can also pool its resources, buying one bike but multiple batteries that can be swapped out to power individual homes. Those working in rural India welcome the idea. “The problem of universal energy access is so big and diverse that we need multiple innovations to solve it...Free Electric appears to be one such product innovation,” says Piyush Mathur, chief financial officer of Simpa Networks, a company that offers pay-as-you-go financing for its solar lighting. Others doubt the appeal of off-grid solutions. “The poor...want grid-based power like urban households that can run TV sets at the flick of a switch,” says Lydia Powell, senior fellow and energy expert at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation. Bhargava agrees “they want exactly what we want,” and he says his bike will help them make a living and take care of their families. He says he wants to give them something useful, not buff his public image. “I want publicity for the project but not for me,” Bhargava says, referring to the documentary made by Film 45’s Peter Berg, who directed the 2013 war movieLone Survivor. “There’s no purpose in being famous unless you have a hobby like Donald Trump. That’s his hobby.” He also says he doesn’t see altruism in his philanthropy. “I like work,” he says. “It’s not giving back. It’s what else am I going to do?” The story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge. On Twitter: Follow Wendy Koch and get more environment and energy coverage atNatGeoEnergy.   http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/10/151006-energy-drink-billionaire-wants-to-power-homes-with-bikes/

These 14 Sleek Solar Homes Do More Than Produce Power

 

Fewer college teams built homes to compete in this year’s Solar Decathlon, but their gee-whiz features might offer a surprising glimpse of the future. Reporters view the compact, stackable home designed and built by students at New York City College of Technology on October 7, 2015, at the U.S. Department of Energy's biennial Solar Decathlon in Irvine, California. Photograph by Thomas Kelsey, U.S. Dept. of Energy They’re not simply places to live. They charge cars, grow food, collect water, and generate electricity during blackouts. These Dwell-like beauties might just make those with bigger homes a bit envious. The University at Buffalo home, for example, has an indoor greenhouse for growing food year-round. Orange County’s team features a vertical garden, surf shower and—for the boomerang generation—detached studio. To withstand storms like the tornado that flattened the nearby town of Joplin, Missouri’sCrowder College and Drury University use reinforced walls surrounded by an impact-resistant fence. The homes offer smart windows, accordion doors, and movable walls. Plus, they can charge a car. “We’re going to hook it up and charge it with the power of the sun,” Steve Speights, an engineering student at California State University in Sacramento, says in a video about his team’s home, complete with carport. Welcome to the Solar Decathlon 2015, a biennial U.S.-sponsored contest that began Thursday in Irvine, California. Collegiate teams from around the world compete to build the most attractive, affordable, and energy-efficient home. Via solar panels, the homes produce at least as much energy as they use. Via rainwater capture, they reuse water. These small homes—1,000 square feet or less—go well beyond solar technology to showcase not only smart design but also innovative ways to address drought or extreme weather. Some are engineering marvels. “It’s like the biggest jigsaw puzzle you’ve even seen,” Solar Decathlon director Richard King says of Clemson University’s home, made of thousands of pieces of flat-packed plywood that lock together like LEGO. Despite its wow factor, this competition has a cloudy future. It's losing competitors at a time when the U.S. solar industry is booming and other countries—China, Colombia, and United Arab Emirates—are planning similar decathlons. Six of the initial 20 teams withdrew, including Stanford, Yale, and Vanderbilt. The result: This year’s event is the smallest since the Department of Energy launched the U.S. decathlon in 2002. What Happened? “It was a confluence of things,” King says, noting two teams dropped out almost immediately, because their faculty advisers had moved to other schools. Another reason: cash. The projects often cost at least $250,000, and DOE gave each team $50,00 in seed money, down from $100,000 in prior years. Several teams said they couldn’t raise enough money. They get in-kind donations from companies, but they still have to design and build homes, ship them in pieces, and reassemble them within days at the competition. Triple-filtered, recycled greywater waters at hydroponic garden at the home of Missouri University of Science and Technology on October 6, 2105, at the Solar Decathlon in Irvine, California.  Photograph by Thomas Kelsey/U.S. Department of Energy Yale pulled out less than two months ago, citing inadequate funds. Architecture student Pablo Ponce de Leon, who worked on the project, said Yale’s endowment—one of the largest in the world for universities—is locked in investments or earmarked for other purposes such as building residential colleges. University at Buffalo's home “If you raise the money, fine, but we’re not going to fundraise for you,” he says was the message from the development office. He says his student-led team didn’t get started early enough or have a dedicated faculty adviser. “It’s a little disappointing,” he says of the withdrawal, adding the decathlon encourages cutting-edge solutions. “It’s very expensive and time-consuming,” says Sandy Stannard, architecture professor at California Polytechnic State University, citing the demands of creating a smart home. Her team’s house doubles its living space with a 15-foot glass wall in the living room that folds back like an accordion, and it reduces energy demand with a bio-based material that absorbs and releases heat. She says Cal Poly participated in the 2005 contest, adding with a laugh: “It took 10 years to recover.” “It’s become increasingly competitive,” says Alex McDonald, a graduate student in mechanical engineering at the University of California, Irvine. He says the Orange County team’s house, which mimics California’s state flower—the golden poppy—by opening to the sun during the day and closing at night—is quite ambitious. Team Orange County's home The house has windows that automatically open and close, depending on the weather, as well as a personal 3D printer and small thermoplastic recycling system that allow residents to break down unneeded objects and reuse the material for new products. “We pushed hard to develop disruptive technologies,” McDonald says, noting his team was still working out some glitches. He says the home is so complex that it needs a project manager with “borderline OCD.”   Homes Gain Complexity King agrees that each subsequent decathlon “raises the bar.” In 2011, to encourage affordability, the competition began penalizing homes that cost more than $250,000. This year, it required them to charge a car to run 25 miles a day. A circular window inside the home built by students at the Missouri University of Science and Technology provides a unique view of the entry by the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, on October 5, 2015, at the U.S. Department of Energy's biennial Solar Decathlon in Irvine, California. Photographby Thomas Kelsey, U.S. Dept. of Energy Solar Decathlon “We expanded the Solar Decathlon from the house to the household,” King says. Why? He says he cut his electric bill to zero when he built his own solar-powered home six years ago, but because of his family’s cars, its total carbon emissions were only halved. So he wanted the competition to address that other half—the cars. The teams address local conditions. To deal with urban density, New York City College of Technology built a stackable house. To address the drought, theUniversity of Texas at  Austin—partnering with Germany’s Technische Universitaet Muenchen—captures rainwater and reuses the greywater that’s left from showers or dishwashers. It has an under-deck system to purify and store the water for drinking or irrigation. Crowder College and Drury University's house Several built storm-proof homes. Recalling the damage of Hurricane Sandy in 2012, students at New Jersey-based Stevens Institute of Technology use fiber-composite shutters and an “islanding” solar array that will power the house during blackouts and even allow neighbors to charge their electronic devices. The teams, some of which include community colleges or foreign universities, are judged on 10 criteria that include affordability, architecture, engineering, and market appeal. The overall winner is named October 17, after which the competition ends. King says he expects good public turnout despite having fewer homes. As for 2017, he plans a different approach to avoid teams dropping out. Rather than giving them upfront cash, he’ll offer each a prize ranging from $50,000 to $300,000. Right now, winners only get bragging rights. Next time, he says: “You’ll have to show up to get your money.” California State University, Sacramento's home The story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge. On Twitter: Follow Wendy Koch and get more environment and energy coverage atNatGeoEnergy.   http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/10/151009-14-Sleek-Solar-Homes-Do-More-Than-Produce-Power/

Panasonic develops most efficient solar panel ever with 22.5% sunlight conversion

 

We’ve reported a lot this year on the ever-dropping price of solar powertechnology, but the other incredibly cool thing happening is the steady increase in efficiency. This combination of lower price and higher energy conversion is securing solar power’s top spot in the renewable energy race. Now, Panasonic says its next solar panels will snag a record-breaking 22.5 percent efficiency rating, busting SolarCity’s reign by 1.4 percent. That may not sound like much, but in the world of solar power, it’s a substantial jump. SolarCity plans to manufacture its high-efficiency solar panels starting at the company’s new Buffalo, New York plant next year, but even those panels are only expected to convert 22.1 percent of sunlight into usable electricity. Panasonic isn’t quite as far along in its development, but the company has created a prototype of a commercial-sized solar panel that boasts a 22.5 percent conversion efficiency. And we don’t have to take Panasonic’s word for it; theJapanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology has confirmed it in testing. Related: New hybrid solar cells generates 5 times more energy by harnessing sunlight and heat at the same time Although it will be a while before Panasonic’s most efficient solar panels can be put into mass production, the company isn’t holding its proverbial breath. It is gearing up to launch the HIT® N330, the latest addition to the company’s high-efficiency hetero-junction photovoltaic module product line, with a 19.7 percent module-level efficiency rate. And then Panasonic’s most powerful PV module to date will be available in the UK and other European markets starting in March 2016. Via Clean Technica Images via Panasonic   http://inhabitat.com/panasonic-develops-most-efficient-solar-panel-ever-with-22-5-sunlight-conversion/