山寨现象

今天看了凤凰卫视的一虎一席谈，PK 中国的“山寨现象”，“挺山寨派”似乎打败了“反山寨派”，这相当于说偷东西的反倒有理了！！！那么为什么会这样？偷东西为何会如此理直气壮呢？百思不得其解，忽然间，孔乙己的名言“读书人的事，能算偷吗”让我茅塞顿开，豁然开朗了！
挺派的论点有几个：山寨手机也有创新，初级阶段必然要模仿，模仿有理。其实归结在一起，挺派的潜台词是--模仿不好，知道错了，但我死不认账，你能奈我何？横看竖看，脸上写着俩字：无赖！
其实既然有创新，而且个别功能正牌手机都不具备，那为什么要模仿名牌的外观设计和名字呢？这里“偷”的到底是什么？不偷不行吗？分析一下名牌的产业价值链不难发现，国人偷的不是产品的功能，而是产业链上的市场营销和品牌营销，是高档的软实力！而这恰恰是中国目前没有能力做好的！过去30年的发展已经使得我们具备了相当的制造业基础，模仿一些不算尖端的电子科技产品自然小菜一碟！何况大宗消费的电子产品的技术含量、准入门槛都不高。这就涉及到了专利保护法了。西方国家为什么要出台专利保护呢？鼓励创新啊！那为啥要保护呢？因为准入门槛低吗！不保护，很容易被模仿！先行者的投入当然比模仿者的成本要大得多！很多东西都是这样，别人搞出来了，大家都觉得没啥了不起的；可是在有些人搞出来之前，普罗大众就是没头的苍蝇，包括笔者。道理说到这，实在没有必要讲的再直白了。简言之，要鼓励创新，商业意义上的，产业意义上的创新，就需要专利法！当然科学技术不需要专利保护，为什么？一是无（直接的市场）利可图，而是准入门槛高，不是随便就可以模仿的（当然论文也有抄袭）。
再来分析名牌产品的价值链。毋庸讳言，名牌贵。为什么贵？不要忘了，凡是名牌产品都有极详细、极完整的产业链支撑！从原材料采购、产品研发设计、生产过程质量控制、市场营销、品牌战略、售后服务等等。实际上是一个产品养活了产业链上的所有产业人员！山寨产品呢？只需要两个环节，生产及销售。成本低，自然也就便宜。假设有50个山寨企业，总的从业人员和一个名牌产品的从业人员相等。那么，在山寨企业的从业人员的专业不外乎两类：生产人员、销售人员。而名牌企业呢？有搞研发的、搞市场的、搞生产的、搞营销的、搞服务的，专业化分工极其详细。专业化分工的好处是劳动生产率率的提高--稍微懂点社会发展史的人都知道为什么资本主义战胜了封建社会！
那么，答案来了，资本主义国家问什么要专利法？保护和鼓励创新啊！这是一切社会向前进的铁律！
有了专利保护，企业和个人才会舍得投入资金和精力搞风险和投入都极高的研发，创新才有了可持续下去的可能！专利保护实质是通过国家权力保证创新的个人和企业的利润回报，手段是保护创新产品的市场不被仿冒产品稀释和瓜分！
那么，既然山寨也有创新，为什么就要不得？首先，从文化和制度的层面，不能让这种无赖文化有生根发芽的土壤。因为这种创新是低水平的，不可持续了！因为山寨既然可以模拟名牌，也可以模仿其他山寨产品。可以想象，如果一个民族的某一产业就在这种水平上徘徊，那还有什么希望！
当然，如果真的有些山寨企业通过模仿积累一定的实力，并拿出相当的财力搞自主研发，走自主创新之路，那则是民族产业的大幸；但是别忘了，这样的山寨企业已不再是山寨企业，而它也绝无可能愿意其它山寨企业的存在！
俗谚说“知耻而后勇”，关键是先“知耻”，要有这种文化，则民族有望。

推荐文章

这篇文章分析了几乎所有可能的传统能源和新型能源形式及其各种组合，试图找到最经济、最可行、最环保的模式。文章的研究结果表明，综合应用风力，集中式太阳能，地热，潮汐，光伏电池，以及水电，不但可以满足所有电池汽车和氢燃料电池电动汽车的需求，还可以满足所有居民用电，商业用电及工业用电，是所有可能的模式中对人类最有益的。换言之，是最有可能可持续发展的模式，可以用于解决全球变暖，空气污染和能源安全问题。核能和煤炭-碳捕获储藏模式次之，而生物燃料模式效果最差，具有极大的副作用。

Article citation: Mark Z. Jacobson, Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Graphical abstract image for this article (ID: b809990c)

风电融资

在当前世界范围的金融危机背景下，风电的融资虽然也多少遇到一些困难，但是并没有根本上的改变，风电仍然是金融机构和私人股本热衷的投资领域之一。究其根源，不难发现世界各国关于可再生能源的远景规划和目标没有变化，欧洲甚至知难而上，提高未来可再生能源的比例。谈到这些，有两个大的前提没有改变：全球变暖和化石燃料价格的不确定性——从年中的冲击200美元/桶的势头到年尾的低迷。