The story below illustrates yet again the gulf of understanding this Blog is trying to fill; as the LA Times comments ““What really needs to happen is more effective use of the money”.
This is not possible if we concentrate on , so called ‘green’ technologies, as the comment made on the post says “We have no idea where the next technological innovation in energy will lead us”
What we have to look for and invest in are in those areas that ‘on a balance of probabilities, will lead to the continual reduction in the resource intensity of society’
These are not easy calls to make but this is the only option for a viable future.
‘Green’ Energy Needs a Big Leap
That’s the headline on this LA Times pieceon Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s aim to produce “revolutionary” breakthroughs. Incrementalism? Highlights added for your convenience and pleasure:
When Energy Secretary Steven Chu talks about how Americans can break their addiction to oil and coal, he starts with his hi-fi amplifier. It’s so old that the on-off light burned out long ago. But inside lies a technology that — in its day — was as revolutionary as the changes needed to solve the nation’s energy problems.
Radios, telephones and other electronics once depended on fragile vacuum tubes the size of small light bulbs. Then scientists pioneered a smaller, cheaper and more durable replacement called the transistor, opening the way to trans-Atlantic phone calls and a host of other marvels, including Chu’s stereo…………….
…………………….I’m glad the Times knew enough to add this:
The problem is that over the last three decades, the U.S. has spent many times that much on energy research and development — with nothing like a transistor to show for it.
“It’s very easy to say we should spend more” on research, said Jeffrey Wadsworth, chief executive and president of the Battelle Memorial Institute, which manages several Energy Department laboratories. “What really needs to happen is more effective use of the money.”……………………
btw … this gets to the meat of what I think is the fatal flaw in “Green” technology subsidies/legislation. We have no idea where the next technological innovation in energy will lead us. And when it does come, it may, to Laurie David’s chagrin, not be a so-called ‘clean energy’.