k wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] Until the US MANDATES development of sustainable energy, it
] ] will not happen in a meaningful way in which the US will
] ] benefit. Notice that I didn't say it won't happen period. It
]
] ] WILL happen, because unlike the Cold War days of the early
] ] 60s, there are other nations which have the capabilities,
] ] accumen, and cultural aptitude to take advantage of this
] ] opportunity and leap frog everyone else. The question is not
]
] ] IF, it's WHO.
]
] [ You make good and salient points. I think a mandate of this
] sort is necessary, and it needs to come in the form of large
] budgets for R & D. Unfortunately, even if Kerry is elected,
] he's gonna have his hands so full digging us out of the
] enormous hole W put us in, that I'm not convinced there'll be
] money available. Still, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that
] all that money is going to develop technologies which will
] untie us from the volatile Middle East and prevent stupid
] pointless wars in the future.
]
] To tack on a little to the end of your post, it's also a
] matter of when. 2050 ain't good enough. Even the best
] predictions put us smack in the middle of financial crisis due
] to a lack of non-OPEC oil by that time, so this shit needs to
] happen on an accelerated scale, which means it'll cost more.
] Alas, even after paying $2 a gallon at the pump, americans
] aren't likely to be in favor of large alternative energy
] investments, not to mention the auto industry, power industry,
] and so on. It's a political 3rd rail that's gonna take some
] real balls to grasp. I hope someone's up to it. -k]

I totally agree with you that the president-elect will have a very tough time finding the finances to do what I suggested. Between healthcare costs, eminent Medicare/Medicaid crisis, eminent Social Security crisis, Iraq, HUGE deficit, and a bunch of other stuff, it'll be very difficult to direct any real funding to the matter. There are probably some creative ways to spur it (tax relief for funds that invest in the space, etc), but that's not going to have the same impact that we had with the Apollo program. Laser focus is what we need, and united muscle behind it, to get the job done.

Your point about timing is also spot on. And that's why the sense of urgency is requiring such focused investment. Even if all the projections are wrong about how much fossil fuel is left, it doesn't matter. The point is that in today's geo-political reality, empowering the Middle East with exponential growth on a fossil fuel economy is suicide. It's not even about the US anymore. It's about developing nations in Africa and Latin America. They're fed up with this shit too, and a lot of the strife in these lands is directly related to reliance on these systems.

I disagree with the 3rd rail concept though. The oil companies stand to benefit tremendously around sustainable energy. They've placed huge bets on the technology, they control the distribution systems, and they are the leading producers of many of the best products. BP Solar accounts for nearly 1/3 of all solar cells produced, and their products are consistently rated as some of the best. They also have most of the engineering talent cornered. I think they *need* this to happen in some cases. Consolidation between the major oil companies a few years ago was a good sign. It meant that they couldn't achieve investors hunger for growth organically anymore. Nothing puts the afterburners on growth like a new hot product line.

Same with the automotive companies. BMW, by all accounts, has bet the farm on R&D around alternative fuels. They already have working prototypes that run on methanol, ethanol, natural gas, and fuel cell systems. They also have the most receptive customer base to sell these technologies too - people that are conscientious about the issue, and are able to afford an alternative as an early adoptor. Yes, I have been witness to many an automotive company buy a leading technology for highly efficient engine design, alternative fuel, or whatever, and then bury it in the R&D shop forever. But this isn't really a conspiracy as much as it is the behavior of most large and stodgy corporations in today's world. Few companies truly leverage their R&D pools for competitive advantage.

The true problem is that consumers aren't clammoring for this product. Most people point to all sorts of crappy reasons for this that make no sense given reality. They say that the products are two expensive. They say that the products are too nitchy. They say that the products only appeal to a small and finicky demographi. They say that this is a solution looking for a problem.

All of these things you could equally say about the Apple iPod when it was first released.

RE: Smart buildings gain momentum