----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: Europe, the US, and Environmentalism
> At 19:32 2-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I got it, until now, your main
> >objections
> > > to renewable energy are, that it is subsidized and not yet much used.
> >
> >My real objection is that they are not economically viable, and that the
> >proponents of renewable energy are using smoke and mirrors to cover this
up.
> >Why am I hearing the same story now that I heard 20 years ago.
>
> I think there are at least three reasons for it.
>
> First, R&D costs huge amounts of money. Problem with that is, the
companies
> that have the means do to that research don't mind spending all that
money,
> but only if it will lead to profits within a few years. Unfortunately, R&D
> takes a lot longer, so big business wasn't (and presumably still isn't)
> very interested.
>
The number of years to payoff is a decent measure of the state of the
technology. Companies will invest in something where the state of the
technology is sufficiently developed so that the economic feasibility of the
project is visible. Indeed, this is one of the abilities of the private
sector: determining economic feasibility. Small companies can get it (such
as HP, Apple, Microsoft) at the ground floor of a new technology.
> Second, you'll need help from the government, on one hand for co-funding
> R&D, on the other hand for promoting use of energy from renewable sources
> (campaigns to make the public aware of the benefits, subsidies for
> individuals and businesses to stimulate the switch).
Government funding of R&D is reasonable, as long as one understands what
government does well, and what it does not do well. I'll give an example
from computers. Governments are very good at funding research into solid
state physics, which underlies the advancement in chip technology. True
research needs to be a government investment, because the payoffs are too
long term and too diffuse to be captured by any given corporation.
On the other hand, many governments subsidized the development of "5th
generation" computers in the '80s. These computers were supposed to be the
next step in computing. They were sorta super-Crays: massive computers that
were going to do translating and voice recognition.
We all know what happened. Instead of a few supercomputers doing the heavy
lifting, we had minis (like the VAX) and then PCs become the
price/performance leaders. The massive investment by the government of
Japan in the 5th generation computers went down the toilet.
>Unfortunately,
> governments are bureaucratic organizations that are notoriously slow.
First
> they'll form a committee to formulate a plan. Then a committee is formed
to
> get the whole thing organized. Next, the actual research has to be done.
> Then the next committee comes along to evaluate the results, after which
> the cabinet, Congress and Senate have to discuss the evaluation report.
> Once everyone pretty much agrees on what to do next, yet another committee
> is formed to ... (etcetera). Sounds familiar?
>
Right, which is why government is terrible at the development of
commercially viable technology. For something that does not have to be
commercially viable, like the manned space program, it is the best option.
But, I think you are missing something important that I tried to stress
several times. When fundamental research has to be done to solve a problem,
the technology that gives the best insufficient answer is usually not the
technology that is required for the better answer. Spending millions of
dollars on vacuum tube technology would not have hastened the computer
revolution. Indeed, it might have slowed it down. From the appearances of
renewable energy, we are at the point where we need to come up with a
transistor, not a better vacume tube. I have no idea where it will come
from, the best methodology I know of is to continue to fund basic research
and keep an eye out for potential use.
> Third, it wouldn't be the first time that one government starts pumping
> money into a project, and then the next government (of different political
> color) decides to shut down the project or at least make some major cuts
in
> the project's budget.
>
Sure, but the question is why, after billions being spent, there is no
appreciable return on the investment. We are close to where we were 20
years. ago. In contrast, a few million dollars of R&D in the oil patch
resulted in an overwhelming breakthrough. I personally witnessed half of
it, and the research group that made the breakthrough was funded with less
than $5 million.
>
> >There has
> >been some small improvement, solar calculators and solar panels for
remote
> >sites are practical now. But the proponents don't present straight
facts.
> >That makes me suspicions.
>
> Of course, that's exactly what the proponents say about the opponents (big
> businesses that want to protect their current interests): they use smoke
> and mirrors, don't present straight facts, tell outright lies, and try to
> make problems look less serious than they really are.
>
Sure, I would take anything that comes from an oil company with a grain of
salt. Where we differ, I think, is that I am use to reading reports on new
technology and reading between the lines concerning feasibility. I honestly
think, that after 20+ years in a research and development environment, I
have a good ability to read a report and separate the wheat from the chaff.
There are ways one writes a report when the results are good, and a way one
writes it when bad results are covered up. My "sixth sense" for this has
rarely failed me.
There is one clue that should be straightforward. If, after 5 years, the
goals for 5 years down the road are virtually identical to what they were
before, then there is a significant problem in assessing feasibility.
The other part is, as part of the physics community, I have contacts with
people and read journals concerning the problems involved with the
development of energy technology. It seems reasonable to me that an article
in Physics Today, for example, by someone working in the area of
photoelectric cell development that discusses the problems that are faced is
not part of big oil propaganda. Its not that scientists are never wrong,
but the consensus of the scientific community concerning the difficulty of a
problem is an unbiased source. The consensus I've picked up, at places like
sci.physics from my fellow physicists is that the basics physics underlying
renewable energy is a tough problem that hasn't been solved. As Matt Meron,
who posts there, said "heck, if it worked there would be lots and lots of
jobs for physicists, why should we lie about the feasibility?"
>
> Taxes aren't the only way; there are more ways to reduce the amount of
> energy needed. You can save a lot by simply using your head.
>
> Ever since the seventies, the various governments here have run public
> awareness campaigns to promote saving energy. For years now, we have been
> told about simple measures that can be taken. To name a few:
>
Right, but per capita energy use still goes up. In the 90s, it went up
faster in Europe than in the US. I'm not faulting Europe here, the US does
probably have more room for conservation, but we cannot pretend that energy
use per capita will go down because these campaigns continue.
The main thing that has gone against energy conservation is the cheap price
of energy. (I don't have my natural gas bill handy...I'll get that info to
you when I can...but my electric bill is about $0.10/kwh) Raise the price,
and use will go down. Another advantage of increased price is that it opens
up a market for energy saving industries. If one has to spend an extra
$1000 to be energy efficient, with only $50/year in savings, it will indeed
be hard for the average working person to spend the money.
Obviously, as JDG pointed out, energy taxes are regressive
(disproportionately high on low income people). So, such an energy tax
should be balanced with other changes in the tax code to make the total
package revenue neutral and progressive.
> These are all quite simple measures, but it definitely helps. And because
> we have had this drilled into our heads for decades, for many people those
> measures have become a normal part of their lives.
>
Sure, and use probably would have increased faster if we didn't conserve at
all. But, per capita energy use still increases.countries
> How much of such campaigns have there been in the US? Not all that many,
> I'm afraid.
>
Actually, there have been a number. There are frequent anti-pollution ad
campaigns. Mass transit has regular ad campaigns. I've seen a number of
conservation campaigns.
But, the bottom line is that cheap resources are used.
Raising the price will cut consumption. It will also open incentives to
develop new renewable energy sources. But, one cannot count on incentives
producing the technology.
Dan M.
