Opinion: Expensive gas will drive alternative energy exploration
By Robert F. Brands
Long lines at the gas pump weren’t the only product of the twin energy crises of the 1970s. A legislative push toward energy conservation and innovation were also born as a result.
And that’s why I believe the skyrocketing price of oil will do the same in 2011.
History has proven that innovation in the energy industry has almost always been driven by high consumer prices. When we had cheap and abundant oil – and low gas prices – during the 1980s, energy exploration and innovation slowed to a halt. We didn’t need it, and we didn’t see an end in sight to the steady stream of oil from the Middle East. So, investors held back funds for new technologies, oil companies stood pat and conservation became a four-letter word.
According to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, more than $172 billion of government money was spent on new energy technology between 1961 and 2008, with the bulk of it being used during the 1970s. In the 1980s, the spending accounted for only 1 percent of all federal investment.
I believe oil companies, besieged by Congress over taking huge tax breaks amid record profit reports, could earn some much needed political points by taking history’s cue and putting some of that money back into energy innovations.
When you look at the broad spectrum of what the oil companies are making and compare it to the rate of innovation in alternative energy, it’s like comparing Mount Kilimanjaro to a grape. Now, most consumers aren’t aware of that truth, because oil companies and ad agencies are very good at making it look like alternative energy is humming along when it’s not. While consumers may not connect those dots, they are very aware of the headlines that show record oil company profits combined with massive tax breaks – especially during a time when federal deficits are threatening them, their children and their children’s children. Today’s energy innovation is a fraction of the total and what should be spend. What’s more, the same old song and dance the oil companies offer with regard to touring how much of a percentage their research and development expenditures are as compared to revenue is a joke, and absolutely no guarantee of success.
I want oil companies to spark innovation not only because of the positive press it will net, but also because it’s the right thing to do.
The truth is that many scientists are beginning to calculate an end to the fossil fuel era, because one day, we will run out. Innovation in this area has been driven by high prices and it has been driven by shortages. When we begin to run out, we’ll experience both, and it will be too late to innovate. We need to do it now, when our resources to commit to it are abundant.
Robert F. Brands is a veteran of companies like GTE, Kohler and Rexam, is president and founder of InnovationCoach.com.
The ‘Energy Crisis’ is a fraud. Cheap green energy has been available for the past 50 years, but the US government and nuke industry have hidden the truth, which is that there is enough domestic thorium to power the USA at current energy usage levels for the next 1000 years. One ton of thorium equals 200 tons of uranium or 3.5 million tons of coal.
There’s just one ‘problem’ with thorium, you can’t make nuclear weapons out of it, so the governments of the world are not interested and do not want you to know about safe and sane thorium reactors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k2cWD2mjhQ&feature=related
You could safely carry all the energy you will consume in your entire lifetime in your pants pocket, once we convert to thorium reactors. China and India have already announce their thorium programs, but the USA, where this technology was invented, has zero plans for thorium. Thorium reactors as also able to convert plutonium and other highly toxic and radioactive isotopes into harmless sludge in six months.
Carson, California has also shown support for this initiative earlier. What about you, what do you think about the other states that’s delaying the passing of laws or whathaveyou’s for proliferating the use of natural gasses? http://youtu.be/EWiekzB8rII
The missing word here is “radioactivity”, which of course is the bane of our existence, and most other species, so I, for one, am not willing to experiment with yet another toxic “energy” source, simply because it happens not to emit CO2 . . .
“Not emitting CO2” is the message that Al Gore gave us, but there is so much more to human folly than just the “depletables” like petroleum.
Thorium has a half life of over 10 Billion years, meaning any situation like Japan would be an immensely larger & longer threat than that posed now. . .
Plutonium is already mostly man-made, as there is not enough of it in nature to satisfy our increasingly overwhelming energy appetites.
Thorium is way more abundant than uranium, but with way more potential for our continued screw-ups. . . a death knell.
Who cares what they use!It all kills you sooner or later.
Oil got you by the family jewels and people rather be fat than walk.
Thorium is only slightly radioactive and can be safely handled. It does not pose a health threat. It is the surplus of non radioactive neutrons that amplifies and drives thorium reactors. Also, thorium reactors cannot go critical, even if you try to do so.