Lack of focus hurts development
Clean Energy Systems
When one speaks of investing in oil, only a handful of production options come to mind: oil drilling, oil sands, and natural gas. When one speaks of “renewable fuels,” numerous products are possible: biodiesel (using any of several processes), biogas (from myriad sources), ethanol (from wheat, barley, sugar, corn, etc.), hydrogen, biomass, gasification and so on. However, mention “alternative energy,” and literally scores of options arise: OTEC, wave & tidal for oceans; geothermal, inversion, hydrogen (again) and pressure for water, photovoltaic and solar heat (plus all their derivatives, including passive and active) for solar, and so on.
We have spoken in other articles about innovative alternative energy concepts and systems, each with its own unique advantages and disadvantages. After decades of neglect, research on alternative energy and alternative renewable fuels has become the focus of future energy production. The era of “clean & green” energy is arriving.
Governments worldwide spend billions of dollars each year on research, pilot projects and capital construction for alternative energy. For example, President Obama renewed his country’s commitment to clean energy in his State of the Union address last month, with a $28.4 billion pledge for the Department of Energy alone. Private investment, directly and indirectly, exceeds $140 billion annually, through corporate investment, stock & bond (and mutuals and ETFs) holdings. This does not include the tens of thousands of backyard inventors and experimenters designing, constructing, testing and investing in creative alternative energy solutions.
The impact of this huge investment of time, intelligence and capital is two-pronged. While incredible innovations and achievements are being realized almost daily, the expenditures are so fragmented and diverse that the lack of focus may actually be impeding the emergence of a completely green energy sector.
Take, for example, Canadian government expenditure on alternative energy. Biodiesel, biogas, wind, solar, water, storage, ethanol, consumer-sized to mega-sized, privately driven to publicly owned, university-centered research to corporate R&D all must share a piece of the very limited public purse for energy development. Simultaneously, conventional infrastructure and sources of energy must be explored, developed and supported.
It is unfortunate that creative interests, diverse government and competitive industry fail to adequately explore cooperative efforts. Backyard energy enthusiasts are loathe to disclose their unique creations and even more loathe to share the glory of the potential discoveries. It is this lack of focus that contributes, in a substantial way, to the relatively sluggish manner that emerging technologies are being introduced to mainstream, commercial applications and the lack of evolution of energy- and cost-efficient designs for proven technologies. Each party has his own vested interest in ensuring that he, and he alone, brings the ultimate invention to the public’s attention.
Governments could, and should, be prepared to prioritize funding for specific concepts. Concurrently, they should be willing to accede to other nations in other fields where they could be competitive. By divesting themselves of specific fields of responsibility, money could be used in a more focused manner. It is unlikely that corporate interests could do the same. The onus, therefore, is placed on governments for guidance. As logical as the approach may seem, it is unlikely to be embraced. Governments decide based on internal pressure, as evidenced by the lack of cooperation in Copenhagen last month. However, even with a fragmented approach to funding, there is optimism. As more funds and more interest is focused on emerging technologies in alternative energy, the potential for breakthroughs creeps forward.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
