Here’s a post I wrote on Renewable Energy World on president Obama’s State of the Union address the other night.
I like to support Obama for his efforts along a number of lines, especially a progressive energy policy. But to me, all the pandering to the masses in that address served more to confuse people than to enlighten and motivate them.
Readers may have noticed the pro-nuclear comments of Frank Eggers. Responding to my request for guest bloggers, Frank wrote:
I’m not sure that there’d be much point in my blogging on this site.
The only information this site about nuclear energy is very obsolete. The olde objections to nuclear power no longer apply. There are solutions to the problems which were formerly a valid concern. For example, there are reactor designs that do not require enriched uranium; natural uranium and thorium can be used as fuels. Also, there reactor designs that produce very little waste because they use the fuel more than 100 times as efficiently than the pressurized water thermal reactors which, unfortunately, are too common. Moreover, the waste they do produce decays much more quickly and needs to be sequestered for only about 500 years rather than tens of thousands of years.
It seems that up to date and correct information on nuclear power is censored from this site. Also, any information that questions the practicality of wind and solar energy is also censored. That is very unfortunate because unless nuclear energy becomes a major part of our energy mix, we will become even more dependent on coal and the serious problems that coal creates.
Considering the above, there would be little point in my writing blogs for this site.
My original response was:
I understand. Thanks for writing back.
But I woke up this morning with a different take, as follows:
Frank: You know, been I’ve thinking about this further, as, in truth, we don’t censor pro-nuclear or any other ideas. If you want to write a blog on this subject, expressing a divergent but legitimate viewpoint, I would actually encourage that. It can be passionate (I can see you have plenty to offer in that department) as long as it’s respectful. I’m more than open to your ideas.
We’ll see what happens.
I had no fewer than six really good discussions with readers today on the subject of guest blogging — each of whom I expect to come on board — and who knows what tomorrow will bring. I really think this diversity of viewpoint will add a great deal to the discussion.
Perhaps more than any other subject, renewable energy lends itself to this diversity, as there are:
Again, if you have something you’d like to say to the thousands of people who visit us here at 2GreenEnergy, please let us know. Click here to CONTACT us.
I’m hoping that readers of my upcoming book on renewables will enjoy my conversation with Matt Simmons, arguably the loudest voice on the issue of peak oil. And, although the subject remains controversial, it’s probably a good deal less so today that it was last week, now that two extremely senior automotive industry executives have come out with statements that support it.
In particular, note the recent comments of GM’s Bob Lutz, global climate change skeptic, who is nonetheless a strong proponent of the Volt and the electrification of the automobile. Lutz argues that continued dependence on oil as demand inevitably increases will simply exacerbate boom and bust economic cycles. He notes that, in 20 years the China auto market will equal the rest of the world combined and adds, “At that point we have to have alternative drive systems, which to me have to be electric.”
And check out the remarks of Jim Lentz, President and COO of Toyota Motor Sales. He apparently stunned his interviewer during a recent Commonwealth Club event, in which he stated unequivocally that Toyota believes that peak oil will occur sometime in the later half of this decade.
Peak oil – just one of the many reasons for the rapid migration to renewable energy.
Jim Stack writes in:
Nissan is taking care of this for EVeryone with their new Nissan LEAF. It’s made in the far east, Smyrna Tennesse …. They are much safer that gas cars; you don’t die from fires when gas explodes or burns after an accident…
Jim: I’m with you all the way.
I was down in Santa Monica a couple of weeks ago interviewing Rick Sikes (their fleet manager) for my book on renewables. If you didn’t know, Santa Monica is an extremely progressive city in a lot of ways – and one of them is the city fleet, which is 87% alternatively fueled.
In any case, I saw all those tanks of CNG, propane, and hydrogen, and I asked about safety. In his answer, which I found more than satisfactory, he pointed out that, on average, 6 people burn to death in gasoline-powered vehicle fires every day. It’s a phenomenon so common that we don’t even report it — like cats getting stuck up in trees.
The other day I wrote a post on my Renewable Energy World blog which garnered a number of interesting comments that I thought I’d pass along. I began the post by indicating that important events in the world generally happen because powerful people make them happen, and that these actions tend to be indifferent to the wellbeing of the vast majority of the world’s population. As an example, I cited George W. Bush’s fixation on removing Saddam Hussein from power and how, in the process, the real threat to world peace and our national security that was developing next door in Afghanistan and Pakistan went unnoticed.
I pointed out that, according to this theory, that although the migration to renewable energy will happen – it will occur for reasons that have essentially nothing to do with the health and safety of our planet, of our nation, and of its people. I provided short explanations of what I see the true drivers: peak oil, public outcry, corporate embrace of renewables, the advent of the smart grid, increases in efficiency of mature clean energy technologies, and the maturation of new technologies.
Of 20+/- comments, most were quite positive. But I was amused by a commentor who wrote:
Do you lefties have to be such drama queens and continue to bring up G.W.? Some of us would like to forget his nonsense. It’s not really much different than what the far right did to the Clinton presidency. Besides, is continuing to make RE a political topic really going to help?
The answer, as I told him, is yes, renewable energy is, in its very essence, a political topic — quite independently of whether he or I want it to be. As I’m fond of saying, the moment you take away the subsidies and force everyone to pay the true cost of the energy they’re producing and consuming, you’ll have ubiquitous clean energy in about 10 minutes.
I thought it might be a good idea to make a list of the types of activities that have been most helpful to our clients in renewable energy and electric transportation. At the top of that list is market research.
As I’m fond of saying, “It doesn’t matter what you think, or what I think; we’re not buying the product or service. What matters is what the market thinks.”
Let me ask you ten quick questions:
1. What market segments have the most intense demand for your product or service?
2. What are the gut-wrenching emotional issues that keep your prospects up at night?
3. What sources of information do they trust most highly?
4. What price-points are most attractive for what you’re offering?
5. What positioning statements communicate an instant understanding of — and attraction for — your product or service?
6. What are the most critical frustrations in your prospects’ professional (and private) lives that motivate them to take risks and make big-dollar commitments?
7. How do your prospects see themselves? What is their self-image, and how does that affect their decision-making?
8. What are your prospects’ key aspirations that drive their purchasing behavior?
9. Through what sales channels are your target market segments most likely to purchase?
10. What would motivate channels partners (reps, dealers, distributors, OEMs, etc.) to embrace a partnership agreement with your company?
If you have airtight answers to these questions, that’s great. But if you’d like to discuss a rigorous and disciplined yet low-cost way to derive rock-solid data points on these and other strategic business issues, please let us know. CONTACT us here.
Do you have something you’d like to say to the thousands of people who visit us here at 2GreenEnergy? Would you like to write on the technology, the business, or the political aspects of what is arguably the most important issue of our time?
Let me invite you to be a guest blogger.
For one thing, it’s fun. When I start my day every morning, one of the things I most look forward to is reading the comments that have gone up in response to the various posts I’ve written. There are some extremely insightful viewpoints — some of which align with my thinking, where others are in pretty hostile disagreement. But “it’s all good,” as my son would say.
If anyone reading this would like to speak with a louder voice — as a guest blogger — I hope you’ll write in and let us know. We’d be thrilled to have more divergent perspectives here — and we’re sure readers would like that as well. Click here to CONTACT us.
I have to laugh. Yesterday I happened to mention campaign finance reform, hoping, in my boyish naivete, for a miracle that would somehow enable our leaders to push for legislature that favors people, rather than corporate interests. But what happened today? We received news of the precise opposite.
The US Supreme Court announced this morning that it has found major provisions of campaign finance reform to be unconstitutional, paving the way for corporate and union money to mute the voices of individual citizens like you and me.
Corporations, defined under law as “fictitious persons,” are given enormous power to achieve their only goal: making profit. Human beings on the other hand, i.e., voters, are given no special powers outside of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and have a multitude of interests and duties. We’ve now granted corporations, on which the law has conferred these unnatural profit-making powers, the right to exert extreme pressure on the political process — at the expense of human voters.
ExxonMobil made $85 billion last year. I wonder if they’ll be able to use some of that money to influence legislation in a way that further tilts the playing field in the direction of fossil fuels. Hmmm. Let me think about that one….
I’ve promised myself that I’ll no longer procrastinate on my book on renewables. In truth, I’ve been pretty good about conducting the interviews and sending them off for transcription. But the sheer volume of words to process and edit has been a bit hard for me to deal with, considering the travel and all the other things going on here. This morning after breakfast, I spend three solid hours going through one eight-page interview — and that’s only one of 25 or 30.
Fortunately, it’s deeply rewarding work. The interview in question was conducted a couple of months ago with the Scripps Institution’s Dr. Greg Mitchell, one of the world’s most well-respected researchers on algae. The process of reviewing his thoughts on the biology and economics surrounding the subject was a learning experience, and it re-enforced some of the themes that were common to a great number of these conversations.
In particular, the single most frequently voiced point is the lack of congruity between our political imperatives and our true needs as a civilization. For something to make sense to a politician, it needs to show demonstrable results in 2 – 3 years; if it doesn’t, he’ll be looking for another job. By contrast, most of the changes that we need to make as a society require a longer-term focus — at least 10, and in some cases 20+ years.
And algae may be the textbook example. Algae and cyanobacteria (photosynthetic bacteria) produce biomass 10 – 50 times more efficiently than any terrestrial plant: corn, soy beans, etc. If you look at the economics of algae, you’re going to get almost 40% biofuel molecules from the original biomass. And what’s the other half or so? It’s protein — that can be used to feed animals far for efficiently that the way we’re going about it today. The whole subject shows incredible promise.
But where are the jobs — today — for algae? How long would a politician last who suggested diverting funds into an area that didn’t offer massive amounts of employment in the very short term — especially in his home state?
It’s a very difficult situation, which, to me, gets back to campaign finance reform. Until we have leaders who can do what they think is right, we’ll continue to have boondoggles like bridges-to-nowhere, corn ethanol and other obvious rip-offs.
