Clean Energy - an emerging industry

[David G]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua...b_1798182.html

Does it make sense to invest in emerging industries... or not?

[Garret]

Of course it does, this is why I call all the Reps trying to kill it traitors. They are trying to destroy the US, plain & simple. This is just one of the methods they are using.

[David G]

Of course it does, this is why I call all the Reps trying to kill it traitors. They are trying to destroy the US, plain & simple. This is just one of the methods they are using.

Some inadvertently. Some deliberately. Most of the rank-and-file are simply pawns.
The part I'm still trying to sort out is what % are the cynical, deliberate ones... and who are they? Do you think Romney is part of that group? Rove? Ryan? Koch's? Sunnunu? Boehner?

[Garret]

Rove, Ryan & the Kochs - for sure. Romney - maybe.

If any are pawns, voters need to grow a pair & see just how stupid they are. If they aren't, voters need to look for who is really paying them.

[Kaa]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua...b_1798182.html

Does it make sense to invest in emerging industries... or not?

That rather depends on the industry and on the particulars of the investment, of course.

So far the experience of venture capitalists is that cleantech is a disaster.

Kaa

[AnalogKid]

Maybe back in the seventies or eighties I could understand why oil companies and their political supporters would want to kill off any kind of meaningful clean energy research but now, it just doesn't make sense. To still believe that there is no such thing as peak oil and that we need an alternative, you'd have to have your head stuck so deep in the sand that you'd be able to see the diminished reservoirs of crude getting sucked up.

What I don't get, is why aren't the oil companies putting some of their extensive cash behind the alternatives instead of ever more-desperate prospecting. I know BP is (or perhaps was) as leader in solar energy, but that's the only specific alt.engery spin-off from an oil company that I can think of. But surely these guys need to be thinking of what comes next. The rewards for backing the right option now could be huge.

I here an common argument against alternatives to fossil-powered ICs for personal transport - who is going to put the infrastructure in place so that you can fill up your hydrogen tank / swap you battery pack / pump up your air tanks / (insert your preferred solution here). But lets not forget that the motor car was invented before the petrol pump or the gas station, but if the oil companies that own that distribution network was to also provide the means of topping-up your gas alternative, then there's far less outlay than there was to build the existing network.

Surely this is a time when true capitalism can show its worth. The oil companies can't continue their current ways forever, and whoever gambles on the right technology for the next phase of human technological development can get to make those kinds of oil company profits all over again. Sure it's risky, but that's where the biggest rewards are. It's hard to see any kind of spoiling tactics as anything other than self-serving, short-termism designed to line the pockets of the protagonists, and damn anyone else, now or in the future.

[Norman Bernstein]

Maybe back in the seventies or eighties I could understand why oil companies and their political supporters would want to kill off any kind of meaningful clean energy research but now, it just doesn't make sense. To still believe that there is no such thing as peak oil and that we need an alternative, you'd have to have your head stuck so deep in the sand that you'd be able to see the diminished reservoirs of crude getting sucked up.

What I don't get, is why aren't the oil companies putting some of their extensive cash behind the alternatives instead of ever more-desperate prospecting. I know BP is (or perhaps was) as leader in solar energy, but that's the only specific alt.engery spin-off from an oil company that I can think of. But surely these guys need to be thinking of what comes next. The rewards for backing the right option now could be huge.

I here an common argument against alternatives to fossil-powered ICs for personal transport - who is going to put the infrastructure in place so that you can fill up your hydrogen tank / swap you battery pack / pump up your air tanks / (insert your preferred solution here). But lets not forget that the motor car was invented before the petrol pump or the gas station, but if the oil companies that own that distribution network was to also provide the means of topping-up your gas alternative, then there's far less outlay than there was to build the existing network.

Surely this is a time when true capitalism can show its worth. The oil companies can't continue their current ways forever, and whoever gambles on the right technology for the next phase of human technological development can get to make those kinds of oil company profits all over again. Sure it's risky, but that's where the biggest rewards are. It's hard to see any kind of spoiling tactics as anything other than self-serving, short-termism designed to line the pockets of the protagonists, and damn anyone else, now or in the future.

Excellent post.

I think the reason you are seeking has to do with a fundamental change in the corporate psyche, in the past 100 years... From business leaders with the vision to see the long term prospects... To corporate CEOs under the gun to deliver the next quarters financials. There is no motivation... Or even a mechanism... To lay down the tracks for a 50 year ahead, or even a 20 year ahead vision.... Not when the big rewards come in the end of year bonus, and not when the 5 year look-ahead for many companies includes cashing out in a merger.

To make renewables actually profitable might actually take a long view.... And if private industry won't, the the government must.

[LeeG]

That rather depends on the industry and on the particulars of the investment, of course.

So far the experience of venture capitalists is that cleantech is a disaster.

Kaa

Then why pursue it?

[LeeG]

To make renewables actually profitable might actually take a long view.... And if private industry won't, the the government must.

But what if renewables don't have the profit that resource depletion provides?

[John Smith]

Some inadvertently. Some deliberately. Most of the rank-and-file are simply pawns.
The part I'm still trying to sort out is what % are the cynical, deliberate ones... and who are they? Do you think Romney is part of that group? Rove? Ryan? Koch's? Sunnunu? Boehner?

It doesn't matter. If you are a pawn or a leader, if you vote against something, you vote against it.

Romney is a pawn. He holds no personal convictions. He'll be pro-choice or anti-choice depending upon the circumstances.

The part of this I cannot understand is the Koch Brothers et al. Why aren't they investing in new energies instead of investing in politicians? In the long run they'd make more money.

Over the years I've asked several questions that seem to be ignored. One of the points I've made, or questions I've asked is:

If we proceed as if global warming is real, but it is a hoax, we end up with more efficient cars, better insulated homes, and less dependence on foreign energy: what's the downside? If we proceed as if it is a hoax, but it turns out to be real, what is the upside?

[John Smith]

It's always been my opinion that whatever fuel gets put into our car's tank is going to require a filling station, and that will likely be the same gas station we now use. If Exxon makes (just to put a number) $1 a gallon for every gallon of gas it pumps, and it gets a similar amount for pumping something else, it won't care what it pumps into your car.

The problem becomes the capital investment requires to put in the tanks and pumps for the new fuel. Those old enough will recall the gas lines in the 70's, the rising cost of gas, and the relatively low cost of diesel fuel. This led to diesel cars and local gas stations put in diesel tanks and pumps. The cost of this drove the price of diesel fuel up and defeated its own purpose.

In order for a new fuel to catch on it has to be competitive with gas in price.

In a couple of countries electric cars are becoming popular. In those countries they've followed what I suggested in my book. As your battery runs down you pull into a "filling station" They pull the battery out of your vehicle and place it in a charging bank. They take a charged battery ouf of the bank and put it in your car. Less than 4 minutes. I'm sure if we were to do this here, we'd be pulling into Exxon et al to change batteries.

Again, however, the initial cost of putting all these charging stations in place will be passed on to the consumer and it will defeat the electric car.

This is where all those "capitalists" need to take their blinders off. The taxpayer is going to have to help finance any of this if it is to be cost competitive with gasoline. Gasoline had the luxury of all the stations and the distribution methods simply growing with the country. The new fuels won't have that luxury. They're going to need the support structure built quickly.

We also have to be careful that the solution to one problem doesn't create another. Ethanol in gas is creating considerable havoc in small engines.

[skuthorp]

Down here 'clean coal' is the sink that much government cash is being poured down because the big boys that write the big cheques are the coal exporters. Local politics come into it in a big way. There's a bit of wind but NIMBY applies in spades, solar cells on roofs are becoming a regular thing too. One of the newer suburbs generates close to 60% of it's own requirements. Heat storage got as far as a submission to government, wave action is I think some way away.

[Steve McMahon]

I think one of the biggest challenges is that there is in fact no such thing as "Clean Energy" or Green Energy" except perhaps standing out in the sun. The current trend has been for proponants, usually motivated by money, to greenwash their particular energy system.

The biggest investment should be in ways to reduce the requirement for energy:
1. Better building envelopes and building conservation features.
2. Better regional transportation systems.
3. Increased local food and consumer goods production to reduce transportation requirements and reduce the risks caused by centralized food production.
4. Smaller localized power production closer to the point of use to minimize the losses we now have because of transformation and distribution systems which can reach upwards to 50%.

All that being said, their is indeed reason to continually invest in cleaner ways to harvest renewable energy sources, but it has to be coupled with reduction stategies.

[LeeG]

The part of this I cannot understand is the Koch Brothers et al. Why aren't they investing in new energies instead of investing in politicians? In the long run they'd make more money.

?

I doubt it.

[Kevin T]

What always struck me is that the ones who deny, obstruct or make the argument that green, sustainable energy is a losing proposition point to companies that failed like Solyandra and other companies that are less then 10 years old, and then cite that the failure of these companies points out the superiority of oil.

They always fail to mention the 100 plus years advantage the oil industry has had to refine its operations. <pun intended>

[John Smith]

I doubt it.

If we are to be honest, the bottom line is we cannot keep doing what we are doing. Things will change, and while he Koch's are making money under the present scheme, they could be arranging to be making money off of the coming scheme. As much money as they spend on influencing politics to prevent changing schemes could be well spent in preparing for future forms of energy and being as much a part of that as they are of coal.

[Norman Bernstein]

But what if renewables don't have the profit that resource depletion provides?

Then it suffers the same fate as ANY venture which is engaged in with hopes and expectations that don't pan out.

Imagine if Edison discarded the light bulb because the electric infrastructure didn't exist to support it... or if Ford abandoned the inexpensive automobile because there was no network of filling stations, nor smooth highways. These entrepeneurs took a risk which transcends what today's entrepeneurs, with their short term profit-driven orientation, are willing to do.

Yes, that's right: some technologies don't pan out, even after enormous investment and long periods of time. Here in Massachusetts, if you look hard enough, you can see the remnants of what was called the Blackstone Canal; running from Worcester to Providence, it was intended to provide a transportation route from the mills and factories in Worcester, MA, to Providence, where goods could be shipped nationally or even world wide. Some entrepeneurs invested in this ditch.... only to go bankrupt not long afterwards; they didn't see the advent of railroad technology, which made the canal obsolete and uneconomical.

Some technologies simply wouldn't exist without government support... the Internet is one of them. The Internet was NOT the first implementation of national networking... that happened years before, and it was called the telephone... but the private profit motive of the Bell companies bore no relationship to the needs of national infrastructure. Had DARPA not developed the Internet (initially, for the sake of military use), we might have seen either an expensive proprietary Bell-based network today... or a series of incompatible networks, all of which would have been far more expensive, and hampered the veritible explosion of networked based commerce.

Right wingers are very fond of castigating the government for things like Solyndra.... but anyone with any exposure to the concept of venture capital knows full well that MOST ventures of that kind will fail.... and the small percentage of ones that succeed make the failures worthwhile.

[LeeG]

I think one of the biggest challenges is that there is in fact no such thing as "Clean Energy" or Green Energy" except perhaps standing out in the sun. The current trend has been for proponants, usually motivated by money, to greenwash their particular energy system.

The biggest investment should be in ways to reduce the requirement for energy:
1. Better building envelopes and building conservation features.
2. Better regional transportation systems.
3. Increased local food and consumer goods production to reduce transportation requirements and reduce the risks caused by centralized food production.
4. Smaller localized power production closer to the point of use to minimize the losses we now have because of transformation and distribution systems which can reach upwards to 50%.

All that being said, their is indeed reason to continually invest in cleaner ways to harvest renewable energy sources, but it has to be coupled with reduction stategies.

I agree 100%

The pressing problem for the next few decades isn't "energy" but declining supplies of oil and increasing cost. Most alternatives are some form of coal or gas. Our per capita consumption isn't sustainable but politicians learned a few things from Jimmy Carter, don't talk about limits to growth and don't expect the American public to sacrifice for a diffuse and deferred reward.

[LeeG]

If we are to be honest, the bottom line is we cannot keep doing what we are doing. Things will change, and while he Koch's are making money under the present scheme, they could be arranging to be making money off of the coming scheme. As much money as they spend on influencing politics to prevent changing schemes could be well spent in preparing for future forms of energy and being as much a part of that as they are of coal.

I agree there's an unsustainable path but if you're making money on a sure thing, and transporting oil from Canada is a sure thing why risk changing?

[PeterSibley]

I agree 100%

The pressing problem for the next few decades isn't "energy" but declining supplies of oil and increasing cost. Most alternatives are some form of coal or gas. Our per capita consumption isn't sustainable but politicians learned a few things from Jimmy Carter, don't talk about limits to growth and don't expect the American public to sacrifice for a diffuse and deferred reward.

because there is always someone in the wings to tell the voting public , "you can have it all, more and more every year and at no increased price ."

[LeeG]

Norman, I'm saying we have a civilization that requires vast amounts of fossil energy and there is no replacement inheritance of energy/wealth ready to come on line. The energy/wealth from renewables is much smaller than from fossil energy that the reward and motivation to risk capital is much less. I mean we can theorize about the viability of vast wind/solar farms but what we are actually doing is spending 100's billions on unconventional oil extraction, billions for more efficient vehicles but actually expecting Americans to pay for the care of the commons? Not yet

[LeeG]

because there is always someone in the wings to tell the voting public , "you can have it all, more and more every year and at no increased price ."

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

"America is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon- based energy resources"

An ever flowing supply of fossil fuels that has no limits.

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, I'm saying we have a civilization that requires vast amounts of fossil energy and there is no replacement inheritance of energy/wealth ready to come on line. The energy/wealth from renewables is much smaller than from fossil energy that the reward and motivation to risk capital is much less. I mean we can theorize about the viability of vast wind/solar farms but what we are actually doing is spending 100's billions on unconventional oil extraction, billions for more efficient vehicles but actually expecting Americans to pay for the care of the commons? Not yet

Lee, this is the rare case where I'd agree with those who say that the 'free market' (Whatever that means) eventually balances the scales.

As oil extraction becomes more and more 'unconventional', the costs of doing so continue to increase.. and the consequences of doing so become more and more onerous. Eventually, getting the stuff out of the ground and refined into a usable fuel become so costly, and so hazardous, that alternative technologies begin to look better and better, in comparison.

The downside of waiting for this to happen is the side effects: pollution, climate change, and so on. Government can't control the economics of energy production... but it can 'bend the curve' in minor, but important, ways.

Aside from things like economic encouragement of the development of alternative energy, a far more effective strategy might be to adjust the incentives; penalizing the short term efforts, and rewarding the long term efforts. We can certainly do this via tax policy, but we have to be consistent. The effort, in the last major petroleum crisis in the 70's, was unfortunately short-lived; as soon as the crisis eased, the incentives stopped.... and here in New England, you can still occasionally see a wind turbine from that era, long since broken down and abandoned.... or solar panels, long since dead from UV damage, unused, on the occasional rooftop.

Had we not abandoned those efforts from the 70's, we could conceivably be in far better shape now... but that would require a long term investment mindset. We can't expect entrepeneurs and venture capitalists to have a mindset like that, unless we take steps to encourage it... and penalize the short term attitudes.

[Paul Pless]

because there is always someone in the wings to tell the voting public , "you can have it all, more and more every year and at no increased price ."

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

"America is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon- based energy resources"

An ever flowing supply of fossil fuels that has no limits.

eh?



This ain't really a republican versus democrat thing, as both parties suck **** on energy issues, two sides of the same coin. . .

[bob winter]

Supporting clean energy is a no brainer, provided. The Government of Ontario has brought in a program that encourages farmers, and anybody else I think, to put in solar panels and sell the excess energy back to Hydro One. The only problem is that they are paying far above market rate for the energy. It makes no economic sense in the short term. The long term may be a different matter.

In my view, Hydro One, the crown corporation that has a monopoly on electricity has been totally mismanaged over the past several years.

[Norman Bernstein]

The video represents a sorry note in the Obama campaign's history. "Clean coal" is bullsh|t, and everyone knows it, or SHOULD know it..... maybe at some point in the future, it won't be, but in the short term, it's a myth.

....but that's how presidential campaigns are won: by pandering to specific constituencies. I can't defend this, so don't ask me to.

[Paul Pless]

I can't defend this, so don't ask me to.

You can't defend it from the left, but you will attack the right for the very same thing?

[Steve McMahon]

Supporting clean energy is a no brainer, provided. The Government of Ontario has brought in a program that encourages farmers, and anybody else I think, to put in solar panels and sell the excess energy back to Hydro One. The only problem is that they are paying far above market rate for the energy. It makes no economic sense in the short term. The long term may be a different matter.

In my view, Hydro One, the crown corporation that has a monopoly on electricity has been totally mismanaged over the past several years.

I think others (who have no oil of their own) have proven that it will work. Germany is a good example. Here in NS there is also a program for small scale production that is partly modeled after Ontario's. Unfortunately there is a NIMBY attitude prevelant that is further fueled by the tin foil hat crowd that unfortunately have internet access to rheams of poor or outright false data.

[Norman Bernstein]

You can't defend it from the left, but you will attack the right for the very same thing?

Oh, come ON... my statement about not being able to defend it, is a CRITICISM of it. Quit while you're ahead, fer chrissakes!

[bob winter]

The NIMVY thing seems to have more to do with wind turbines than it has to do with solar panels. What do you pay for hydro in Nova Scotia? I have been told that it would be no more expensive for me to get a natural gas generator and go off the grid altogether. I don't know if that is actually true or not.

[Norman Bernstein]

The NIMVY thing seems to have more to do with wind turbines than it has to do with solar panels. What do you pay for hydro in Nova Scotia? I have been told that it would be no more expensive for me to get a natural gas generator and go off the grid altogether. I don't know if that is actually true or not.

Might not be a bad idea, since natural gas is extremely cheap nowadays! (I'm saying this with tongue planted firmly in cheek, by the way )

Maybe we should show a bit of gratitude. A recent NPR story on electric energy distribution in India was sobering. Their grid is so faulty, and so ineptly run, that many companies simply eat the cost of buying large deisel generators to operate their businesses. Outages, including long term ones, are commonplace.

[Steve McMahon]

The NIMVY thing seems to have more to do with wind turbines than it has to do with solar panels. What do you pay for hydro in Nova Scotia? I have been told that it would be no more expensive for me to get a natural gas generator and go off the grid altogether. I don't know if that is actually true or not.

We are at about 11 cents /kWH.
Sadly, natural gas, which we have been brainwashed into thinking is a clean energy source, is in fact one of the most destructive to the health of the planet.
Burning it is pretty clean, but the extraction and transportation process is not. The environmental damage from the mess of holes left after the gas is extracted and the rigs are gone is now just beginning to be considered.

Sad also is the ignorance of the damage that can be done with poor practices in the production of solar panels.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...actory-protest

[LeeG]

You can't defend it from the left, but you will attack the right for the very same thing?

I don't see Obama declaring that the US has a cornucopia of fossil fuels and that what worked in the last century will work in this one. That kind of language does not belong in any kind of planning for the future. Romney has as his head energy advisor an oil man who made his billions extracting tight oil. That game has depletion rates of 35-65%. That kind of "cornucopia" runs out fast.

[Paul Pless]

I don't see Obama declaring that the US has a cornucopia of fossil fuels and that what worked in the last century will work in this one.

His vice president said it, and he didn't repudiate it. Obama's energy policies (in action) are indistinguishable from those of his Republican predecessors.

Here's the sad fact, the president, even if he wanted to, can't change our consumer driven energy policies. That can only be done by Congress, and it can only be done over a long period of time. Not only is our Congress unwilling to engage in long run thinking, they are seemngly incapable of doing so. Its pathetic. We're well and truly ****** on this most important issue.

[Steve McMahon]

His vice president said it, and he didn't repudiate it. Obama's energy policies (in action) are indistinguishable from those of his Republican predecessors.

Here's the sad fact, the president, even if he wanted to, can't change our consumer driven energy policies. That can only be done by Congress, and it can only be done over a long period of time. Not only is our Congress unwilling to engage in long run thinking, they are seemngly incapable of doing so. Its pathetic. We're well and truly ****** on this most important issue.

Hence the world wide issue of having problems that need long time frame solutions being dealt with by politicians that work in short time frame election cycles.
The same challange exists in the financial sector as well as the energy sector.

[wardd]

But what if renewables don't have the profit that resource depletion provides?

carbon energy is cheap to extract and consume and because of this very profitable for the extractors

but the downside is pollution the cost of which is borne by society as a whole and not added to the cost of extraction and processing

i would seem to me renewable though maybe more expensive to produce has few if any of the costs of pollution, so for the country the economics may be viable whereas for a private company not so

[Waddie]

Get real. Global energy needs are expected to double over the next 30 years or so. And energy is a global market. Even if China only grows at 8% it's economy doubles in a few years. We have billions of people on this planet who want the American middle class life style. In short, we will need all of the "alternative" energy we can produce, and we will still be burning all of that awful fossil fuel, even if it is more expensive to extract.

Our global food production has most all arable land already under cultivation and relies almost totally on fossil fuels for the yields it needs. There are no "natural" crops waiting in the wings that can produce those kinds of yields. And we seem to want to burn even our food for fuel.

Are huge cities even sustainable in the future? What is a globally sustainable population? Is the American model of the "consumer" and an economy based on ever increasing growth sustainable?

regards,
Waddie

[Paul Pless]

Get real.

Population growth is ultimately 'self limiting'. . .

[Steve McMahon]

Get real. Global energy needs are expected to double over the next 30 years or so. And energy is a global market. Even if China only grows at 8% it's economy doubles in a few years. We have billions of people on this planet who want the American middle class life style. In short, we will need all of the "alternative" energy we can produce, and we will still be burning all of that awful fossil fuel, even if it is more expensive to extract.

Our global food production has most all arable land already under cultivation and relies almost totally on fossil fuels for the yields it needs. There are no "natural" crops waiting in the wings that can produce those kinds of yields. And we seem to want to burn even our food for fuel.

Are huge cities even sustainable in the future? What is a globally sustainable population? Is the American model of the "consumer" and an economy based on ever increasing growth sustainable?

regards,
Waddie

The (NORTH) American model is a pretty poor one that is definately not sustainable.

[Waddie]

Population growth is ultimately 'self limiting'. . .

But not always in a good way. It can be brutal. And what happens to countries that don't have plenty of young people? Growth, especially population growth, is a hallmark of our economic system.

regards,
Waddie

[Paul Pless]

But not always in a good way. It can be brutal. And what happens to countries that don't have plenty of young people?

Pity China has set themselves up for such a fall. . .

[Orange]

Thought this was a neat article. There was good news about Co2 emissions last week. They are at their lowest levels in 20 years due to the brown industry. The nice part is no global green treaty was necessary to see this happen.

"Free Market Innovation Slashes CO2 Emissions"

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/st...-co2-emissions

snippet from John Stossel's article:

If you worry about global warming, you'll be happy to hear that U.S. CO2 emissions are now at their lowest level in 20 years.
What caused such a massive reduction? Not government, reports AP:
"it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action... the drop-off is due mainly to low-priced natural gas..."
Natural gas now supplies 30% of our electricity - simply because profit-seeking companies saw that developing natural gas reserves was the most feasible alternative to coal.
Government did not see that. Instead, it spent much more subsidizing trendy energy sources like wind and solar: Per unit of energy produced, the federal government spends almost 100 times more subsidizing wind energy than natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration. It spends 1,000 times more per unit of solar energy.
Yet those trendy technologies are so inefficient that they languish. Despite the subsidies. They still account for less than 3% of U.S. electricity.
This is just the latest time that government has wasted money on energy pipe-dreams. In the 1970s, government blew billions on a "Synfuels" corporation. Now it requires people to use ethanol gasoline, which raises the price of gas and starves people in poor countries by driving up the price of food....

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/st...#ixzz24CzjoSCM

[LeeG]

Thought this was a neat article. There was good news about Co2 emissions last week. They are at their lowest levels in 20 years due to the brown industry. The nice part is no global green treaty was necessary to see this happen.

"Free Market Innovation Slashes CO2 Emissions"

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/st...-co2-emissions

snippet from John Stossel's article:



Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/st...#ixzz24CzjoSCM

Institute for Energy Research provided some of the analysis for that article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institu...nergy_Research

The Institute for Energy Research (IER), is a Washington, DC-based non-profit that conducts research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets.
IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most financially inexpensive solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the financial well-being of individuals and society. IER was founded in 1989 from a predecessor organization.[1] The group promotes free-market energy solutions.
IER is a tax-exempt public foundation and is funded entirely by tax deductible contributions from individuals, foundations and corporations. No financial support is sought for or accepted from the government.[1] According to the liberal watchdog group, Media Matters,[2] since 1996, $110,000 of IER's funding has come from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, a trust set up by private energy company Koch Industries. IER also received over $300,000 in funding from ExxonMobil, [3], but Exxon has not given to IER since 2007.[4]
The Institute's CEO, Robert L. Bradley, Jr., was formerly a director of policy analysis at Enron, where he wrote speeches for Kenneth Lay. Bradley has written books indicting Enron's crony capitalism including "Capitalism at Work"[5] and "Edison to Enron."[6]
In December of 2011, IER released the North American Energy Inventory [7], a compilation of total energy in North America. With the North American Energy Inventory, IER showed that the US could be energy independent if the US federal government were to allow for greater domestic energy exploration and production.

[ccmanuals]

I can say that under this administration and this President the Air Force is getting into renewable energy in a big way. Our agency completed the deal to put one of the largest solar farms in the country on Edwards AFB. We are currently working deals at other Air Force Installations across the country. The current administration is not an extension of the oil business like it was under Bush/Cheney.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...o-development/

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...air-force-base

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1324044.html

[Steve McMahon]

I can say that under this administration and this President the Air Force is getting into renewable energy in a big way. Our agency completed the deal to put one of the largest solar farms in the country on Edwards AFB. We are currently working deals at other Air Force Installations across the country. The current administration is not an extension of the oil business like it was under Bush/Cheney.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...o-development/

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...air-force-base

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1324044.html

That is encouraging to hear.
Thanks for the links.

[AnalogKid]

What if government involvement in this came from legislation rather than investment.

I can foresee a point in the not too distant future when some governments ban sales of petroleum products to the general populace because what little is available is required by the military 'to ensure national security'.

Sorting out power at home and personal transport is going to be easy compared to finding an alternative way to keep a jet plane in the air, whether that be an airliner taking you on holiday or a military jet 'holding the peace'. Some form of rationing is likely, and I can see that being a cultural concept that the US will find very difficult.

[JBreeze]

The US Dept of Energy has been spending billions each year....its not like clean energy is being ignored. Here are links about the DOE:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsh...artment_energy

2013 proposed budget - 2+ billion for renewables and efficiency and $5 billion for "science"

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/cf30/budgetmap/budgetmap.html

[LeeG]

DOD use of alternative liquid fuels is no problem if you aren't concerned with cost.

[ccmanuals]

DOD use of alternative liquid fuels is no problem if you aren't concerned with cost.

Please explain.

[LeeG]

Please explain.

IIRC the Air Force has a pilot program for implementing various bio-fuels to blend with JP8. It works, all you need to do is spend more money for it.