"Five billion years from now the sun will run out of Hydrogen gas" according to The Future of Energy. While worrying about the fate of the Sun is a waste of energy, for as far back as I can remember people have been worrying about the supply of oil. Having been born after the oil crisis in the late 70's, I have not experienced a world in which there wasn't widespread concern about our energy future. While the government spends billions of dollars on "energy alternatives", I would like to focus on what I believe will be the true solution to our energy woes: people out to make a buck.
I have more faith in entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to solve the energy crisis than I do in government subsidies. Government funded solutions like Ethanol are a failure and a waste of money. The reason they exist is more to do with politics and special interest lobbying than it is with finding realistic solutions for the end consumer.
In the field of power plants Ocean Power Technologies. The company, which netted over $90 Million in its IPO last year, develops buoys that use the mechanical energy of ocean waves to produce electricity. The company expects to be able to compete with traditional power plants within 10 years.
In automotive technology, I recently heard about Zero Pollution Motors, and their new "Air Car". Set for production by 2010, the Air Car's motor was designed by Guy Negre, who used to design engines for Formula 1 cars. Currently, the company claims that the fuel efficiency is about 105 Miles per gallon with an 8 gallon tank. Instead of using the gasoline to power the car, it is used to power a compressor that refills the air tanks when going at speeds above 35mph. For more in cars you can check out the X-prize competition, which is offering $10 Million prize for a car competition for real-cars (not concept cars) that offer more than 100mpg.
While this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of profitable solutions to our energy problems, it shows some of the ingenuity and creativity of the market. These and probably thousands of other companies are concerned not only with saving the environment, but also with making a profit. While I can't predict which, if any, of the new technologies will end up displacing the current standards, I can pretty much guarantee that the innovation that leads to it will come from the private sector, not the public one.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
And think of all the lightweight materials that have been developed for military applications that are now being used.
Sometimes seemingly "non-practical" events have the most practical applications. I look at the new push for safety in NASCAR and other racing organizations and when these materials trickle into consumer cars it will benefit many people.
As far as credit, I think the private sector gets most of the credit because it develops the end products. While the government research operates in the dark laying the foundation. The concept and foundation of the internet was developed largely from military or research concerns and look what we have now.
"As far as credit, I think the private sector gets most of the credit because it develops the end products. "
I knew when I posted this that I would face this argument. Yes, its true that the government develops all sorts of things in public research, things that might not have been developed otherwise. But it's the step from Government Innovation to practical application that comes from the private sector.
We owe lots of things to government research, but the difference is in the results. The foundation for the internet was laid by DARPA, but it was the commercial applications that brought it to the world.
The difference between government and private innovation, and why I think private innovation will be the one that leads to widespread change, is that private innovation has a much greater incentive to succeed. Government tends to give us solutions that either don't work or we don't want and then force it down our throats either through laws, like the ethanol content of Gasoline, or through subsidies like in the case of windmills. They don't have to produce a superior product, they can just legislate it's success.
The solution to our "oil dependency" and "energy crisis" in terms of automobiles has existed for 100 years. The Ford Model T was designed to run on 100% ethanol, with Henry Ford calling it "the fuel of the future". Yet because of Oil Company lobby, the safety of such a car was brought into question, and the 100% ethanol motor was made illegal in the US. Ford was able to adapt, because he wanted to sell cars.
When the sun fails, the government will try to force us to live without it, but an entrepreneur will sell us a better one.
It is both, there is a symbiotic relationship. One would not be as good without the other. Sometime the private sector does do some of the 'research for research-sake'. But then it is usually in the form of a non-profit that is funded by companies looking for that research or by rights to discoveries. The Rand Corp and the work they were doing in the 50s and 60s is a great example. Sometimes they are given a specific problem to solve, but they were great thinkers in the golden era of engineering.
The diesel engine was designed to be run on veg oil until there was this cheap heavy oil waste product from the production of gasoline that ran a little better and was a lot cheaper. Sometimes it just happens too.
Post a Comment