Clean renewable technologies, and especially renewable energy sources, are a popular topic these days. The promises of “ecological sustainability” flow out of the mouths of the well-meaning (but often misinformed) like a liberal mantra with growing persistency. It’s a comforting idea to be able to live however we want to, and to not have to face any ecological consequences for it, but it remains to be seen whether or not the necessary innovations will find us in time. Meanwhile, subsidizing American ethanol to assuage our guilt at the price of unnafordable corn in Mexico, is in my view, no solution at all.
The industrial revolution enabled us to create great effeciencies in our uses of energy to power our transportation, manufacturing, construction, and electricity needs. Now we realize that burning deisel, coal, and gasoline all have some very serious negative side effects which we all know about - like the possibility of lounging poolside after a game of golf in the middle of January in Moscow in 100 years. (An embellishment but you get the picture).
So now we have lots of ideas about how to wean ourselves off of this resource. Leaving behind a way of life which has made our lives oh so much easier than they were a short 200 years ago. A time when your primary energy source for transporting things usually consisted of an ox or a slave. Some of these ideas include ‘bio-fuels’ like corn and switchgrasses. Great idea, but now the price of corn – a staple food in many developing countries – is increasing for those who need it the most. (But that of course is a small price to pay for easing the guilt pangs of the liberal conscience in the developed world). But wait you say, we can use water, and wind, and solar power. We’ve been trying that for some time now also. California has led the nation in the use of all of these clean alternatives but has failed to gain even 10% of its total energy portfolio from renewables. Wind and solar have a lot of potential in the future, if they come to be used in mass on commercial and residentail structures. However, with water you run into the problem of constructing dams and destroying habitat for birds, fish, insects, etc.. But wait there’s nuclear power… the dangers of nuclear power are well known (Chernobyl?). The list goes on to include fuel cells and other assorted wonder gadgets that are, of yet, no more than a gleam in the scientist’s eye. Sure, someday cold-fusion may be discovered, and/or oil may climb to $300/barrel, but until then we are going to have more of the same, because it’s just so freaking cheap to ship me my shiny new Chinese sneakers on that short cruise - sweatshop to shelf - Shanghai to Oakland.
Meanwhile, a lot of people believe that there is some serious money to be made from all of this. Maybe so, maybe not. The wonder of our system is that financial risk does operate in fairly close relationship with level of financial reward. So when you hear that a venture capitalist just put $50 million into a ‘clean-tech’ venture it should be celebrated. If some sort of solution is discovered, that will enable us to continue our high-energy consuming lifestyles, they might very well make out. However, for now it’s all a big gamble.
From an economic development standpoint its quite wise to invest in these ventures -no matter how risky they might be. Funding for research enables innovations that we might never have enjoyed had the money not been set aside (velcro!)
San Francisco, like Boston, and New York, and Seattle, and Austin…blah, blah, blah (everyone wants to be an inovator) has taken a proactive stance to attract this sort of business. It may or may not pay off, but it enables the possibility of maybe, just maybe, forgoing a January summer day in the Moscow of 2100.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/moed/news/SFCleanTech2005.pdf
