Some people say ethanol is the answer. Others say solar. Still others say wind, while yet others say that more sophisticated technology in the car itself and big light-emitting-diodes in the home can reduce oil consumption to the point that it doesn't matter.
Will any one of them revolutionize the world in ten years? Probably not.
The point is, there is not just one thing being worked on to kill the monster of US oil dependency, but many. The monster will be killed by a thousand cuts.
An article on Winds of Change about the 8 possible alternative energy technologies.
An article in Fortune about ethanol.
Many people are pessimistic, after the lack of progress over the last 30+ years. However, the amount of energy-related murmurs in the blogosphere is trending higher, and the number of public and private energy initiatives, including venture capital going to energy, is much higher than even a couple of years ago.
There is a more than fair chance that the cocktail of accelerating, exponential innovation, market forces, and renewed political interest in energy innovation is building a head of steam. I have commented recently on why $70 oil is good for America.
I'm convinced that the world of 2015 will have had substantial jumps in energy technology from where we are today, not the least of which will be the typical 2015-model middle-class family sedan offering 60 mpg despite having a 240 hp engine.
It is always darkest before the dawn..
I disagree. I'm convinced that the world of 2015 will have had substantial BABY STEPS in energy technology from where we are today.
Research projects are fun, demonstration projects are heavily subsidized by government, and new alternatives are tax write off or tax credits.
Water projects can not get past the ecofanatics. When was the last time a major dam was built in the US?
What solar products are commercially competitive without government - none.
Wind power is so tied up in politics that Senator Ted Kennedy will NOT allow it offshore in Massachusetts.
Expodential innovation is a pie in the sky, pipe dream made by a 'leap of faith' in science.
The economic infrastructure to support advances in general will probably be disrupted by a recession or depression from the collapse of the housing bubble or collapse of the dollar.
The existing oil industry and producers will not sit back and watch their fat wallets disappear without a fight.
Money, power, politics and plain old inertia are powerful adversaries to significant change in a mere 10 years.
Posted by: jeffolie | February 02, 2006 at 07:35 PM
Let's see what happens. Read both of those articles, and consider that while no one thing will overcome this mountain, many small things will combine to scale it..
Posted by: GK | February 02, 2006 at 09:15 PM
The hilarity of seeing a blog titled "The Fututists" by a conservative is more than I can take. The owner of this blog should open a dictonary someday and look up the meaning of the words 'conservative' and 'liberal'. If you look up the definitions of these words you will see that liberals focus on the future and conservatives focus on the past.
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 08:42 AM
Brian,
I disagree. Left-wing hatemongers hide behind the dictionary definition of the world 'liberal' by exhibiting behavior that is exactly the opposite of liberal. They are very illiberal.
The left is much more racist, regressive, and uneducated than the right, in America today. This is demonstrated by how badly the leftist losers are getting their clock cleaned on all fronts, from elections to judges.
Posted by: Tester | February 03, 2006 at 09:40 AM
Brian,
I guess that would make the author of this blog a liberal, and you nothing more than a jealous socialist faggot.
Makes sense.
Posted by: Liberal Smasher | February 03, 2006 at 09:58 AM
gk
I read the articles before I made my comment.
I know what I am writing about because I spent 25 years at an electric utility in an administrative position. One way or another I have been involve in researching every alternative to make electric power plants and transmission lines for the City of Los Angeles.
No one knows WHEN critical mass will be reached to make it come together and have "many small things will combine to scale it..".
Again economics, money, power, politics and plain old inertia are powerful adversaries to significant change in a mere 10 years.
Posted by: jeffolie | February 03, 2006 at 10:04 AM
Liberal Smarsher
Brian
Political bashing and name calling is a lot of fun and done right can be raised to an art.
The DARK SIDE at the center of my being laughs with joy.
Posted by: jeffolie | February 03, 2006 at 10:08 AM
jeffolie,
You might be right. Time will tell. I do think the climate is more favorable for improvements than it has been in a long time.
Good inputs, on your part.
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 10:21 AM
GK
Are you familiar with "peak oil"? It is a futurist theme of wacko gold bugs. If it is true, then economics will dictate an significant change in the long term.
Posted by: jeffolie | February 03, 2006 at 10:43 AM
GK
Randy H is really very knowlegeable in economics and finance. I greatly admire his opinions and we sometimes agree or agree to disagree. Sometimes I even understand what he writes.
Posted by: jeffolie | February 03, 2006 at 11:28 AM
Who is Randy H? I don't see comments from anyone by that name.....
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 11:34 AM
Your site has been the subject of discussion on patrick.net
Posted by: jeffolie | February 03, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Tester,
Your comment didn't seem to contain any logic.
Liberal Smasher,
Your comment amounted to nothing more than name calling.
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 01:03 PM
Brian,
It is pretty obvious that you don't even know what a 'conservative' is.
You probably think of some Bible-reading southerner. What about a corporate executive in who votes for the GOP. What about Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics who vote for the GOP, due to too much left-wing racism of 'not conforming' to the leftist plantation?
Anyway, the higher a person's income, the more likely they vote for the GOP. Smart people vote for the GOP, dumb people vote for Dumbocrats.
Posted by: Tester | February 03, 2006 at 01:25 PM
Anyway, the higher a person's income, the more likely they vote for the GOP. Smart people vote for the GOP, dumb people vote for Dumbocrats.
I am a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, if 'Smart people' vote for the GOP and dumb people vote for 'Dumbocrats', then why does over 75% of MIT vote for the Democrats?
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 01:30 PM
Well, they're not that smart in the real world :)
Why did 63% of people who make over $200,000 a year vote for Bush in 2004?
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/voting_patterns_in_the_2004_elec.htm
In fact, Kerry only had a majority among those who make LESS than $50,000 a year.
The more a person knows how to make money (i.e. smart in the real world), the more they vote for the GOP..
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 01:35 PM
Well, they're not that smart in the real world :)
Why did 63% of people who make over $200,000 a year vote for Bush in 2004?
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/voting_patterns_in_the_2004_elec.htm
In fact, Kerry only had a majority among those who make LESS than $50,000 a year.
The more a person knows how to make money (i.e. smart in the real world), the more they vote for the GOP..
Well that is a pursuavive argument, I think Republicans should repeat those statistics over and over again so everybody can hear them.
In case your interested in an alternative explanation for why rich people vote for Republicans, you might consider the explanation that the Republicans lower taxes on the rich. If you really really interested in these statistics you should look at how people who have over 500 million dollars vote, you will be surprised at what you see.
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 01:46 PM
Why take a small sample size of the super-rich?
Instead, note that even the people making between $50K and $100K, the middle class, voted solidly for Bush.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/voting_patterns_in_the_2004_elec.htm
This is hard data, much better than a claim that supergeeks, with no social skills, vote for Democrats when they are just 22.
The better a person is at making money (i.e. smart in the real world), the more likely he will be smart enough to not be duped by left-wing lies, and vote for the GOP.
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 01:54 PM
Why take a small sample size of the super-rich?
It maybe small, but it is big enough to be statistically significant. And if you truly believe (money = brains, which by the way is just absurd), but if you truly believe that, than clearly the people with the most money have the most brains, so how do you explain that the people with the most brains vote about 10% more Democratic than Republican?
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 02:03 PM
Income = Brains.
Fancy degrees can equal brains, but often does not.
The root of the issue is, many leftists think they are brilliant, but actually aren't, and demonstrate that quite often.
People making over $50,000 a year vote for the GOP. The GOP has won the middle class AND the high achievers at the top.
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 02:21 PM
The GOP has won the middle class AND the high achievers at the top.
You claim the "GOP has won the high achievers at the top", which means you are just flatly ignoring the statistics which show the richest Americans ($10 million and up) favored Kerry 60% to Bush with 40%.
If your are going to just ignore the statistics, than I think its fair to question if you have Brains. Whether you have Brains or not does not matter to me, but the one thing that is clear is your argument is contradicted by the vary statistics your are trying to use to prove it.
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 02:30 PM
GK,
Why am I even tryin to engage you in an intelligent discussion? It's clear all your interested in is attack style politics, which is demonstrated by the fact that when I point out information which you find uncomfortable you resort to name calling people who goto MIT as 'supergeeks'. Since your not interested in a real discussion, consider this discussion over.
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 02:44 PM
Brian,
You are totally wrong. he Forbes 400 Richest people support Bush over Kerry by a margin of 72% over 28%.
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1011/068a.html?rl04
Indisputable proof.
Your claim about the rich supporting Kerry is wholly Bogus, and you have no reputable source to back that up.
You lost the debate, just like you lost the 2004 election, in a comprehensive manner.
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 02:48 PM
Brian,
Stop being a whining hypocrite (I know, it is part of your nature as a girlie-man).
You call conservatives 'backward', which is not the case if how you have been beaten in this debate is any clue.
Yet, you deny that MIT students are largely geeks.
Plus, you post bogus claims that collapse when presented with official data from reputed sources.
And the mystery about why the left never wins deepens.....
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 02:50 PM
Well, Brian, how do you explain away proof from Forbes that even the Forbes 400 Richest voted 72% for Bush?
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1011/068a.html?rl04
I'm getting Nov. 2004 Deja Vu from this debate... :) :)
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 02:58 PM
GK,
You are wrong I most certianly do have a source. And the Forbes 400 is not a thorough sample, it is picked by the editor of forbes. Check out my source.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108136/
But in the end, this line of discussion is really just a result of the fact that you engage in attack politics, instead of answering the simple question of why the most educated people in America favor Democrats.
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 02:58 PM
But the smartest and most productive overwhelmingly favor the GOP.
I don't consider some liberal arts professor to be that smart, just because they have a PhD.
I think a corp. executive with just a Bachelor's or Masters is overall smarter, as his real-world intelligence has brought him mroe success than some low-end lib. arts professor.
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 03:01 PM
GK,
I never claimed that conservatives were backwards, I just suggest that you look up the meaning of the word 'conservative', which by the way means to want to stay the same, or put another way to like the 'status quo'.
GK calling me a whining hypocrite is once again just a shamefull attempt for you to avoid the simple question I posed at the begginning.
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 03:02 PM
GK,
liberal arts professor I don't know if you meant to intentionally select out 'liberal arts' professor's, but if you did I would remind you MIT has very very few liberal arts professors and mainly has Scientists and Engineers.
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 03:06 PM
Brian,
What question did you post?
We have already verified that more income corelates to GOP voting.
The only dispute is whether more income corelates to who is smarter and who isn't.
I think it does, as the ability to thrive in the real world is all that matters.
Professors may have PhDs, but probably no other skills to hack it in the real world, which is why they hide in academia and become bitter leftists.
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 03:07 PM
GK,
We have already verified that more income corelates to GOP voting.
Not according to the article I cited.
Professors may have PhDs, but probably no other skills to hack it in the real world, which is why they hide in academia and become bitter leftists.
That maybe your opinion, but it sounds more to me like you are bitter about not hacking it in academia (Maybe I am wrong about that). But in the end your argument against PhD's comes down to name calling and assertions with little factual basis.
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 03:13 PM
Brian,
Forbes is a far more credible source than "slate" is. You have to find a credible mainstream business or politics magazine before you can say Forbes is wrong.
Plus, if people making $50K to $100K support Bush, people making $100K to $200K support Bush, and people making above $200K support Bush, AND 72% of the Forbes 400 support Bush, there is little chance that a bubble of people at $10 million support Kerry.
Simple stats. Then again, if leftists understood numbers, they would not be leftists.
Posted by: GK | February 03, 2006 at 04:39 PM
GK,
Simple stats. Then again, if leftists understood numbers, they would not be leftists.
First off Daniel Gross is the most intelligent Finance write I have ever read. Second off Claiming Forbes is more crediable than slate is nothing more than you saying "I am right you wrong", it's not an actual argument. In truth you have no way of comparing the 2 studies since neither article goes into enough details about their methods. But from what I know of both studies it is a safe to say neither is scientific. It is well known the Forbes 400 isn't scientific. Attempting to imply that I don't understand numbers is idiotic, I can be pretty sure I would kick you a** on any math test. Here is a simple question for you, if your such a stats hot-shot, explain the Central Limit Theorem to me?
Posted by: Brian | February 03, 2006 at 06:36 PM
Brian,
Why would anyone care to know about the Central Limit Theorem? By using that as a benchmark of success, you demonstrate that you have spent your life in classrooms that are 95% male.
No normal, heterosexual guy would ever want to live your life. Eewwww....
Posted by: Tester | February 03, 2006 at 08:39 PM
Brian,
I remember that vaguely from my high-school days, but certainly not as well as you do (and I am glad for that).
You have demonstrated that you have no idea what leads to success in the real world. These useless theorems are important in only a tiny number of professions. You think that knowing about that puts you at the pinnacle of intellect. Then, you are surprised that people who don't know about these things make a lot more money, and attract better women, than you do. You vast intellect can't figure out why.
Things like social skills, personal grooming, etc. matter a lot more in the real world, but these are things you have never mastered.
That is why you are baffled as to why the more money a person makes (i.e. smart in the real world), the more they vote for the GOP.
Posted by: GK | February 06, 2006 at 07:00 PM
GK,
The best argument you can come up with is a personal attack against my social life, which is just hilarious seeing you know absolutely nothing about my social life. In a word your just a name caller. Btw, the central limit theorem is not an obscure piece of knowledge, it is the basis for all statistics.
Posted by: Brian | February 07, 2006 at 01:52 PM
Brian,
Who cares? It is also the basis of demonstrating that you have lived your life in classrooms that are 95% male.
No normal, heterosexual man would ever want to live your life, where you have to hide behind some useless academic crap to excuse your failure in social skills.
Posted by: Tester | February 07, 2006 at 02:00 PM
Tester,
Sounds like you are expressing bitterness at not being able to seduce hot women.
Posted by: Brian | February 08, 2006 at 09:00 AM
You're the one who spent you whole life surrounded by nerdy men who think some lame theorem is important in life.
No straight man would make that choice. That tells us what you really are. Eeewwwww.....
Posted by: Tester | February 08, 2006 at 09:16 AM
Tester,
Good one!
Brian,
I have proven many times over than people with the skills and brains to succeed in the world tend to vote for the GOP. The most you can do is point to some piece of knowledge which is useless for 99% of the jobs that exist in this economy, is some desperate attempt to gasp for validation.
You have lost this debate in humiliating manner, and now resort to projection as a weak self-defense mechanism.
By now, you should be used to receiving stunning defeats at the hands of Republicans. Nothing new here.
Three more years of Bush....how will you cope?
Posted by: GK | February 08, 2006 at 09:23 AM
GK,
I have proven many times over than people with the skills and brains to succeed in the world tend to vote for the GOP.
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word proven.
All you have done is demonstrated yourself to be a moron.
As far as I am concerned this discussion is over, feel free to leave more comments, but I will not be visiting this blog again to read you comments.
Posted by: Brian | February 08, 2006 at 03:18 PM
Brian said :
'As far as I am concerned this discussion is over'
At least we agree on something. You have lost, and it is over.
Sort of how you lost so badly in Nov. 2004, eh?
Your namecalling displays your weakness and intellectual paucity. You can't dispute the data I present, and merely confirm the FACT that smarter people voted for Bush. The higher the income, the more the tendency to vote for Bush.
If you represent the best that the left has got, I will rest easy knowing that the GOP will win for most of the next 50 years...
Posted by: GK | February 08, 2006 at 03:25 PM
Brian,
What exactly is the point you've been trying to make? That Democrats are more "futuristic" than Republicans?
If you believe that Dems are more smart, forward thinking, and "futuristic" than Republicans, then by all means please give us a few examples. However, thus far all you have done is show how agitated and upset you can get when someone points out inconvenient problems and flaws in your arguments.
Please explain what your point is and back it up with examples. Without examples or data, you must admit it's hard for anyone observing this discussion to see you as anything other than what GK and Tester have called you.
Thanks.
ATS
Posted by: ATS | February 08, 2006 at 05:56 PM
Wow. Brian sure did run away after receiving a humiliating defeat in an ONLINE debate. Imagine how badly he often loses in person.
The crushing defeat for the Democrats in 2004 is consistent with Brian's failure here.
tee hee....
Posted by: GK | February 10, 2006 at 03:33 PM
To clear up two misconceptions in the above posts: College kids tend to vote Democratic b/c they’re kids, and they are in college. Schools are dominated by liberals b/c all schools are gov’t institutions, even private schools receive more than 50% of their funding from the gov’t. Since liberals support big gov’t, gov’t workers like professors are more likely to be liberal. So young kids tend to vote democratic not b/c they’re smart, but because they lack real world knowledge and experience and are surrounded by liberal college professors who want to maintain the status quo.
Posted by: usnjay | March 03, 2006 at 08:24 AM
o Second, there is a correlation b/w wealth and voting trends, with wealthier people more likely to vote Republican. People working to create wealth vote Republican b/c their policies tend to encourage the creation of wealth and socialist ones tend to destroy it (by redistributing the necessary capital). However, there is an interesting flip of this trend with the very wealthy. This is due to the fact they are not concerned with creating wealth. They either inherited it or they already have more wealth than can be ‘destroyed’ by Democrats in their lifetime, so don’t care if liberals’ regressive tax policies hurt the economy. They are more concerned with image and social standing, again a liberal strength. This is why the richest senators are almost always Democrats and the mega-rich, such as Bill Gates’ father, George Soros, tend to support liberal causes.
Posted by: usnjay | March 03, 2006 at 08:28 AM
It's like you're on a miisson to save me time and money!
Posted by: Jodie | August 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM