From Wired News’s book review, In Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Thomas Friedman Calls for a Green Energy Revolution: “The last big innovation in energy production, [Friedman] observes, was nuclear power half a century ago; since then the field has stagnated. ‘Do you know any industry in this country whose last major breakthrough was in 1955?’ Friedman asks. According to the book, US pet food companies spent more on R&D last year than US utilities did.”
-
The Game Project
You can contribute to the Great Fluid Imagination Video Game Project by:- Finding out what it is
- Helping us hash out the features
- Completing some items on the To Do List
- Seeing the the latest page additions and changes
Categories
Related Posts
- Nearing Mactan
- Green Rambling
- Who Can Speak Out of The Net
- Reflecting on E=MC2
- How Much Does History Weigh?
- Flash-ASP.Net book that I Tech Reviewed is published!
- Things I Learned During the Week of June 3 - June 9
- Recycling Rant, (or) Why Recycling Sucks
- Somebody Get Me A Sustainability Coordinator!
- A man cannot be contained
Recently Written
- Half the Battle: Part V (of 8)
written by Kyle - Half the Battle: Part IV (of 8)
written by Kyle - Half the Battle: Part III (of 8)
written by Kyle - Half the Battle: Part II (of 8)
written by Kyle - Half the Battle: Part I (of 8)
written by Kyle - Today’s Entry in My Writer’s Journal
written by Kyle - How The Deal Went Down
written by Kyle - It Begins
written by Kyle - Friday’s Challenge: Say something nice about “the other guy.”
written by Kyle - History Repeats Itself for Catholics
written by Val Dumais
- Half the Battle: Part V (of 8)
Recent Comments
- david commented on One Reason Detroit Should Be Allowed To Fail: the twenty five billion dollars was...
- justin commented on One Reason Detroit Should Be Allowed To Fail: Just wanted to say that the took ho...
- Alex commented on The First Inkling of a Legacy: Baller....
- david commented on Today’s Entry in My Writer’s Journal: and one......
- Steven Earl Salmony commented on Even with a socialist senator, we got the best banking: The greedy people in dark, pin stri...
Top Commenters
Tag Cloud
2008-election america annotation Apple art blogs Books bush clinton congress cooking creative-writing culture democrats economy education environmentalism fiction food global-warming goddard green-mountain-college impeachment internet iraq liberalism life Macintosh marijuana mccain media Movies Music obama Politics Religion republicans Science Stumpy vermont war Web web2.0 wordpress writing-
Recently Read
Now Hearing- Lauryn Hill – Intro
- Lauryn Hill – The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill
- Lauryn Hill – Everything Is Everything
- Lauryn Hill – Nothing Even Matters
- Lauryn Hill – Every Ghetto, Every City
- Lauryn Hill – Forgive Them Father
- Lauryn Hill – I Used to Love Him
- Lauryn Hill – When It Hurts So Bad
- Lauryn Hill – Final Hour
- Lauryn Hill – Superstar
-
Meta
11 Comments
Really interesting point about R&D spending by the U.S. government. Additionally, United States R&D spending on energy has dropped 40% (in adjusted dollars) since 1980 (which is about the time the idea of ‘peak oil’ really started gaining traction among policymakers).
Given what we talked about concerning U.S. oil subsidies, this is ridiculous!
My question would be that oil companies have been more and more proficient at finding new oil and natural gas, drilling in deeper waters more efficiently, transporting and storing the oil in cheaper and processing oil out of places that 20 years ago would not have been possible; am I to believe that all this technology was around in 1955?
Again why ask an oil company to finance the downfall of their business? This should be an all new venture with new people at the helm.
Also I would consider in the 80’s when they figured out how to transport natural gas in liquid form a pretty significant breakthrough.
Your point about oil companies not spending on R&D to “finance the downfall of their business” is a decent one, but at the same time, you’d think that any company based on depleting the earth of its own product would think about what to do once the…sorry…well runs dry.
Well then they die, which is fine with me. Until I see numbers on that pet food claim I call bull shit.
I’m still looking for the numbers on this (Friedman’s book doesn’t come out until Sept. 8, so I can’t check his endnotes until at least then), but I did find this summary of a keynote speech from the chief executive of the Tennessee Valley Authority:
“Instead of a stepped-up commitment to electricity R&D for the 21st century, budgets are down. [The executive] observed that in the United States, pet food manufacturers spend a greater percentage of their revenue on R&D than do electric utilities. Particularly low is long-term funding — patient money — for the fundamental R&D needed to pursue potential scientific breakthroughs.”
I also found a refutation letter on the Economist.com. It’s refuting a statement made in an article locked behind the wall of the Economist’s premium service. Anyway, here’s the letter:
“SIR —
“Your statement that U.S. electric utility R&D expenditures in 2003 were less than those of the pet-food industry is a particularly misleading comparison. Every utility company executive I have ever met knows quite well that regulatory changes for CO2 and other emissions (eg, mercury) are coming and will require research in order to comply economically. At the same time, these executives also know the history of federal expenditures for energy research and the history of specific regulatory impositions.
“Therefore, there can be no incentive to be a “first mover” in R&D or emissions reduction and every incentive to delay. Why spend for research when it is likely that the government will do so for you? Why invest in expensive technology that might be rendered obsolete by future regulatory action? These considerations would have been especially important in 2003, since the first large-scale energy legislation of the century was not passed until 2005 and because utility managements have fiduciary obligations not to waste shareholder funds.
“Finally, let’s remember what followed the pet food industry’s 2003 R&D expenditures: poisonous melamine made its way into a wide variety of pet foods earlier this year.
“R. L. Promboin
“Vienna, Virginia”
And lastly, just as a fun fact, on a search for “pet food US utilities R&D,” this post comes up second on Google. Don’t let anyone tell you that Fluid Imagination doesn’t have decent Google juice.
I found one from Obama but that is for the US government spending on new technology vs pet food research and development, and even that was wrong.
The chief executive of the Tennessee Valley Authority is talking about electricity so I am not sure if we are talking just oil or inculding everything. If everything is incuded then I call serious bullshit.
Maybe if Gore shut some of lights off they would not need to worry about electricity down in Tennessee. Did you know that when he buys carbon credits he gives money to the company he owns? And I bet, although I have no proof of this yet, he profits with this company.
From Slate.com’s book review:
“Friedman embraces worst-case scenarios for climate change, warning not just of global warming but “global weirding.” Yet his factual assertions are impossible to weigh, since Hot, Flat, and Crowded contains no footnotes or source notes. Friedman asserts, for instance: “In fact, the American pet food industry spends more each year on R&D than the American utilities industry does.” Good luck figuring out the “in fact” part. Supposing this Paul Harvey-like line is true, it is also silly, because utilities do not build power-plant systems—vendors such as General Electric and Combustion Engineering perform the technical R&D.”
Good find.
What part the no footnotes and murky facts or that the R&D is done not by the oil companies but by the vendors?
The both.