A Service of Energy CentralEnergyBlogs.com Logo

The fact was buried in a David Brooks column in the NY Times this week. I bumped into Brooks at a social event in Washington a few weeks ago - how often do I get to say that - not often - and he impressed me as a nice chap with lots to say.

Anyway, he wrote that the American Power Act - you know - the one that will put a price on carbon - is needed for a big but hidden reason. The act- championed by Kerry, Lieberman and Graham - has been fouled by the Gulf oil disaster, since one leg of its stool is to allow offshore oil drilling.

At any rate, what was the little under-appreciated gem in the legislation? While technology companies spend 5 to 15 percent of revenues on R&D, energy companies spend only ONE-QUARTER OF 1 PERCENT,

Clearly, there is a disconnect at energy companies. Technology companies get the fact that their short and long-term future requires innovation. Energy companies  - particularly the regulated ones guaranteed a profit - short-circuit that thought process. They are content to let others innovate and be late adopters of technologies others own.

On top of that, the federal governments believes it is more important - ten times more important - to deal with our health rather than how we power our lives, Brooks reported. Uncle Sam spends $30 billion on health research but only $3 billion on clean energy research. Surely more parity is called for.

Some experts say energy research should be at $25 billion a year - and we are getting one of those experts lined up to explain why in a future issue of EnergyBiz.

But let's know that putting a price on carbon will create a deep pool of funds, and a good chunk of it will go to energy research. Such research would help free us from the shackles of fossil fuels responsible for the Gulf disaster. But the disaster itself is now muddying the waters for the carbon cap legislation.

Until we can get past it all, energy companies will eat their seed corn - maximizing revenues as they should - but seeing no need to plant the seeds for their very own - and our very own - energy futures.

890 Views Comments 1 Comments Comments Add Comment Author BioAuthor Bio
ReportReport This Post as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo As the leading academic energy economist in the world, I would like to say that more money is probably needed for health/medical research, and the amount given to energy research is quite sufficient. The bottom line for energy is somewhat more nuclear, and a lot of renewables and alternatives. Choosing the renewables and alternatives is something that the government and energy department can do. In fact there should be plenty of people around who can perform that chore, assuming that haven't been corrupted by 'this-or-that'. To tell the truth, I could easily do it if I were interested, which I'm not, but there are probably a dozen 'contributors' to EnergyPulse who, in a take-no-prisoners kind of conference/meeting/brain-storming session should be able to come up with the right answer in a couple of weeks. ITS NO BIG DEAL!
# Posted By Ferdinand E. Banks | 5/11/10 8:31 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
 
Toolbox

Blog Editor
Search
Calendar
Recent CommentsRecent Comments
RSS
Energy Central
Power Network


Sponsored Content

Copyright © 1996-2012 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Central ® is a registered trademark of CyberTech, Incorporated.
CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central.
2821 S. Parker Rd. Ste 1105 Aurora, CO 80014
Contact: Phone - 303-782-5510 Fax - 303-782-5331 or service@energycentral.com.