Eco-friendly wind turbines line a country road against a moody sky backdrop
In an earlier essay (Real Impact of Energy Transition), I wrote that the only certainties of rapid energy transition (RET) are that trillions of dollars will be invested in R&D and will eventually lead to important discoveries that significantly impact the U.S. economy. We don’t know what these discoveries will look like, and their impact is unknown to us today. Over time, however, these impacts will become apparent much like R&D expenditures on the Mercury/Apollo programs drove technological progress for decades after the Apollo 11 moon landing.
Many believe that society faces a near-term existential threat due to global warming, which requires RET in response. This group thinks time is of the essence and society must immediately make huge investments in RET to dampen the environmental threat. Capital waste is of secondary importance to a full, unrelenting commitment to save humanity.
However, RET is challenged by practicalities of technological development and adoption. In truth, integrating new major technologies in our energy infrastructure takes years. Hopeful observers point to the acceleration of technological advancement reflected in the following graph:
This accelerating growth in technology is supported by dramatic increases in R&D investment since WWII indicated below:
There is also evidence that adoption of new technologies has accelerated:
Development and adoption of technologies have rapidly accelerated over time, which supports the thesis that trillions of dollars of RET spending should eliminate the existential threat to mankind in short order. This is possible if society aggressively funds and promotes RET with appropriate fervor. I challenge this proposition.
As Arthur James Balfour said in 1892, “There are three kinds of falsehoods – lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The graphs, while reflecting numerical truth, offer a conclusion that doesn’t apply to RET. Balfour would call them “statistics.”
Increased R&D has indeed led to faster development and adoption of many new consumer products. However, these newest technologies generally represent new commercial applications of older technologies. These technologies rely on existing communications and power infrastructure that took many decades to develop.
Other factors, such as an increasing population and GDP, national government policy on trade and interstate commerce, modern transportation and information systems, and a highly connected society have enhanced the increased adoption rate.
A closer look at the “statistics” reveals that the development and deployment of major new energy technologies will, like other foundational technologies of modern society, take many years to be integrated into existing infrastructure – after the R&D has led to necessary discoveries. Deployment will take time due to economic factors, capital availability, permitting, supply chain, and myriad factors that drive project development, integration, and construction of energy or communications infrastructure.
The point is that RET will take trillions of dollars in investment and decades of effort. Even if we move fast, changing how we make and use energy is a multi-generational effort. Wishes, good intentions, and the heavy hand of government regulation can’t make it go faster, despite the hopes of many. That’s sad news for some. The bright side is that history shows R&D investments pay off in the long run, even if not in precisely the ways initial investors imagined.
Pumping money into RET technologies may not get us to Net Zero by 2050, or even by 2100. But the technologies developed because of the money we pump into RET technology R&D will likely enrich and improve the lives of billions of people over the next century.
This essay is the fourth of a planned series from Thomas Kalb, energy expert and former Director of the Center for Midstream Management & Science at Lamar University examining issues, policies, and considerations impacting how we produce and use energy.
Let’s Clear the Air has received permission to publish this article on behalf of Thomas J. Kalb.
Share This
