One of the great problems faced by thoughtful articles like this one from Matt Ridley, is that is fits into a familiar pattern of responding to symptoms rather than causes.

It does challenge some of our thinking about sources of energy but it does so mainly from a position of responding to a wide range of often negative perceptions or predispositions.

Those perceptions have been presented for public consumption with a wide variety of spin that supports one or more motives or interests. IMHO we as a species need to look more to the total picture of all energy options and the causes of the perceptions about various energy options. I say this because we always seem to rule “in” or “out” our options based upon perceptions.

From a marketing, engineering and economic position, the potential technological solutions and mixes would not be valid until and unless their “do-ability” was confirmed.

What we have currently is a debate, based upon perception, that certain technologies are in or out before this process is even started. The effect has been to choke off options based upon ideology, vested interests and flawed economics and not because of pure technological validity.

We humans are heavy users, even abusers of energy and its potential environmental sustainability. We are also creative, innovative and tactile as we have shown throughout our brief existence.

We have past energy sources, current energy sources and potential future energy sources. We must look also to transitional energy sources because we do not yet have confirmed “do-able” future energy sources, only options based upon what we have now.

Every technology we have ever experienced has changed, developed or matured. The same applies to energy technology.

It seems impossible to deny that the origins of the lap top computer and also every piece of computer based technology we now use has its origins in the 1950’s English Electric LEO. A valve based computer that would have filled the Sydney Opera House. So why is it acceptable to view any energy source as a single point in its “product maturity” timeline?

TBC

Cont’d

Would we have said to the Wright Brothers, get lost mate, the Kitty Hawk could be developed as a weapon or flown into the Twin Towers in NY?

Of course not, because we could never have imagined the coincidence of technologies behind the Twin Towers and Jet Liners as future concepts.

Yet we still persist with “objections” to a wide range of technological options without understanding their “maturity” potential.

Why cannot we accept that it is utterly farcical to accept the assertions of vested commercial interests that promote “their” technological winner? Or that politics promotes a tokenistic renewables policy that can only be viable through public funding and heavy tariffs? Or that public alarmism is used to create fear, uncertainty and doubt that chokes the life out of a particular option?

It matters not if “peak oil” is a threat or a potential driver of innovation. What we actually perceive is a single point on a time line of product evolution, and we debate it as such because we have to defend against the “objectors”.

We are fast approaching “analysis paralysis”, which is the cognitive equivalent of peak oil. Every single energy option has objectors on some grounds, at the moment it is the conservation movements’ in ascendency, closely followed by political opportunism and last but not least, commercial interests.

Do we really believe that these are quality inputs to a process that is so absolutely critical to humans?

Let’s put it another way, consider every energy technology against what is known as the product maturity “bell curve” (the outline of a bell). The front part of the curve is the development cycle, the top is maturity and the descending curve beyond the peak is twilight.

By way of comparison, computer technology is where? Mature? Surprisingly, No.

Computer technology will be mature when it is “transparent”, possibly by 2030-2040. This is how far each available energy option has yet to go. So for those amongst us who “object” to any particular option on any particular grounds, understand just how much of an impediment to human progress you are.

funny how the headline
[hides the spin]

""Booming demand and stagnant supply
drove oil prices to $125 a barrel last week.""

bomming demand...[in a resession?]
this wasnt booming demand..FOR ANYONE
EXCEPT..the traders trading in oil futures*

yes al that easy govt bailout money
has to go somewhere...so it goes into a bubble[oil bubble]

and lukey for them
the bubble burst earlier rather than later

recall the oil problems of the 80's
that was only a 1 percent shortage
but s[peculaters speculate
especially when they see the paper/market going south

""Is this a sign that fossil fuels are running out?""'

no we are nowhere near peak oil
and peak coal...lol
all them thin seams leech-out our methane
[while [poluting the groundwater]...
and adding greenhouse gas to the sky

yea investing in that
would be nutts

so govt does it
capitalists only keep the gain
the govt bail'sout its losers

the two party public servant run boys club
two pary parties..partying it on..system

""It is more likely a sign
that the cheap-oil age is giving way to the cheap-gas age.""

the methane leaks are huge
the ground water polution is tranmsgenerational
will be mutaing generations ..via the frakking fluid

""As the oil price heads north,
the gas price is drifting south.""

well they are both going south now
while the carbon green tax lurks,...goes up

free solar cells
paid for by your neighbour
leech off the public system at night
and get double..for the stuff you put in...via our cells

make hay while the sun shines

im smelling gas
you said i should take a shower?[poor joke]

but seriously..lets look at nitouse dioxide
from farming/mining...and gas 'making'[frakking]

[frakking isnt spelled correctly]

The Author touts tight gas as a panacea; does not seem to think carbon pollution / global warming is an issue. We should remember these relativities, in erm of C pollution of electricity generation from coal is 0.9- 1.4 while natural gas is 0.6. It's still a carbon polluter.

Where gas is used in TRI - GENERATION (combined heat and power), which is twice as efficent as gas turbines alone, it can be a useful part of the solution. Already is in parts of London (google Woking) and soon will be in Sydney. Can bring the C pollution down to about 0.3, close to some renewables. But certainly not a panacea; only applicable to dense commercial or residential or industrial situations where the 'waste' heat can be used for heating and airconditioning.

spindoc (or Matt if you can spare a minute from your schedule)

May I ask what we are "progressing" to, what's the goal?

I'm not against making the human world as comfortable as possible, I even believe in that, in "progress", but I won't reveal what I mean by progress until you do.
If I understand you correctly, you're an evangelistic version of Ridley (actually, he's an evangelist too); you think we should leave technology alone and see what happens... put our faith in it? Ignore all the negativity and silly "objections" and just push on?
Again.. Towards what?

"analysis paralysis"; nice phrase--wish I'd thought of it!
What does it mean? Let's all just stop thinking? pull our socks up, put our shoulders to the wheel, trust in the future and be rational optimists?.. yea yea yea!
But what's the objective I'm not supposed to object to?

I take the completely opposite tack to you and Matt. I think we should know what we're striving for, identify the goal, identify the obstacles, and formulate a workable strategy..
You prefer to go in blind.. That's very brave I'm sure but sorry, a weakness of mine is I like to have a plan.

As far as I can see, you and Matt are just exhilarated by man's ingenuity--technology junkies? I can relate to that.. But it keeps coming back, "to what end?", and at "what price?" And what exactly does it cost you, and Matt, compared to what it costs the human detritus that's the by-product? or the other species being driven to extinction?
Do you think Matt would be so "optimistic" if he worked in a mine in China or scratched out a living on the tip in Mexico? (think of that guy hanging upside-down in irons in "The Life of Brian": "I just love the Romans!")

But don't worry about knockers like me--analysis has no effect whatsoever.
It's delusion to think we're in control, or have "any" control. Human "lifestyles" and "progress" have long been the product of economic determinism.
Saves us the bother of worrying about it..

Hi Squeers,

Beats me why you picked on the last of three words in the last para. of my second post? What is it about human progress that offends you so much? Are we not entitled to develop in every human domain, to improve the lot of all, to achieve equality and justice for everyone, to be the best we can be at everything we can imagine, create and develop?

Is human progress going to upset your definition of what is or is not sustainable? Curious.

You then introduce the word “goals” in relation to “formulate a workable strategy”.(for humanity?) This possibly explains where you are coming from. What you want to do is have a plan for humanity. No doubt we will all be grateful for your “plan” for us.

Not even on the horizon I’m pleased to say but I’m sure humanity will appreciate your concern and when we need one I’m sure we will give you a call.

The theme of my post was actually about getting out of the way whilst human ingenuity is trying to come to terms with developing solutions. They might not be your choice of solution, and they may not yet be viable however, this is no reason to object to such technologies being developed as solutions before you tell us that we are not in control, or have any control, or that we should abandon all hope because in your view, our lifestyles and progress have long been a product of economic determinism. What?

Bravo, you have now defined all the reasons why you are entitled to “object”. This is precisely my point. You can object, so you do, and as we have seen, you don’t even need to justify this. If you had your say when Henry Ford was around he would not have developed the Model T.

That in my book makes you a condom on progress, a very vocal, self oriented and self confessed “knocker”.

For those who say it is not possible, we say get out of the way.