Will there be a greentech boom?

Post Reply New Topic

With all of the climate change scare, there have been a lot of green start ups. Many think that there will be an alternative energy bubble just like the dot com bubble that took off in the late 90s.

I don't know about a bubble, but there are certainly a lot of green-collar jobs to be had.

I am an urban planning major, and environmental concerns are a hot topic.

offtopic but.... Does that mean the picture with the green background of you in your avatar is your favorite?

Where there is money to be made it will be made.

No, I just chose a Warhol-esque theme for my avatar.

There might be a Green Boomlet. The green thing is not self sustaining but it the government push pro-Green policy and regulation, the money will follow it.

ruveyn

Yes, and no. It's in the stage of development where people are trying all sorts of things to make the next big thing. Like the first decades of the auto business; there were steam-powered cars, electric cars, and over a hundred car companies. Over the 20s, and on, the number of companies fell through the floor, until you had the big 3 (GM got most of them).

So, yeah, there's possibilities. However, the problem with green industries is that right now, they don't produce as much energy as conventional methods, and aren't as efficient.

So as mentioned, it will be a niche industry. It does help, and it's a good idea, but it's not 'the' answer, just 'an' answer.

Hell no.

As long as it is less efficient than traditional methods, and there is no way (without government intervention, and sometimes not even then) for a company to make a profit, the "green energy" sector will only ever lead to more recessions.

Much like giving loans to people who couldn't afford them leads to bad debts. So does giving money to industries (other than legitimate venture capital by those with an interest in the area or spot a potential profit) will be money down a sink which will never get returned other than through government grants.

Yes. There has been no real "green" tech developed. Right now you have competing interests in a collapsing economy. The money's good until it's time to put up or shut up.

You are assuming that there is presently a free and fair market, but there isn't. Other forms of energy are subsidized in a variety of direct and indirect ways. Public Citizen documented $115 billion in direct subsidies to nuclear energy from 1947-1999.

Consider also the Price-Anderson Act: if there is an accident at a nuclear power plant, the limits on liability to the company is $10 billion (less than the cost of a new nuclear plant). A major incident could make an entire city unlivable - estimates for such a scenario run up to 400 billion ... by not requiring industry to insure themselves, the real price of nuclear is artificially lowered.

Pollution is a major externality that applies when anything is burned - it is a cost to someone that is not reflected in the market price of burning the fuel.

Mass production and economies of scale, better manufacturing technology ... the price of installing wind turbines has dropped steadily over the past decades, and is quite close to other sources. If one took away the subsidies for coal and nuclear and priced in the externalities, wind would be cheaper by every measure.

There is, and has been for the past several years. Or at least here in the Pacific Northwest, especially at Oregon State University. I'm currently working on two projects involving green housing materials, one of which my advising professor is hinting strongly that I should turn into my Masters thesis. Can't really tell you any details, though, thanks to confidentiality agreements.

I don't advocate the subsidisation of other forms of energy either. And what about the "externalities" of wind energy?

It has always been a wise policy for government to provide financial aid to promising emergent technologies, especially under critical situations. The railroad industry, atomic energy, communications, abstract studies in medicine and physics, etc. have all repaid many times over the government investment in their early developments. The world is rapidly heading to a huge major environmental crisis over human involvement with energy production and the consequences of ignoring the results of major changes in the atmosphere and temperature of the planet are horrific. We are on the brink of worldwide disasters and to do nothing is immense stupidity.

I disagree Sand.

Railroad industry did better without government intervetion. As I imagine atomic and communications would have also. Communications DEFINITELY would have done better without government interference.

As for physics... there are lots of examples of private research firms making huge advances in knowledge in order to make money. (inventors such as Edison or Franklin spring easiest to mind.) As for human driven dramatic climate catastrophe... that's still up for debate.

They'll be a huge boom when we run out of oil. Don't expect it to happen before then.

If you look up your history of US railroads they were given huge swathes of land to accompany their tracks and when they did acquire power over delivery harvests they screwed the farmers royally until government regulation stepped in to permit farms to become economically viable. Atomic energy would not exist without the Tennessee Valley electrical system to provise power and without the Manhattan Project. Basic research in transistors and theoretical physics to underlie technical communication development was all government supported. If you think dramatic climate change is theoretical and unsupportable you qualify for the booby hatch.