Kinda fluffy, Frank.
Negativity can be overdone. On the other hand, when you're behind by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter, it's time to get focused.
I think everyone who follows this thread has grasped the idea that the infrastructure urgently needs improvement, and that generation is barely meeting needs, only because recession has reduced demand. Regardless of GHG (greenhouse gas) constraints, we've got problems.
Yes, they're updating reactors and increasing generation - but they're still not building. Yes, we're tapping new sources of natural gas obtained by fracking, and we should enjoy a ~10-year breathing space, a window of opportunity granted by this relatively benign source of energy.
But the 2010 end-of-year prediction for crude is in the $80-$90 range. With predicted USD devaluation, it will likely top $100 in 2011. Meanwhile the economy that not only produced significant innovation in the 50s, 60s, and 70s - and financed it with risk capital - is in decline, allocating increasing fractions of capital to easier and safer short-term returns from the financial sector. The economic virtuous circle has been broken; now, the primary source of infrastructure capital is government money.
Yes, we should expect technology to improve the energy sector. But what kinds of improvements should we expect? Those who work in the sector tell us there'll be incremental gains. Nothing earth-shattering like cold fusion; instead, thousands of small improvements. Certainly they'll have a cumulative impact. They'll help.
However in 10 years, we will need to see massive infrastructure upgrades completed, with new generation installed and running over an improved and optimized grid. Lead-time requirements, capital requirements and anticipated energy constraints strongly suggest we're not going to make it.
Jim |
