I say, perhaps?

[capthek]

Can Technology Save the Economy?

The U.S. stimulus bill includes tens of billions to support energy and information technologies. It is intended both to create jobs immediately and to set the stage for long-term economic growth. So why are economists and innovation experts so skeptical?

By David Rotman

• Rest here

Comments

[ytterbius]

I didn't read the whole thing. It's fair to be skeptical, but if the guy were paying attention, he wouldn't have made this statement:

'Could the green economy be the new new economy, with energy technologies replicating the success of information technologies in boosting productivity? Jorgenson is skeptical. In fact, he says, today's scenario is the "extreme opposite" of the one in which market demand drove the use and implementation of information technology in the 1990s. "A lot of these [energy] technologies that are going to be subsidized are not commercially viable without a subsidy," he says. "These things have been around for a quite a while, and have never gotten to the stage of being financially viable without sizeable subsidies. What does a subsidy mean? It means it's not good for the economy. It doesn't meet the market test, so there has to be some other reason to do it."'

It's true that at this point subsidies are important, as is fairly pricing fossils to account for the long term costs of their emissions. On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that solar costs will continue to decrease on a per watt basis over the next few years, and grid parity by 2012 is very likely.

[capthek]

The article focuses mostly on critique until the last page when it backtracks. Ya, suggesting that it's impossible for something to be beneficial in the long, or even short term because it is not yet financially viable is a narrow view.

[roadriverrail]

I also note where they pull out the old "renewables need subsidies so it's proof they can't compete" saw. As far as I can tell, pretty much all the mainstream sources of energy are subsidized, too, and the result is that renewables are basically losing in an unfair competition.

[capthek]

Nail on head.

[peristaltor]

Yup. Look at the per watt cost for solar over time. When I first started looking into it, it was over $30/watt, and that was for the cheap systems. Nanosolar is now selling (for wholesale only) for $1/watt, and still making a healthy profit.

The subsidies will buy expensive stuff at first, but the market the subsidies create will drive efficiencies way up. Look what similar subsidies did for oil, after all, creating a driving culture. The main difference between the two, though, is that solar lasts for decades after the initial production energy is paid; and gas engines and powerplants, well, need gas.

[capthek]

My little pet theory is that eventual excess power capacity from efficient solar will drive a robotics revolution in a way not dissimilar to car culture and oil or the industrial revolution and coal.