On Tuesday night, May 19, this blog moved from the virtual to the physical world at a kick-off event in Boston. In what was a very engaging and creative debate, one idea struck me in particular. Richard A. Sears brought up the notion of "energy time" and compared it to "financial time" and "political time". Energy systems change over the course of decades. A power plant may easily operate for 30, 40 or 50 years. But financial time is measured by months (quarters) and political time is usually between two to six years. Though operating at different timescales, all of these systems need to cooperate to shift the energy system into a more sustainable future. What this suggests is that different timescales and their interplay represent a real challenge here.
The current debate on a green recovery from the economic crisis illustrates these challenges very well. The idea of a green recovery is to kill two birds with one stone. By investing in clean energy technology, we create a more sustainable energy future and stimulate economic growth and employment. Yet, these two goals might operate on different timescales, which would create a trade-off between the two goals. Is a green recovery actually a realistic ambition, or are we trying to have our cake and eat it too?
Financial and political time call for a quick recovery with immediate effects on financial statements and employment figures. Companies need to keep investors happy, as do politicians with their electorate. Investments in clean energy infrastructure might only produce economic benefits in the longer run. In sum: Is a green recovery from the economic crisis possible given the issue of timescales? If not, should we expect benefits from investment in a new energy infrastructure only in the long term?




Comments
This much discussed running after green energy is more romantic than pragmatic.The energy density in all cases of green energy such as solar or wind are so low and their harvesting so costly that for many years to come they would remain handicapped. It means so long the government is there providing financial resources for this enterprise using taxpayer's money it will be okay but the moment government withdraws support it would fail.So in my opinion they should be left to market forces which are more pragmatic than romantic. For a glimpse into the world of future energy scene a visit to the website will be more relevant.http://www.eloquentbooks.com/MegalopolisOne2080AD.html
Posted by: Amitabha Mukhopadhyay | May 23, 2009 2:27 PM
@Amitabha Mukhopadhyay
Only as long as carbon-based energy is artificially cheap. As soon as the total environmental cost of extracting and burning (pretty much) any carbon fuel is included in the cost, most of the renewables become cost competitive.
Posted by: MoM | May 31, 2009 10:51 PM
I am very interested in this topic. You could write something more? Warm greetings to the author and all readers.
Posted by: kolobrzeg, dzwirzyno, wczasy nad morzem | August 12, 2009 7:07 PM
Interesting! Please type this for another topic. Regards to the author
Posted by: Garnki Fissler. Szybkowary i Patelnie Fissler | August 13, 2009 7:54 AM
Really, very interesting topic. If possible, please more information. This is one of the better blogs that I read.
Posted by: Kawa Lavazza. Kawa Ziarnista Illy | August 13, 2009 8:07 AM
Good job! Im glad to read that
Posted by: SSI | August 16, 2009 4:50 PM
I read not long ago so good topic. Simply great
Posted by: Adwokaci, Radcy Prawni, Kancelaria, Porady prawne on-line | August 21, 2009 8:09 AM
Yes, I did not expect such a topic. But seems to be interesting. Please read comments. Yours
Posted by: Merchant Accounts | August 27, 2009 2:12 AM
I am very interested in this topic. You could write something more? Warm greetings to the author and all readers.
Posted by: Portal dobrafirma.jaworzno.pl | September 3, 2009 4:38 AM
Interesting! Please type this for another topic. Regards to the author
Posted by: Monitory podsufitowe | September 22, 2009 2:07 PM