Opinion: How can subsidized pipelines compete with future green energy?
After Barack Obama gave the thumbs down
on Keystone XL, the accusations, now flying, were to be expected.
The analysis delivered by the media never really touched upon the
biggest factor in the viabililiy of Keystone XL. The media has also
failed to recognize the same risk in the Energy East Pipeline, as
well.
No, I am not talking about the
Kalamazoo and Nexen pipeline failures, I am talking about the
viability of the product these pipelines transport: dilbit. It can't compete. That is an important fact, especially in a "free market".
What most journalists don't seem to
realize, nor have I expected them to ever understand, it the
evolution of technology. While the cost of oil is driven by market
forces, the cost of technology is also driven by innovation. Innovation is a tricky business, stand still and you lose.
In 2003, I predicted that the cost of
both solar energy and wind energy would be cheaper than fossil fuels
in 2015. I was correct. No, I don't have a crystal ball, I understand how manufacturing science innovates products. It's one of those
things designers need to learn since the wheel has already been
invented. It's also one of the biggest killers of businesses. Slip behind the curve and you are finished.
By charting technology manufacturing costs, we can
establish rates of innovation. If we look at the different
technologies versus fossil fuels, we can see that some technologies
will be about 10 times cheaper than fossil fuels energy in 2025. It doesn't
take an economist to figure out that fossil fuels can't complete in
future markets. In fact, removing fossil fuel subsidies now would
make most fossil fuel products too expensive to sell.
As a designer, I can tell you that
no pipeline company can remain solvent when folks can buy a superior,
and ethical, product for 10 times cheaper. Did I mention carbon tax? No, no need.
Enjoy
