In an article, “When Energy Dreams Fall Short” focused on energy technologies that are (so far) disappointing, Darren Goode of Politico, ends by talking briefly about fusion, saying:

That’s not even to mention nuclear fusion, the process that forces atoms together — unlike the atom-splitting technology used by fission reactors. Fusion powers hydrogen bombs and the sun, but despite years of research, scientists have not turned the technology into a power source that can be harnessed.

NEI’s Fertel said it’s worth it. “Getting technologies like fusion that have a tremendous, if theoretical, potential is something we should pursue,” he said.

Fusion is an important potential source of energy that will revolutionize America’s energy system, once commercialized. Even though it is difficult, that does not mean that it shouldn’t be pursued.

Similar things could be said about the other technologies Goode discusses. Just because the advanced biofuel cellulosic ethanol has not yet been produced in huge quantities, that does not mean that it does not have potential to develop into a meaningful was to reduce America’s dependence on oil. While the article presents technologies like synthetic fuel, hydrogen cars, and clean coal as failures, instead it should say that the jury is still out on these programs. The problem is that the political process – and the public’s
Like Chinese Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai said when asked about the 1789 French Revolution, “It’s too early to say.” It is simply too soon to say that our energy dreams have fallen short.  attention span – moves at a very different speed than energy markets. Energy systems are built for multi-decade lifespans, with infrastructure built to last longer. We should not expect to see the trillion dollar energy market overturned in just the span of a four or eight year term. Instead, we need sustained R&D over a multi decade time frame in order to have incremental results.

Share on Facebook

Tweet