The only defense of Al Gore’s phony science is rigid political enforcement. – Tony

CNBC interviewed one of the MIT researchers responsible for the “breakthrough” in fuel cell technology (synthesizing a catalyst to mimic photosynthesis). My reading reveals some skepticism, but, as per the structure of this post, the interesting words came at the end when the researcher expressed an opinion of frustration that the level of the current technology was far more advanced than acknowledged by Congress which is considering budget reallocations that will reduce the already nominal R&D budget. As noted previously by others, much of the R&D funding is coming from private sector. That’s one point, the validity of which depends on untangling the self-interest drivers of revenue streams.

The other point is gridlock – in the markets and in Congress. Glenn Reynolds linked to the author of the theory here that the structure of patent ownership, which is highly distributed among many owners rather than concentrated among a few, is creating gridlock in bringing new, particularly high-tech, innovations to market. To the extent that the theory of patent gridlock can be applied to pending innovations in energy technology – and I do not know – but skepticism would suggest that the way forward is not fully technological, nor fully political, but will require some restructuring of the ownership infrastructure.

that is why the Greens retreated in South Africa when confronted by opposition from the Third World that their prescriptions and proscriptions would further impoverish them. – mcallen3

This is worth repeating even though my gut tells me that coal is dead. Gov. Schweitzer of Montana quips that everybody is lined up to build the *second* coal-to-liquid plant. He can’t seem to get any traction with investors by pointing to the three plants on-line and functioning in South Africa. Bridge technologies will be required and they will be fossil fuel based. Whether they are mined stateside or elsewhere has yet to be determined.

it boils down to conservation versus exploration – wretched

Which is why I have always personally *opposed* conservation as even a talking point – not because it won’t do any good but because it will be used to marginalize and de-emphasize the structural and political and infrastructure transformations that will be required. So by default – the path of least resistance. The technicians and their numbers will prevail eventually, but not before the rhetoric and the religion put the *A* back in GW.