Sometimes things come together and mean more together than they would separately. Looking forward, clean energy is going to be very big.
I don’t want to get into one of those “this-is-a-good-business-to-start” suggestions, because you don’t just decide to do a new business, look at what’s hot, and end up with clean energy. Obviously you have to be operating in that area already, with interests and outlook and probably education and skill set, to be building a business. Still, there are the come-along clean energy businesses, the websites, the information sites, distribution, and so on. I think this is worth special attention.
Consider these three things which happened this week and last:
1. Barack Obama and Energy Policy
Most of us have seen it in the news coverage, or the debates, or on his websites. One of Barack Obama’s most important points is the need for a huge push in clean energy. He’s talked about finding ways to invest $15 billion per year. This looks and feels like it could be the equivalent of John Kennedy’s national call to action in 1962 when he challenged the nation to have a man walking on the moon before the end of the decade.
2. Thomas Friedman’s Public Vision
His new book is called Hot, Flat, and Crowded and I’ve posted about it before on this blog. Tuesday night he offered a quick summary on The Daily Show. I think he’s on the right track. (If you don’t see the video here, try the source video on Comedy Central.)
3. Venture Capital and Clean Energy
John Doerr has been a venture capital industry leader for 25 years (or so). Click on this video (or, if you can see it below, watch it here) of an interview-style presentation he did last week at the Web 2.0 conference. Notice what he’s saying about venture investment and clean energy.
This conversation goes over a lot of important ground about financial crisis and venture capital, so it’s worth listening to the full 32 minutes. But in this context of clean energy, notice how clear John Doerr is talking about the investor interest.
I think the message, coming from all over the place now, is pretty clear.
Subscribe via RSS
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
With respect to your first point, the only sort of clean energy that is capable of sufficient output to matter is nuclear power, which doesn’t need development, it just needs money — quite a lot more than $15 billion annually to matter.
All the feel-good chit chat in the world isn’t going to alter the national wind map (look it up), nor will it move the sunbelt and boost solar panel efficiency.
@Mac thanks for the comment, your disagreement is welcome, but I’m not at all convinced that it’s that simple. No problems with nuclear power? No hope for new technology or innovation? We’ve already harnessed the full wind map? Nothing more to do with solar energy? Really, are you that certain?
{ 2 trackbacks }