After $100 Million, Exxon Backs Off Algae as Fuel

[GliderGuider]

14. That's a clear and sane position.

I agree with everything you say, except for one thing...

I do not expect that governments will constrain established energy industries unless they are actively and obviously harming the public interest. That's because energy industries are the backbone of our entire civilization. We, our civilization and life itself are shaped by the forces of non-equilibrium thermodynamics through one iron law: always search for energy, or risk annihilation. Since governments are created to promote our survival, it would be utterly unrealistic to expect them to restrain the functioning of energy industries. All we can expect is that they will prevent those industries from killing too many of us in the process. Even then, the definition of "too many of us" is open to interpretation.

It seems to me that energy sources are judged on three values: their public benefit, the perceived harm of continuing their use, and the perceived harm of discontinuing them. If (Benefit + Harm(discontinuing)) > Harm(use) they stay in use.

Nuclear power is contentious because that ratio is close to 1:1 - the perception of their harmfulness has grown, and the perception of both their benefit and the harm of discontinuing them are declining.

Fossil fuels are the true backbone of global civilization. The harm of continuing their use is perceived to be much less than the sum of their benefit plus the harm of discontinuing their use. Of course the future harm of continuing to use them is subject to a psychological discount rate, while both the benefit and the harm of discontinuing them are not - they are both immediate. So fossil fuels will stay in use until they have permanently and obviously damaged our civilization.

Algal fuels have very little perceived benefit, and little perceived harm from either doing them or not doing them, so they are vulnerable to short-term financial decisions like this.