History tells us:
And so on for other technological transitions: horse/ox/canal transport to rail, vacuum tube to transistor, transistor to integrated circuit, paper mail to email, fixed-line phones to mobile phones ... (Of course, the last two transitions have just started. But I don't want you to think that history all happened in the past. :-) )
The dominant companies in the 'sunset' technology nearly all failed, after lingering on for a few decades. A very few survived as shadows of their former selves. Very, very few ever went on to become significant players in the new technology, or in anything else. This despite massive efforts by some of these companies --firstly to increase production and lower costs in the old technology, and when this had no effect, to transition to the new one.
Conversely, almost none of the eventually-dominant players in the new technology started life in the old one.
The lessons from history are that 1) BP and its ilk will slowly fail, thrashing like dinosaurs trapped in a tar pit, and 2) their replacements will not come from the small fry in the fossil fuel industry.
The question is, what do we do in the mean time, while BP and company are failing? Do we subsidise them to spend ever-increasing sums of money futilely chasing ever-diminishing returns?
Or do we accept the reality of the transition, tax the sunset industry heavily to prevent this wasted "investment", and use the money to ease the pain of the transition for those most at risk - the very poor and the poor?
I vote for "modernising" the tax structure in this way.
My view has evolved, however. I can give examples of major players who are committing at least partly to a renewable future. We don't need to make a list, because most of these companies probably have ulterior motives.
AREVA comes to mind. They've purchased a majority share of Multibrid, one of the stellar technologies on the offshore wind horizon. (After they were forced to sell their stake in REpower wind, because of a far too aggressive takeover by Tulsi Tanti's cash rich and technology poor Suzlon.) Since their major future business, do you agree J?, would likely be the provision of nuclear plants globally, what are the driving reasons for their investment in offshore wind? "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Unless of course, one believes that nuclear power is a part of that mix, which i don't, but that isn't the topic here.
To be clear, i welcome AREVA into a highly risky portion of the windpower biz, with capital, expertise, contacts, and cheaper financing. They have shown to be a very well-managed company, forward-thinking, and competent. But i see them as compromised when it comes to energy strategy.
With all that, given today's reality, i would place my own expertise in service of their windpower program. When i built the first utility-scale project, my partner was the manufacturer of the UK's nuclear plant cooling systems. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
