• 2 minutes California to ban gasoline for lawn mowers, chain saws, leaf blowers, off road equipment, etc.
  • 6 minutes China and India are both needing more coal and prices are now extremely high. They need maximum fossil fuel.
  • 11 minutes Europeans and Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.
  • 3 hours GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES
  • 1 day The Climate Scare Stories Began With Far Left Ideology Per GreenPeace Co-Founder
  • 12 hours Monday 9/13 - "High Natural Gas Prices Today Will Send U.S. Production Soaring Next Year" by Irina Slav
  • 1 day Putin and Xi have decided not to attend the Climate Summit in Glasgow
  • 2 days Biden Sets Target Of 50% EV Share In U.S. Car Sales In 2030
  • 20 hours US intel warns China could dominate advanced technologies By NOMAAN MERCHANT October 22, 2021
  • 2 days "The Hidden Story About California's Container Ship Backlog" via Corbett Report
  • 6 hours NordStream2
  • 1 day Storage of gas cylinders
Llewellyn King

Llewellyn King

Llewellyn King is the executive producer and host of "White House Chronicle" on PBS. His e-mail address is lking@kingpublishing.com

More Info

Premium Content

Bill Gates and the Energy Research Dilemma

There is an idea that has been around for a long time, at least since the fall of 1973: All that stands between the United States and an abundant energy future is a lack of spending on research and development. It is as though the Knights Templar could find the Holy Grail, if only the Pope would commit just a few more resources to the hunt.

Tens of billions of dollars have been spent on energy research, many of them fruitlessly; and some advances have been made, not the least in the kind of drilling technology that enables us to drill miles below the sea floor in the Gulf of Mexico. (Oops!)

Much else has been researched and not come to market. Wind and solar have taken giant strides, but still require tax breaks and subsidies. Nuclear energy has been researched, even as its deployment has languished. Worldwide hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on nuclear fusion with nothing to show for it. Other programs have gone by the board, from coal liquefaction to magnetohydrodynamics and ocean-thermal gradients.

The thing about energy research has been that there are many promising lines, but seldom a big success. The big successes, too, have been happenstantial. One such is the aeroderivative turbine; essentially, a fighter-jet engine operating at very high temperatures in steady state on the ground, and burning natural gas instead of kerosene.

On June 10, a new set of highly qualified persuaders came to Washington to exhort the government to increase energy research and development funding from $5 billion to $16 billion a year, and to set up new organizations to channel and manage basic research on energy.

Some of the nation’s industrial savants, including Bill Gates late of Microsoft, Jeff Immelt of General Electric and Ursula Burns of Xerox, appeared at a press conference here as members of the American Energy Innovation Council. The chairman of the group, Chad Holliday of Bank of America, told the press: “Up until now energy investments have gotten short shrift.”

That is debatable. The problem with energy research has not been that it has been short-changed, but that it has often been directed at the wrong thing; it has often been diluted or spread out for political purposes. Farmers want ethanol research, coal states want carbon management, and the populous eastern states want carbon-free energy—so long as it is not nuclear.

The group of industry captains is not looking at the political, social and economic divides which have negated so many past endeavors. Just when the nuclear industry was ready to enter its long-expected renaissance in the 1990s, it was broadsided by the new gas turbines. If the carbon in coal can be safely sequestered, does that solve the environmental problems of ripping it out of the ground?

R&D always produces something of interest and often of value, but not always what it was directed toward. At the press conference, Xerox’s Burns said that innovation needed to be managed, and that the CEOs of the group knew that from experience.

Actually, the experience of Xerox itself may belie that. The original copying machine technology nearly perished for want of sponsorship and was finally saved by not-for-profit Battelle Laboratories. Yet later, when many of the innovations that made the rise of Microsoft, Apple and Cisco possible were developed at Xerox’s California computer laboratories, the company did not know what to do with them. But Bill Gates did. These two should talk.

The great Bell Labs produced optic fiber and the transistor, but did nothing with them. Management is a lovely business when it controls but in so doing, it stifles.

If you want innovation, first get rid of the managers. Second, get on bended knee before the bankers.

A new energy think is needed, but first it is a good idea to know where we want to go.
With the holocaust in the Gulf, our energy future is again in flux; the trusted has become dangerous, and the dangerous may again be trusted.

By. Llewellyn King

Llewellyn King is executive producer and host of “White House Chronicle” on PBS. His e-mail is lking@kingpublishing.com


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on June 13 2010 said:
    Llewellyn, I think you look back to the early eighties that you will see that it was Steve Jobs, and Apple Computer that saw the value of the work being done at Xerox Park, and implemented it into Apple computers. A couple of years later Bill Gates on seeing the value of a Graphical User Interface, GUI on the Mac, copied it as an add on to his Disk Operating System, DOS,.

Leave a comment




EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News