• 1 hour Nigeria Files Suit Against JPMorgan Over Oil Field Sale
  • 8 hours Chinese Oil Ships Found Violating UN Sanctions On North Korea
  • 13 hours Oil Slick From Iranian Tanker Explosion Is Now The Size Of Paris
  • 17 hours Nigeria Approves Petroleum Industry Bill After 17 Long Years
  • 19 hours Venezuelan Output Drops To 28-Year Low In 2017
  • 21 hours OPEC Revises Up Non-OPEC Production Estimates For 2018
  • 1 day Iraq Ready To Sign Deal With BP For Kirkuk Fields
  • 1 day Kinder Morgan Delays Trans Mountain Launch Again
  • 1 day Shell Inks Another Solar Deal
  • 2 days API Reports Seventh Large Crude Draw In Seven Weeks
  • 2 days Maduro’s Advisors Recommend Selling Petro At Steep 60% Discount
  • 2 days EIA: Shale Oil Output To Rise By 1.8 Million Bpd Through Q1 2019
  • 2 days IEA: Don’t Expect Much Oil From Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Before 2030
  • 2 days Minister Says Norway Must Prepare For Arctic Oil Race With Russia
  • 2 days Eight Years Late—UK Hinkley Point C To Be In Service By 2025
  • 2 days Sunk Iranian Oil Tanker Leave Behind Two Slicks
  • 2 days Saudi Arabia Shuns UBS, BofA As Aramco IPO Coordinators
  • 2 days WCS-WTI Spread Narrows As Exports-By-Rail Pick Up
  • 3 days Norway Grants Record 75 New Offshore Exploration Leases
  • 3 days China’s Growing Appetite For Renewables
  • 3 days Chevron To Resume Drilling In Kurdistan
  • 3 days India Boosts Oil, Gas Resource Estimate Ahead Of Bidding Round
  • 3 days India’s Reliance Boosts Export Refinery Capacity By 30%
  • 3 days Nigeria Among Worst Performers In Electricity Supply
  • 3 days ELN Attacks Another Colombian Pipeline As Ceasefire Ceases
  • 4 days Shell Buys 43.8% Stake In Silicon Ranch Solar
  • 4 days Saudis To Award Nuclear Power Contracts In December
  • 4 days Shell Approves Its First North Sea Oil Project In Six Years
  • 4 days China Unlikely To Maintain Record Oil Product Exports
  • 4 days Australia Solar Power Additions Hit Record In 2017
  • 4 days Morocco Prepares $4.6B Gas Project Tender
  • 4 days Iranian Oil Tanker Sinks After Second Explosion
  • 7 days Russia To Discuss Possible Exit From OPEC Deal
  • 7 days Iranian Oil Tanker Drifts Into Japanese Waters As Fires Rage On
  • 7 days Kenya Cuts Share Of Oil Revenues To Local Communities
  • 7 days IEA: $65-70 Oil Could Cause Surge In U.S. Shale Production
  • 7 days Russia’s Lukoil May Sell 20% In Oil Trader Litasco
  • 7 days Falling Chinese Oil Imports Weigh On Prices
  • 7 days Shell Considers Buying Dutch Green Energy Supplier
  • 8 days Wind And Solar Prices Continue To Fall
Alt Text

$60 Oil Will Not Last Long

Many pundits see $60 oil…

Alt Text

Is The Rig Count Still Relevant?

As the U.S. shale patch…

Climate Progress

Climate Progress

Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable…

More Info

Easy Energy is Delaying Further Technological Innovation

Easy Energy is Delaying Further Technological Innovation

Over the weekend I read a blog post by author Nicholas Carr describing what he calls the hierarchy of innovation.

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about innovation, especially about how it might spread through the global energy system. I’m especially interested in how entrepreneurs and new technologies may create disruptive innovation within the system and what that’s likely to look like.

Carr’s blog is a little off that topic, but it did get me thinking about the underlying drivers of innovation. The article is essentially an attempt to explain and to some extent lament what he and others perceive as stagnation in innovation in the last century. Carr describes what he refers to as the Hierarchy of Innovation, which is loosely analogous to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. As Carr puts it:

“The focus, or emphasis, of innovation moves up through five stages, propelled by shifts in the needs we seek to fulfil. In the beginning come Technologies of Survival (think fire), then Technologies of Social Organization (think cathedral), then Technologies of Prosperity (think steam engine), then technologies of leisure (think TV), and finally Technologies of the Self (think Facebook, or Prozac).”

I’m OK with the hierarchy concept and think it’s a fine first-order mechanism to understand the underlying social values driving innovation at any given stage in civil development.

However, I think much deeper drivers are worth considering. Obviously, the one with which I’m most familiar relates to the ability of a civilization to harness energy to drive the economic wealth and ultimately wealthy lifestyles, which push them up what I’ll call Carr’s first-order innovation pyramid.

Most of the 19th and early 20th century innovations highlighted in the article relate directly to or result directly from a radical revolution in humankind’s ability to harness energy for its own benefit. Prior to the industrial revolution, energy for economic production came primarily from livestock and human labour. By the mid-19th century, Western civilization was pushing on the very capacity of those energy-producing technologies to sustain the economic growth and wealth creation demanded by its societies, setting the stage for the Industrial Revolution.

With the Industrial Revolution, humankind harnessed the power of fossil fuels and unleashed an entirely new paradigm of production and economic wealth generation. This created the energy production “headroom” that set the stage for the massive change in human capabilities in the early to mid-20th century. In fact and quite literally, without the energy technologies and production capacity we developed 100-150 years ago, we never could have escaped the bounds of Earth and started our exploration of the solar system. However, sometime mid-century as we achieved new heights of global economic prosperity, we stopped innovating on energy and moved up Carr’s innovation hierarchy to focus on leisure and self.

Presently, 125 years later, civilization is still reliant on the core energy production technologies created in the Industrial Revolution. Economies with the mastery and control of those technologies enjoy almost unlimited access to abundant and cheap energy, and it is in those societies that we see the shift in innovation so lamented by Carr in his article.

Yet the current energy paradigm, not so unlike the one based on livestock and human power, is fundamentally based on commodity fuels and highly fragmented production and distribution industries that can be owned and controlled (usually to their own benefit) by anyone with the resources and power to do to so. As such, the paradigm is defined by energy haves and have-nots; and the energy have-nots are consistently plagued by crushing poverty and disease. This disparity is growing rapidly. On a global basis, this imbalance is likely coming to a critical point, and, like the mid-19th century, the stage is formally set for another innovation in energy production, one that frees us from the burdens and challenges of fossil fuels and unleashes another unprecedented transformation in economies and ultimately the human condition.

So in the end, I’m still left pondering innovation in the energy system. I can’t help remembering the grade school axiom that “necessity is the mother of invention.” Carr’s pyramid is interesting and maybe a cynical comment on the modern developed world, but to me it’s not that complicated. If he and his peers want to refocus innovative energy on Technologies of Prosperity, their time may be better served by exploring the deeper issues than simply describing the problem.

By Ned L. Harvey

Ned L. Harvey is the Chief Operating Officer of the Rocky Mountain Institute. This piece was originally published at RMI’s Outlet blog and was reprinted with permission.




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • John McKay on June 06 2012 said:
    Having lived through the CFL and T8 invention -distribution cycle and solar thermal and wind in Canada, I have a lot of respect for the thinkers at the front end as well as the marketers and industrialists that have got us this far. I agree we need to be considering "what will make the world a better place in 100 years" as well as the simple payback that will make it go in the capitalist world. The Triple Bottom line is a good start, so now I need to couch my inventiveness in terms of "what process or technology will maximize that?

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News