What Really Drives Alternative Energy Funding?

Andrew H. Harris, Maj, USAF

Setting the Stage

• Oil is a finite resource and where America gets it makes a huge economic and strategic difference

• Separating myths from reality:– Are Democrats really “greener”?– Is the government really responding to

“global warming” with more alternative energy dollars?

– …or is it really just crude oil prices which fuel the enthusiasm for alternative energy (and the funding for its development)?

Introduction

• Define “alternative energy” and “alternative energy funding” for this discussion

• Why is this discussion important?• Compare Energy R & D funding (alternative

energy funding) since 1976 with:– Political party of the Presidents– Emergence of global warming as a major concern– Crude oil prices

• Wrap up

Oil Prices 1970-2008

Oil Dependence

• Imported oil meets 66% of America’s current daily petroleum needs• Given present trends, oil and natural gas will meet 60% of total world energy needs by 2030

Defining “Alternative Energy?”

Solar Biofuels

Wind

Hydro Waves

Title 26, Chapter 79, Section 7701 of the revised U.S. Code: "the term alternative energy facility means a facility for producing electrical or thermal energy if the primary energy source is not oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power." Today, alternative energy sources used in the United States today include biofuels for transportation, as well as solar, hydroelectric and wind power for electricity.

Title 26, Chapter 79, Section 7701 of the revised U.S. Code: "the term alternative energy facility means a facility for producing electrical or thermal energy if the primary energy source is not oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power." Today, alternative energy sources used in the United States today include biofuels for transportation, as well as solar, hydroelectric and wind power for electricity.

Defining “Alternative Energy Funding”

• Alternative energy is mainly an R & D function• United States Budget Item: “Energy

Non-Defense Research and Development”• Gives us a good “yardstick” to measure US

government funding for purposes of this

exercise)

President’s Political Party Versus Energy R & D Funding

• Energy R & D funding rises during Carter and falls under Reagan/Bush 41• Rises then falls under Clinton then sharp rise under Bush 43• The trend doesn’t suggest a correlation with Democrat/Republican president• Data does not show one party is “greener”• Data does suggest something else is driving this train

The Global Warming Factor

• As global warming interest/pubic awareness/concern grew steadily since 1976, alternative energy funding trend obviously didn’t follow suit• Data does not suggest a correlation between the global warming issue and Energy R & D fundingGlobal Warming Interest:

1 = <25% of public sees global warming as a major concern2 = >25% and <50% of public see global warming as a major concern3 = >50% of public cites global warming as a major concern

Comparing to Crude Oil Prices

• As trend line shows, crude oil prices and Energy R & D funding follow each other closely until 1998• Starting in 1998, crude oil prices shoot up but Energy R & D funding doesn’t start to follow crude’s uptrend until 2007• Data shows a correlation between crude oil prices and Energy R & D funding from 1976 to 1998, then correlation loosens up considerably

Wrap Up

• The idea that Democrats are “greener” than Republicans is not supported by the data

• Our global warming scare is not resulting in more Energy R & D dollars being spent by Uncle Sam

• Comparing crude oil prices to Energy R & D spending produces the strongest correlation

References

Bloomberg.com, "Commodity Futures," http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602013&sid=ad86ccwxlHEQ&refer=commodity_futures (accessed August 24, 2008).

Bowman, Kathryn, "Global Warming: Not So Hot," Washington Post Think Tank Town, August 31, 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001440.html (accessed August 23, 2008).

Commoner, Barry, The Politics of Energy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, 1979.

Connelly, Joel "Carter's Energy Policies Look Good," Seattlepi.com, May 26, 2006, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/271725_joel26.html (accessed August 22, 2008).

Energy Information Administration, www.tonto.eia.doe.gov/drav/pet/hist/rwtcd.htm (accessed August 20, 2008).

U.S. Government Printing Office Online (USGPO), "The United States Budget," http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/hist.html (accessed August 19, 2008).

Holdren, John P., "The Energy Innovation Imperative", Massachusetts Institute of Technology Innovations 1, no. 2 (June 20, 1986), http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.3.

Kohl, Wilfred L., After the Second Oil Crisis: Energy Policies in Europe, America, and Japan. Lexington: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., 1982.

Simon, Christopher A., Alternative Energy: Political, Economic, and Social Feasibility. Chicago: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006.

Tyner, Wallace A., "The U.S. Biofuels Boom: Its Origins, Current Status, and Future Prospects,” Purdue University Biosciences Journal 58, no. 7 (2002).

Wionczek, Miguel S., "Energy and International Security in the 1980s: Realities or Misperceptions,"

Third World Quarterly 5, no. 4 (October, 1983), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3990824.

Young, Russell M., "America at a Crossroads: Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources," Scandinavia Journal 25 (1993).