Funding

"Money makes the world go 'round," as the old saying goes (or something like that). The saying certainly applies in energy development -- one must have money to develop energy.

And the financial markets are not providing it. The US government has set up DOE guarantees and the Green Bank to provide funding, but it's not getting out to those who need it (maybe they should have set up the funding as bonuses -- there have been no problems getting those paid!)

Banks are limited in lending because of the ratios they are required to maintain on the balance sheets. They've had dumped back onto to them all the "bad" mortgages theyy made, so that their lending limits have been hit. With that regulation, they are forbidden to lend.

Regulation stifles creativity. The only effective limit on creative is the creator's moral compass. Seems that's been missing from the market of late, and, certainly, government programs don't promote that. So, we get more and more regulation, so, less and less flexibility, less and less ability to respond to new issues.

Markets reliable?

Oil & gas markets, both locally and internationally, have been anything but reliable of late.

Last year's bubble in price was obviously produced by hype than reality as was the industry's very childish response to it -- spend, buy, acquire ... at whatever cost! Now, many of those players are realizing that discretion is the better part of valor.

Demand for oil must continue as the world runs on it, and will for at least a decade to come.

And when it comes to choosing energy, as the economy contracts, the lesser cost is the wiser choice. Why? Because people must be put first. Deliver food and services cheaply, so that all prosper, then prosperity will create the cushion that alternative energy demands.

So much for a cursory, incomplete, uneducated review.

Which energy source

Which form of energy is best is now more a political and social issue rather than economic.

Certainly the environment is a consideration in choice of fuel (and how it's used), but, ultimately, the effect of that choice is a cost to the instant chooser and the society as a whole.

If the current economic downturn continues, efficiency will have to trump environment as efficiency is what will keep people fed, etc.

Ethanol is an immediate example of the effect of the realities of economics on fuel choice. Increase in the use of corn for ethanol production effectively took food out of the mouths of people and has cooled the fervor for this form of energy.

Solar can not be justified economically in the current market (and probably never, given space requirements, et al.) -- without the government incentives. And the government incentives are coming from the pockets of people, monies that could otherwise go to food, medicine, infrastructure.

Utilitarianism certainly would measure energy choice rightly, though, again, it comes down to how one values economic wellness against personal wellness.

One man's view.