By John A. Warden III, CEO, Venturist, Inc.
Oil and gasoline prices up, riots over food shortages, food costs up, and energy company profits strong.
Politicians, activists and pundits alike are posing all sorts of new short-term and long-term energy policy solutions-federal gasoline tax holiday, drilling in ANWAR, windfall profit taxes on energy producers, more nuclear plants, higher fuel efficiency standards, repeal of ethanol subsidies, alternate energy, increased drilling and exploration in other parts of the US, lifting of the ethanol content mandates, higher gasoline taxes, and lower speed national speed limits. Although there may be interesting arguments for each of these policies, evaluating their efficacy is hamstrung by the lack of an Energy Strategy.
To stimulate some discussion, I want to apply the Essence of Strategy framework, more specifically, the WHERE element to the Energy issue. In what terms could we describe a clear, compelling, and measurable Future Picture for Energy in the United States? Again, for the sake of discussion, let’s try and describe the Future energy state in 2015, about seven years from now. Energy is a complex subject with a lot of nuance and competing interests. But complexity, by its very nature, is the challenge for Strategic Thinkers. It is a difficult-but necessary–task to describe at the highest strategic level, a clear, compelling and measurable Future Picture for United States Energy that would be acceptable and desirable for a majority of Americans. So here are a few rules for this exercise:
- 1. Write the statement in present tense as if it was a fact in 2015
- 2. Don’t include details on how we get there (those are tactics)
- 3. Don’t demonize any of the participants in the energy system-consumers, producers, advocates or policy makers
- 4. Consider the entire energy system and its contribution to the United States-in other words keep it strategic.
It is always good to have an example or strawman to work with, so here’s a quick idea of what I mean.
In 2015, the United States has access to energy resources sufficient to support good growth in the GDP, has resources sufficient that they are not an obstacle to an increase in real mean per capita income, has adequate energy for national defense emergencies, accesses energy without creating global political instability, and acquires its energy with due regard to cost-effective, economically viable environmental considerations.
Whether you agree with the statement or not, the hallmark of a strategic future picture statement is its clarity, its conciseness, and its measurability. The above statement meets those criteria. Its desirability can always be and should be debated because the strategic future being described may or may not be desirable for any number of reasons. However, if the majority of Americans thought the above or any other strategic future for Energy was desirable, the politicians, the producers, the consumers and the advocates would all have something to base their policy positions on-and something against which they could be measured. Strategy-and a real Future Picture–before policy!
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Colonel Warden, the first three are a good future picture but the last two listed below seem more like guiding principles?
accesses energy without creating global political instability, and acquires its energy with due regard to cost-effective, economically viable environmental considerations.
Another comment is I grew up during the Race to the Moon. There was a certain Wow factor in that kind of National Goal that I think somehow needs to be Incorporated into any National Energy Goal. Like you say it must be clear and Compelling! so it grabs peoples attention. Just a few initial thoughts on a very large problem.
Integral to the ‘energy problem’ is distribution and storage. Reduced to basics, there is plentiful energy available — just not in the places where it is needed. So the problem is one of distribution and storage. Because we are abysmal at storage, we store energy in chemical bonds — hydrocarbons rather than devising a mechanism which is more efficient and has fewer byproducts (CO, CO2).
Also because we are a mobile society, fixed distribution is not feasible — which leads us back to storage.
In the industrial age it was no accident that aluminum smelters, and chloralkali production was based near waterfalls; or that smelters were based near dams. Processes requiring large energy input were built next to large energy sources.
So in any strategic vision, some regard for future energy densities, in generation, storage and use needs to be considered.