Harvard Business School report promotes oudated EnergieVision

It was such good news about business for renewable energy, which almost did not give it a second thought when a report from the Harvard Business School named

"Unconventional Energy Opportunity in America '

He landed on my desk. Subtitle

"A win-win plan for economic, environmental and low-carbon, clean energy future"

I think I had a plan to transform our energy towards renewables such as wind and solar resources. States grow RES: New York just to achieve its roadmap to 50 percent renewable energy by 2030, focusing on the distributed generation of renewable energy and lead author of the report is resources.The HBS professor Michael Porter. It's not only a world-renowned authority on competitive strategy, also she works tirelessly in just causes. He created the

"Index of social progress, to look beyond GDP to social and environmental factors."

Porter co-founder and FSG Social Impact Advisors and co-developed his theory of "shared value" to non-profit organizations that help to create with business, social values. (Full disclosure:. I am a graduate of the HBS and met with Porter and FSG) therefore disappointing to read is

"Alternative Energy"

the authors mean

"... The resources of gas and oil shale accessible ... and by the process of hydraulic fracturing is removed."

Porter and colleagues at BCG HBS and business consultant explains his motivation:

Gas resources and unconventional oil are perhaps the greatest opportunity to improve the trajectory of the US economy, at a time when the prospects for the average American are lower than we have seen in generations. New America plenty of energy can not be done only to restore the competitiveness of the United States, but also geopolitical advantages for the United States. These advantages can, while the local environmental impact considerably reduced and speeds up the transition to a clean energy future that is convenient and affordable to achieve.

His solution is to convert energy from coal and oil to and when the plants reach the end of their natural life natural gas, we are going to replace natural gas with renewable energy. In the meantime, we will produce our economic supremacy through the export of cheap natural gas, while reducing carbon emissions and energy costs. In 2060 we want to generate zero carbon emissions from energy production.

It is not easy to sell. The first problem is the cost. For the development of our natural gas resources $ 900 billion more investment in infrastructure, including the new interstate pipelines, storage facilities, rail, sea and road improvements, the collection and treatment infrastructure and export terminals will require. In other words, we still have more to spend for the transition to natural gas, as we will convert to renewable energy, the report estimates that $ 750 billion. Ultimately Porter plan, we would with what the infrastructure fracturing are waste and decaying glued. Why not that money in renewable energy infrastructure from now?

The report also calls for spending on training for better paying jobs in the natural gas. Also, why not spend money on training in renewable energy, rather than to recycle a worker? The argument of the economic competitiveness of Porter - we'll see if we push GDP increases the production of natural gas. You can not export from the solar wind, and how to generate gas, and ours is by far the cheapest in the world.

Many of the report's recommendations are as one of the producers of fossil fuels dream: In addition to some positive suggestions on how to increase imposing rules and transparency, also calls for an end to the "outdated" restrictions on the export of oil and gas industry in promoting respect for the implementation of self-driven industry, even after a few industry players have been systematically corrupted.

Overall, the plan contains some positive elements that should not be overlooked. First, from coal to natural gas could be about a quarter of the responsibility for the reduction of carbon dioxide by 15 percent between 2005 and 2013. It may be the only way, a certain level of EPA to achieve Clean Power and eliminate coal-fired plants. Produce (THG) only half of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (methane side), natural gas, as Porter et al say,

"A key factor in the energy policy of America to the possible time and at competitive costs through a series of carbon reduction scenarios, at least until 2030."

And that the transition is much faster than the opinion leaders in the sector of fossil fuels such as Shell.

As I discussed in a blog for CSRHub, the latest report from future scenarios Shell calls for a transition to renewable energy by 2100. Porter accepts amendments for renewables requires 20-30 years have, what to 2035-45 grid, points at which renewables cost competitive as natural gas and will be completely removed from the production of electricity before 2060 works from the 2100 Shell forecasts that looks good back.

We are all tempted to point the finger at a policy recommendation refer to the introduction of an emission-free future delay while the strengthening of fossil fuels and utilities. Not as usual? Maybe, but at least in this calendar is much faster than the oil industry. The report acknowledges that if the Porter wind and solar prices continue to fall below the price of oil and gas, as they have in places like Austin, Texas, the company will drive a faster transition. It's all about money, and in this case it could be a very good thing.