Disruptive Technological Innovation Can’t Happen Too Soon
I met Bruce Wilson when we were in kindergarten together 57 years ago at a Quaker school (Penn Charter) in Philadelphia. In the course of the 13 years that followed our initial introduction, culminating in our graduation in 1973, he impressed me in several different ways. The first time was immediate and profound. When we came back from summer vacation into first grade, I noticed that he could read far better than I could, which, truth told, frightened me more than it impressed me; how could I have fallen so far behind in the three months I was catching salamanders in my friend’s backyard creek?
Later, when we were in high school, Bruce blew me away with his loving, fair-minded outlook on the people and the world around him; he had become a terrific exemplar of Quaker values: compassion, inclusion and equality. Given that this was the time of the Vietnam War, people of peace like Bruce had plenty to talk about.
Thus it came as no surprise when I learned several decades later that Bruce had become a top player in eco-friendly building technology design and materials. Predictably, his life’s work had revolved around the notion of sustainability–in a world in which this concept is so often subjugated to profit and self-interest at the expense of the wellbeing of humankind.
Here’s an interesting lecture that Bruce shared with me this morning, one that will be useful to everyone in the business world, whether his focus is on cleantech and sustainability–or anything else for that matter. It’s about disruptive innovation, a subject that virtually defines the arena of commerce in the 21st Century. It’s almost an hour long, but worth every second.
Famously, in 1985, AT&T’s consulting firm McKenzie predicted that there would be 900,000 cell phone subscribers by the year 2000. The actual total: 109 million. The brightest, best-paid minds in the world had missed the mark by a factor of 120. The last few decades have seen many dozens of similar disruptions: Uber, AirB&B, and so many others.
Watch what happens to electric transportation over the next few years as ranges exceed 250 miles and the cost of batteries continue to fall.
Speaking of transportation, the speaker opens with two photos of New York City a century ago. A shot of Broadway taken in 1900 showed hundreds of horse-drawn carriages and one lonely car; the same shot in 1913 showed hundreds of cars and, coincidentally, one lonely horse.
If that’s how radically the world changed 100 years ago, one can only hold onto one’s hat at this incredible point in the progression of our civilization. Of course, now the stakes are higher than ever. At this point, it’s not about convenience; it’s about using technology to stem the alarming trends toward environmental catastrophe.
Craig,
Sadly, I think one of the greatest handicaps for new clean technology is summed up in your phrase:
“At this point, it’s not about convenience; it’s about using technology to stem the alarming trends towards environmental catastrophe.”
The “green” boom is over. The balloon has deflated due to excessive claims and hyped expectations.
That’s not to say the technologies are a fault, but the public has moved on. Those technologies able to compete on economic or convenience will survive and prosper, but those relying on purely environmental purposes will struggle.
Green market leaders such as Tesla have changed market strategy to concentrate on convenience and desirability, playing down the environmental aspects.
The minority who are really into ‘green’ products are more passionate than ever, but the majority have grown bored.
I’m afraid self-interest beats altruism. Good will for environmental technology still remains, but it’s more lip-service and saying the right thing rather than influencing purchasing decisions.
On a more optimistic note, many environmentally positive new technologies have become not only securely established, but able to compete with older technologies, purely on economic or due to greater convenience.
There is no evidence to support your claims that: The “green” boom is over. http://www.2greenenergy.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=64840&action=edit
Craig,
Maybe we have different definitions of the term “boom”.
Everywhere private and public investment has waned and now is concentrated on mainly on a few large scale technologies backed by well organized corporate infrastructure.
The kind of reckless, overly optimistic, excessive spending that typifies a “boom” has largely dissipated, as new technologies mature.
There will be no more “Energiewende” experiments. There will be no more wild projects like “Better Place” etc. No more free spending government subsidies with no proper accounting.
Investment in new energy technology won’t cease, it will just be far more controlled and carefully evaluated.
If you really want the evidence, I could list dozens of sources referring to cut backs, removal of subsidies, diverted investment.
When a “boom” ends, or more accurately, wanes it’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, on the contrary. The end of a boom is often the beginning of more responsible sustained growth.
I doubt you’re right about future large-scale energy projects, though neither of us knows for sure.
What you write about “free spending government subsidies with no proper accounting” implies that such projects used to exist, which is by-and-large false. I was involved with a hydrokinetics company that got a $1.8 million grant from the DoE, and the accounting for that was so strict that they found it hard to get any work done because of all the paperwork.
Also, please see: http://www.2greenenergy.com/2017/02/22/about-the-renewable-energy-boom/
Craig,
I wasn’t restricting my observation the just the US, where the DoE was reasonably responsible.
But still the DoE and other government funding institutions have invested vast sums in failed projects.
Private organizations were just a reckless and the sums lost were truly staggering.