[FirstLight]

This is my first post on the forum, although I have been an occasional reader for some time. I have performed cursory checks to ensure I'm not duplicating anybody else's ideas here; if I am, I apologize, although perhaps it is a good thing, as it is perhaps a suggestion that the post relates an idea whose time has come.
---

Many people believe that the market can adapt to emergent crises in a positive and beneficial way, and that this ability means that no other special responses are necessary - or indeed desirable.

However, the unchecked actions of markets can and have been modified by governments and organizations seeking to control their behaviour in a personally or universally beneficial way. Farm subsidies, for instance, make it possible for economies in which farming is not the most profitable use of land to remain self sufficient in food production, which is viewed as a strategically important goal from the point of view of national or regional defence.

It is undoubtedly true that markets can adapt to a wide range of circumstances, although the adaptation only occurs when the problem becomes imminent and pressing, resulting in periods of rationing, inflation, stagnation and occasionally war.

In the 18th century, the ability to determine the longitude of a vessel on the ocean became a pressing problem, demanding a technological solution. In order to encourage the market to deliver a solution, the British parliament announced a prize of £20,000 for the person who solved the problem. It was what we might today call an 'X-Prize', and it worked. The prize was announced in 1714, and was won by John Harrison after a lifetime's work in 1759, a period of 45 years.

Other X-Prizes have been used since then to rebalance the market in order to apply pressure to produce innovation. The term X-Prize itself refers to one of these, the Ansari X-Prize, which was a $10 million prize for the development of a reusable, low-cost suborbital space plane. The prize was won in 2004, 43 years after the first manned space flight.

We apparently don't have 43 years to solve the Peak Oil problem. But we do have the Internet, and a a number of people around the world who are interested in investigating new energy sources, some of whom have been doing so for many years.

Since the timescales are so short, we need to apply exceptional pressure to the market to produce a solution. The goal is so important, and so fundamental to the continued existence of most of humanity, that almost any prize would seem insignificant.

I suggest a prize of 1 billion dollars, payable in gold or any other commodity that the recipients wish. The provision of the prize needs to be looked at as a logistical, rather than a financial problem, since after Peak Oil, money is rapidly going to become a representation of resources that simply do not exist.

The prize would need to be raised through donations, with a proportion of the money to be spent on raising public awareness of the Peak Oil issue, and thus encouraging further donations.

This approach is necessary for the following reasons: Governments cannot admit to a problem of this magnitude that they have clear way of solving - it would be political suicide. Energy companies have little incentive to find a solution, as they are do well out of a market in which demand outstrips supply. So it's up to us.

A charitable foundation would need to be set up to accept donations towards the prize, to publicise the Peak Oil problem and to award the prize when a solution is found, subject to the consent of the donors.

In order to ensure that profiteering from the new technology is impossible, a condition for entering the competition would be that there is to be no proprietary, copyrighted, trademarked or patented knowhow or designs. All information pertaining to the work must be open source, freely copyable and distributable, with or without modification, and with this condition applying to any copies made. Profits could be made by companies manufacturing the devices based on their ability to provide them at a competitive price relative to other manufacturers.

The devil is undoubtedly in the detail, and the conditions for the award of the prize - for example if there are multiple contributors - and many other details, would need to be discussed and agreed before such an project could begin.

Maybe there is somebody here who could make this happen, or who could use the idea as a starting point for something better. I hope so!

[RonMN]

I think an X-prize would be a great idea! I've been toying with an idea based on an OLD OLD toy called the magnetic gyro-fly wheel (here's a link for those who don't remember it). http://www.physlink.com/estore/cart/Mag ... cfm?SID=37

I was thinking that if it were made much larger, and the wheel was actually a generator/turbine...Then the only input needed would be to raise & lower 1 end at the appropriate timming & let gravity do all the work. The energy created could be transmitted up the metal frame. Only problem is i'm not an electrical engineer...so if anybody wants to run with the idea...feel free (just drop me 10%)

[gt1370a]

I see a couple of pitfalls here... One is that the energy sector doesn't need to be subsidized like pleasure flights into space. If someone came up with an alternative to oil, it would likely be worth trillions of dollars. They would be foolish to sell it for the billion-dollar prize.

However, along this same line of though, it has been suggested that a new Manhattan Project-type effort is needed for energy, and that is probably true...

[Kingcoal]

In today's free market capitalistic economy where a good enough story will entice investors to give you billions, I don't think an "X prize" is needed. For example, if someone can demonstrate a working, zero point energy device which passes peer review, that person would very quickly become filthy rich assuming the IP was protected properly. Instead a measly billion, this person would be looking at Warren Buffet class wealth.

The larger problem is that we've had a comparatively free ride for a long time and the alternatives to the free ride all cost something. Our economy, running out of free passes, must adapt to having to pay. Perhaps it is an understatement, but pain is inevitable.

However, no pain, no gain. Instead of some pie in the sky invention, I think we can do fine with altering our sacred way of life. Our current zoning systems which are based on the out dated suburbanizing and decentralization idea need to be brought in line with the new reality. For the past 50 years or so, people have consistently moved further and further from their places of work in search of a more peaceful lifestyle and more house for their buck. Cheap gas made this the thing to do. However, look at the effect it's had on our highways. They can't be built and expanded fast enough.

From powering the vehicles for their 200 mile daily commutes, to building and maintaining the highways, all this hyper-suburbanization makes for enormous use of hydrocarbons. There is fantastic opportunity for conservation in America. If everyone who can carpool would do so, we would immediately save not only lots of hydrocarbons, but free-up bandwidth on the highways. Going back to intelligent zoning, grouping workplaces and homes near public transit facilities, would make America look like it did pre-oil. America would start to look more like Europe.

For some reason, people see this as unrealistic. I see it as not only realistic, but inevitable. There is no reason for the US to use more oil than the whole EU! Yet it does. As we reduce our energy usage, alternatives will become more practical. In the end, I think that humanity will be better off.

I think that an invention or inventions will come, but they will come when they come, not at our convenience!