This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Jean Redfield President & CEO NextEnergy Detroit, MI


jeanr@nextenergy.org


ViewPoints R


ecently I read that global competitiveness comes down to three factors: labor productivity, capital productivity and natural resource productivity. Most people would agree that the United States excels at labor productivity. Since 2000, the US manufacturing sector value of shipments rose 18%, while the number of paid employees in the manufacturing sector dropped 38%, equaling a 90% improvement in labor productivity. We are also starting to hear more about reshoring because, all in, the US is becoming cost competitive with any other manu- facturing location. Our labor may be slightly higher priced, but because of our productivity, quality, innovation, and logistics infrastructure, we are, in fact, cost competitive.


When it comes to capital productivity, the US is the envy of the world.


We have well-developed capital markets that include angel and venture capital for early stage investments, orderly, established private equity and publicly traded markets for later stage, and a world class banking system for working capital and debt. Our public capital may not be as produc- tively deployed as some of our global competitors who develop long term, centralized development plans and then invest in the talent, infrastructure, and business formation/support in order to accomplish them. The US sys- tem for public funding has multiple layers, is largely decentralized and is subject to fits and starts based on election and budget cycles. However, it could be argued that the higher productivity of our private capital markets more than makes up for its weaknesses.


What about natural resource productivity? The US is the second most energy-intensive nation in the world behind Canada. We are about two times more energy intensive than Europe, and four times more energy intensive than China on a kg oil equivalent per person, which is how the World Bank measures energy use. However, energy use per person is not as important as energy use per unit of output. We know that the US is very productive, except that our energy use per unit of output is 160% of Europe’s, and has grown from 61% to 64% of China’s, meaning that we are losing ground. So when it comes to natural resource productivity, as measured by energy intensity, we are not competitive. When we consider other key natural resources like water, land, food (consumption more so than production), metals and minerals, it’s clear that if global competitive-


96 ManufacturingEngineeringMedia.com | June 2013 The US must commit to reducing our energy intensity as a first step


in improving our natural resource productivity. This commitment is criti- cal to US competitiveness. Our abundance of natural resources makes it difficult to argue for aggressive conservation or innovation investments to wean us from depletable natural resources (like fossil fuels) or throw- away single use patterns (like our bottled water use). These investments just don’t seem to pay. However, as global competitiveness becomes more a function of natural resource productivity rather than the quantity of natural resources, it’s imperative that the US make these investments to reduce our energy intensity. This is where advanced energy technolo- gies can make a difference. Investments that can make that difference include energy efficiency


in our buildings and manufacturing processes, and new sources of power generation and distribution that include renewables, energy storage, Direct Current (DC) power networks and micro-grid/smart grid technolo- gies. We also need to work toward the development of new paradigms for transportation including alternative fuels, hybrid, electric and light-weighted vehicles as well as new mobility systems that leverage information and communication technologies to minimize and optimize the movement of goods and people. If the US makes the commitment to these advanced energy technologies and new ways of thinking, we can truly affect our natural resource productivity and, in the long run, improve our global competitiveness. ME


In Support of Advanced Energy Technologies


ness ultimately comes down to natural resource productivity, the US has a great deal of room for improvement.


Energy is the backbone of our economy and our way of life. There is an energy component in every produced good and most services, and it’s involved in everywhere we go and everything we do. Energy is also a key component in water (for treatment and pumping), land (due to our distrib- uted land use and preference for sprawl), and food (due to use of heavy equipment, fertilizers, water, food processing and transportation).


The US is the second most energy-intensive nation in the world behind Canada.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194