Modern technical innovations operate unlike the traditional, pre-industrial advances: they too have their phases of gradual improvements based on tinkering and everyday experiences with running a machine or a process. But the initial accomplishments result almost invariably from deliberate and systematic pursuits of theoretical understanding. Only once that knowledge is sufficiently mastered the process moves to its next stage of experimental design followed by eventual commercialization.

That is precisely how Charles Parsons, Rudolf Diesel, and their collaborators/successors invented and commercialized the two machines that work–unseen and unsung–as the two most important prime movers of modern economies:

steam turbo-generators, which still generate most of the world’s electricity and

diesel engines, which power every tanker and every container ship besides energizing most of the trucks and freight trains.

The process of process is also how we got gas turbines (jet engines) and nuclear reactors, and many other taken-for-granted converters and processes.…

Last month, our friends over at the Heartland Institute published a front-page lead story in the April, 2009 edition of Environment & Climate News. Alyssia Carducci’s “Palin Energy Plan Receives High Praise” begins:

“Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has announced an ambitious plan to produce half of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Palin’s plan, which empowers local municipalities to identify and develop the most cost-efficient renewable power sources available to them, won immediate praise from environmental groups, consumer groups, and industry.”

This article is yet more evidence that the inexplicable conservative love affair with Sarah Palin remains unrequited—at least, when it comes to economic policy in general and energy policy in particular. But Republicans, as the kids might say, “She’s just not that into you.” Let’s examine the litany of problems with Plain’s approach to energy.…

Ed. Note: Today’s post concludes a three-part lookback at Lee R. Raymond (1938–2026), the no-nonsense value-creator at Exxon Mobil (also see Part I and Part II).

The large, ever-growing list of climate “deniers” at DeSmog Blog documents a growing consensus against climate exaggeration and “green” energy inferiority. MasterResource has long documented this “backfire” at this Progressive Left, anti-fossil-fuel UK website.

The energy and climate views of Lee R. Raymond are presented by DeSmog below. Read and decide for yourself; was Exxon/Exxon-Mobil’s leader (1993–2005) correct in his time and today? Many scientific, economic, and political trends, in fact, are moving in the direction that his thinking would support.

Credentials

• Honorary Doctor of Laws, University of Minnesota (May 16, 2011).¹
• PhD, chemical engineering, University of Minnesota (1963).²
• BSc, chemical engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison (1960).

Ed note: The following repost of “BP’s Fall From Grace“(December 2010) by Kevin Mooney is testament to the energy realism of Exxon’s Lee Raymond over the image-over-substance approach of John Browne of BP and Ken Lay of Enron. The lesson is clear: false causes and political correctness result in wasted resources and ecological loss. Part III tomorrow (Part I was yesterday) concludes this week’s tribute to the top integrated oil major leader of his generation.

Once simply called British Petroleum, BP transformed its corporate identity into an international ‘green energy’ company with a sunburst logo and the tag line “Beyond Petroleum.” Environmental groups applauded when BP’s CEO gave credence to alarmist global warming assertions. Little did they know that the company’s rhetorical overtures to green causes deflected attention away from its reckless and irresponsible practices that jeopardized worker health and safety and ultimately resulted in death and devastation in the Gulf of Mexico.…