Archive for the ‘government’ Category

Pundits: if we don’t pay now we’ll pay later

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

Lots of deep thinking going on in the media in recent days.

Scientific American’s David Biello asks If the world is going to hell, why are humans doing so well? He looks at research studying the question of humanity’s gains in the face of ecological degradation. The answer: as long as we can feed ourselves through farming we’re not too bothered as a species by global warming, pollution and all the rest — but this won’t last forever and there’s likely to be hell to pay down the line.

Technology Review’s David Rotman explores the question of how we’re going to pay for the costly transition away from fossil fuels in Cash for Infrastructure. Sadly, there’s no answer. Even a major increase in government investment isn’t going to be enough. Meanwhile, the flow of federal dollars is slowing. Although money spent on research and development could lead to breakthroughs, it’s not likely to be enough by itself.

Venture capitalist Rob Day looks at the same issue in his Cleantech Investing blog post All you need is… R&D? He points out that recent calls from people like Bill Gates for government and industry to pour money into energy innovation don’t address the whole problem. Energy markets hold barriers to innovation.

Day says the key is funding deployment:

“There are deep, deep needs for capital elsewhere in cleantech than just in the R&D lab. So-called “first projects”, the first production facilities for a new product, are infamously difficult to finance.

Elsewhere, customers may balk at a 3-year payback period but would gladly take on the cost-saving product if it was offered as a lease (thus saving money from day one), but that requires the vendor to provide the financing. Services — the businesses that would actually be doing the installation of the hoped-for disruptive innovations — remain very difficult to raise capital for.”

Earth2Tech’s Katie Fehrenbacher points out that projections that the global energy storage market will reach $35 billion by 2020 mean that this critical component of the clean energy revolution will be worth in 10 years what Facebook is expected to fetch if it goes public next year.

A common theme running through all these articles — if we don’t pay a lot now will pay even more later.

What price clean energy?

Friday, August 20th, 2010

One thing I tend to harp on is the need for a price on carbon emissions, particularly as an important mechanism for driving the deployment of renewable energy sources. A firm price on carbon will drive up the cost of gasoline, which in turn will alter people’s transportation behavior.

The picture is much more complicated for electricity generation.

Sean Casten of Recycled Energy Development has a nice explanation on Grist: Electricity markets are weird: why a carbon price isn’t enough. The main points:

  • building power plants takes a lot of capital
  • the Clean Air Act gives older coal plants a pass
  • regulated monopolies aren’t markets
  • deregulated electricity markets are too short-term

Another key point: “The carbon price required to shut down dirty generation is not sufficient to bring clean generation on line.”

All the more reason for massive government investment.

Fossil fuel subsidies by the numbers

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

The International Energy Agency has fossil fuel subsidies in its sights. The agency’s report The World Energy Outlook 2010, due out November 9, will include a special focus on the subject.

The agency released preliminary highlights showing that worldwide fossil fuel subsidies are higher than previously thought. They rose from $342 billion in 2007 to to $557 billion in 2008.

The highlights also include some of the benefits of cutting those subsidies. Here’s an excerpt:

Compared with a baseline in which subsidy rates remain unchanged, IEA modelling indicates that phase out between 2011 and 2020 would:
§ Cut primary global energy demand by 5.8% by 2020. This is equivalent to the current energy consumption of Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand combined.
§ Cut global oil demand by 6.5 mb/d in 2020, predominately in transport sector. This is around one third of current US oil demand.
§ Reduce CO2 emissions by 6.9% by 2020 – or 2.4 GT of CO2. This is equivalent to the current emissions of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK combined.

Charts and graphs from the preliminary report are here.

Climate and energy bill goes public

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

The American Power Act made its debut today. The climate and energy bill was introduced by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. The wide-ranging bill includes a section on supporting clean energy research and development that singles out ARPA-E, the Department of Energy’s funding program for high-risk, high-reward research.

The Clean Energy Technology Research and Development section of the bill calls for “significant continuing support” for developing energy technologies that

  • Reduce imports of energy from foreign sources
  • Reduce energy-related pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions
  • Improve the energy efficiency of one or more economic sectors

It’ll be interesting to see what “significant” turns out to be, assuming the bill passes.

Here’s some coverage of the bill:

Details of new Senate climate bill, Reuters
Senate Energy Bill Unveiled, Technology Review
Senate Climate Bill Makes Its Debut, New York Times

Domesticating wind

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

A pair of Climatewire articles examine emerging stress points as the US begins to integrate sizable amounts of wind power into the electrical grid. Wind’s intermittency makes it a difficult fit in an aging system designed to balance supply and demand in real time.

Predicting Wind Power’s Growth — an Art That Needs More Science looks at the tussle over paying for improved wind forecasting.

Do the Rules of the Nation’s Electric Grid Discriminate Against Wind Power? looks at regulatory biases against wind power inherent in a system made for fossil fuel and nuclear power.

I like the suite of technological solutions to the problem. These include

  • making the grid more nimble and responsive, which will improve its ability to handle intermittent power sources
  • interconnecting wind farms, which will average out some of the intermittency
  • developing large-scale energy storage systems, which will help buffer wind power

The problem with technological fixes is cost. I can’t help but imagine how much faster these solutions would reach the market if we had a price on carbon emissions.

Fine-grained predictions

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

A US government program to develop better tools for predicting climate change aims to reduce the uncertainty of how global warming will change the planet.

Decadal and Regional Climate Prediction Using Earth System Models (EaSM), a joint program of the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture, aims to foster climate models that work on finer geographical and time scales than today’s models.

The government’s announcement stresses expected impacts:

The consequences of climate change are becoming more immediate and profound than anticipated. These consequences include prolonged droughts, increased ecosystem stress, reduced agriculture and forest productivity, altered biological feedbacks, degraded ocean and permafrost habitats and the rapid retreat of glaciers and sea ice — all of which are expected to have major impacts on ecological, economic and social systems as well as on human health.

The models developed with the program’s support promise to aid climate change adaptation:

…planning for the management of food and water supplies, infrastructure construction, ecosystem maintenance, and other pressing societal issues at more localized levels and more immediate time periods…

Metaphorically speaking, this is about battening down the hatches. There was no mention of using the models to better predict what will happen depending on how successfully we curb carbon emissions. Even though climate change adaptation is the program’s focus, it would have been nice to see mitigation or emissions at least mentioned.

No doubt the models will be useful for gauging climate change mitigation efforts, particularly for regional impacts, whatever the stated purpose. And no doubt we’ll need all the help we can get to adapt to the consequences of the changes that are “baked into the system.”

On a related note, Rob Day’s most recent Cleantech Investing blog post gives a snapshot of climate and energy legislation after his visit to DC.

Gore gives us another shot

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Al Gore’s inconvenient reminder in the New York Times left me as depressed as ever about our ability nationally and globally to deal with global warming. He updated the ever-infuriating story of self-interested obstructionism, and pointed out some of the fundamental aspects of the global economy that work against international cooperation (let alone consensus).

The piece was a call to arms, but also pointed out the daunting challenge: “The pathway to success is still open, though it tracks the outer boundary of what we are capable of doing.”

Gore’s concluding call for us to hold politicians accountable begs a couple of questions: do we have the will to do so, and if we do, will our political system let us?

DOE looking to launch battery hub

Monday, February 1st, 2010

The Department of Energy is looking to open a fourth Energy Innovation Hub. They’ve slotted $34 million in the fiscal year 2011 budget request to create a Batteries and Energy Storage hub. Overall, the budget request provides a boost for renewable energy research, including $300 million for ARPA-E and a $40 million increase in funding for Energy Frontier Research Centers. (see DOE budget boosts research)

Obama at MIT

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

I saw Obama’s clean energy speech at MIT today. A crowd of students was there — roped off a good distance away from the packed Kresge Auditorium. Inside were luminaries from MIT, state government and local cleantech companies.

Here’s my blog item for Wired about the speech (it includes a good Obama joke about MIT): Obama Spurs Us On In Clean Energy Race.

All baled up but how far to go?

Monday, August 31st, 2009

Biofuels are tempting because on a superficial level they fit neatly with our industrial economy. Growing and processing feedstock on a large scale should be comfortably within the means of agribusiness. We have a well-developed liquid fuel distribution infrastructure. And our cars and other liquid fueled machines should be able to run on biofuels with minimal modifications.

Under the surface there are a lot of hard technical and economic problems to solve, from finding the best feedstock to turning it into fuel. The Department of Energy is addressing the problem piece by piece. The department just awarded $21 million to five projects that are focused on harvesting, packaging and (in some cases) delivering biomass for biofuels processing.

Not to dismiss the importance of feedstock harvesting and packaging, but the bigger problem is distance. The economies of scale of large biofuel processing plants are offset by the cost of transporting feedstock long distances.

The numbers are leading a lot of people to call for smaller scale distributed biofuels processing. Processing biofuels near to where the feedstock is grown makes sense, but transporting the finished product long distances nixes the benefits of biofuels over fossil fuels.

Can we place the plants close to both the crops and the regional fuel distribution centers?