Here’s we in the United States should be doing now to keep up with the rest of the world’s investment in research and development of green energy technologies:
The United States needs to more than triple its spending on energy research, development and demonstration projects, from about $5 billion now to $16 billion, and should review national energy policy every four years, an advisory group of scientists and engineers said in a report to President Obama this week.
The US is falling behind almost every other major developed country in the world. Look at this chart from 2007 that shows R & D spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product:
Since that time, China has increased its R&D spending on renewable wind energy technology to 10 BILLION DOLLARS alone, or almost half of all the investment in wind powered renewable energy in the entire world. China’s total investment in “cleantech” reached $13.5 BILLION DOLLARS just in the third quarter of this year alone, dwarfing Europe’s investment of $8.5 BILLION for the quarter.
Stephen Chu, Secretary of the Energy Department sounded the alarm about our failure to adequately keep pace with China and other countries in developing clean energy alternatives in a speech on Monday, November 29th in which he warned that America faces a “Sputnik” moment when it comes to the development of clean energy:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu today warned that “time is running out” for the U.S. to be the global leader in clean-energy technologies because China and other countries are racing ahead.
Chu gave a speech at the National Press Club where he suggested that the U.S. is reaching a “Sputnik moment” where political leaders and the general population will realize how the U.S. has fallen behind other countries in science and technology. […]
“America still has the opportunity to lead in a world that will need a new industrial revolution to give us energy we want inexpensively and carbon free,” he said during his presentation, which was Webcast. … “I think time is running out.” […]
He said there are risks in the status quo which were detailed in a report called Business Plan for America’s Future which was authored by business leaders including Bill Gates, venture capital investor John Doerr, GE CEO Jeff Immelt, and former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine.
The report said there are many benefits to moving to a cleaner energy system in the U.S., including public health, protection from climate change, and cleaner air, but none of these are recognized by the free market. Also, the scale of investment required in new energy technologies in beyond the scope of commercial companies, which is why the government should fund research and development.
Cutting research and development during the a slow economic period is “like removing an engine from an overloaded aircraft,” Chu said, quoting former Lockheed Martin CEO Augustine. […]
Chu said the Energy Department has established two new research channels: ARPA-E, which is focused on breakthrough technology research within three to five years, and Energy Innovation Hubs, where larger groups of people at universities focus on specific areas, such as bio energy and building efficiency, for several years.
One lesson that the U.S. can learn from China is the importance of long-term planning and investment, Chu said.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20024018-54.html#ixzz173NjUwiX
You can watch his entire speech to the National Press Club here:
A copy of Chu’s powerpoint presentation (which he was unable to show at the National Press Club) regarding the vital need to immediately increase our investment in clean technology can be downloaded from this link (.pdf) or a link to a .PPD file can be found at this webpage from the Department of Energy website.
I urge you to listen to the entire speech by Secretary Chu and the Question and Answer period that followed. It makes a clear case that government investment in clean technology is critical even in a period of deep recession if we hope to revitalize our economy and maintain our position as an economic power. Otherwise we face a decline that will leave us a second rate power like Russia, or worse. In short, this is the most important national security issue we face, far more important than international terrorism.
Unfortunately, Republicans take a dim view of investment in clean tech. They already intend to eliminate House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. And Rep. Dana Rohrabacher(R-CA), a vehement climate change denier, is making a bid to chair the House Science Committee in order to to denounce “phony science.”
Mr. Rohrabacher has long maintained that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose no threat to the environment and that the scientific basis for man-made climate change is a fraud.
“We must not allow our future to be stolen by hucksters who would frighten us into giving up our birthright in the name of saving the planet,” he said in a lengthy floor speech in March 2009. “It sounds good and noble, as most scams do, but it is just a trick, a hoax.” […]
You think the Republicans in Congress are going to support increased federal investment in the research and development of any energy sources other than corporate welfare for the Big Oil and Big Coal? Do you think the “Party of No” is going to to pass legislation for a massive increase in the development of green tech (a progressive and Democratic proposal) initiative) when their own leaders deny the reality of climate change? Do you think they care about investment in US innovation that won’t benefit their friends at Exxon Mobil and BP, despite the fact that innovators like Bill Gates and other business leaders are advocating government investment to compete effectively with other nations on developing the critical energy infrastructure the world needs? Do you think the GOP gives a damn about the decline in our economy and the loss of critical jobs and capital that the failure to make these investments in research and development for clean tech will do to our country.
Yeah, me neither. Promoting clean technology through government investment isn’t in their DNA. They will spend the next two years pushing an energy policy that will call for more the increase in older technologies, ones that we know damage the environment (off-shore drilling, hydrofracking) and will do little if anything to make us energy independent or increase job growth.
What is worse, do you think the Obama administration will make this a critical issue in the next two years to accentuate a major difference between a corrupt, backward looking Republican Party and a forward looking, progressive Democratic Party truly seeking to improve our economy and increase our national security?
I’d like to say I believe the answer to that question is yes. However, I’ve seen nothing from the Obama administration (other than the efforts of Secretary Chu) to indicate pushing a policy of investment in green technology is a major part of President Obama’s agenda, even as a political strategy for the 2012 elections.
And when you don’t even try, failure is predestined.
Well, if you want a sense of optimism, I’m currently working on a proposal from MIT and Harvard with a team developing wind turbines that can be flown in the sky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_wind_turbine
The only real thing that’s in the way is funding, which is sort of the point Chu is making.
We can send my sector plenty of money to develop the next F-15, though!
Don’t MIT and Harvard have wealthy alums?
This I assume is at the R&D stage.
What is the max size of the load that can be handled? Can a unit be delivered that could produce say the load for a typical US house? And what would be the cost of such a unit (if it comes out at 2 cents a KWH)?
What are the possible complementary funding or alternatives to government funding?
As for your sector, the government sends your sector what the executives of your sector ask for. At the moment military manufacturing seems to be the only comparative advantage that US manufacturing has, and even that is slipping.
The stuff I am researching myself is in the very early development stage. The goal is 100 kW per unit.
However, another group that we’re close to, and one that my research advisor is working for (his paper is due to them sometime today, actually), have a working 20 kW unit that looks like this:
http://www.magenn.com/images/marsPrototype.jpg
I’m not sure I believe them on that number, though, and the inefficiency of the unit is very high (somewhere around 20% efficiency compared with your average ground wind turbine of 45-50%).
But, meh, they say it can get 20 kW, so I’ll just go with it for now.
The goal for cost is to half ground wind turbines and replace offshore wind with these units. I’m not sure that’s going to happen, though. Very rough estimates for cost right now put it at like $0.15 per kW*h using hydrogen as a lifting gas; helium is more expensive than hydrogen, as it’s 7x as expensive right now, and will be 12x as expensive by 2015.
If the model I am working on is actually feasible, which is what we’re investigating, cost should be half of what ground wind turbines currently cost per kW*h.
Some problems right now are that I see are stability issues, which we’re working on right now using fins to counteract moments; the tether spinning, but there’s some technologies that allow the outer jacket to rotate; and we need to develop a dampening system to prevent buffeting.
The model I’m working on looks like this:
http://techcocktail.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/helium-filled-turbines.gif
There were a bunch of alternative energy tax credits in the ARRA, and they have been used. The Department of the Interior is fastracking permits for offshore wind on the Atlantic coast after approving the CapeWind project off Cape Cod. The area of permitting extends from New Jersey to Cape Hatteras, but the South Carolina politicians (Republicans) want South Carolina to be included.
The budget for 2010 had substantial funds for deploying alternative energy and energy conservation within the federal government.
One way to drive down the price of the Volt, for example, would be for the federal government to purchase Volts for uses in urban driving situations of trips of less than 40 miles. That large an order could spread fixed costs (plant, equipment, R&D, administration) over more vehicles. In addition, it could substantially lower the government’s fuel costs.
DoD has programs to move quickly to practical alternative energy solutions for powering the military; there will be a lot of dual-use research there. (Norway has already proven that you can use biofuel for powering jets without mechanical modifications.)
But it’s the politics that needs to be changed before the Republicans start putting provisions in legislation that forbid and cancel these initiatives. Because they will, as sure a Gov. Christie will cancel a transit tunnel and Gov. Kasich will cancel needed rail improvements.
We mustn’t respond to Sputnik. The horse and carriage industry would be hurt by it, it would give the Communists too much credit, and besides, it would make President Eisenhower look good.
I don’t care what our scientists say. They never launched it.
When the stimulus funding bought wind energy, we bought it from China. So, of the 3 billion or so, 2.5 billion went to the Chinese, not to US startups building or designing green energy.
When the stimulus money went for solar, it went to Spanish companies. So, instead of building a solar company and funding US technology, we funded Spanish technology.
From the start, the money has been sent abroad instead of funding technology here. Insane.