WattHead - Energy News and Commentary

An earthquake, in Virginia??

2011-08-23T15:50:00.000-07:00

This is a guest post by Rebecca Anderson, ACE Sierra's Educator and Team Scientist

This is weird. Today at 1:51 pm Eastern time a 5.9 magnitude earthquake struck northwest of Richmond, VA. It was felt as far north as New York City.

Being a native East-coaster myself, I can tell you that we don’t get earthquakes in that part of the country. This means people, buildings and bridges are pretty unprepared for an event like this. Thankfully, I haven’t heard any reports of fatalities or serious injuries yet and hopefully that continues.

But this earthquake has got me thinking. Earthquakes have nothing to do with climate change. We know this. Some quakes can strike out of the blue, like this one, in such a random place that there’s no way you could have predicted it. But other places, like along the San Andreas fault in California, you know that living there goes along with the risk of earthquakes. Scientists put a lot of work into calculating those risks and buildings and bridges are built accordingly.

In this way, earthquakes give us a good analogy for dealing with climate change. The risks are understood and the precautions to minimize the risks are also known. You never know on a given day, even in California, if an earthquake is going to strike or not. Likewise, you never know when a big storm, flood or wildfire will hit. But, much like living along the San Andreas fault, with climate change we know that the chances of these events happening – flooding of the Mississippi, drought in Texas, wildfires in the southwest, this summer’s heat wave – are going up. As the venerable Stephen Schneider said, “We are loading the dice.”

Here’s where we get to the difference. Earthquakes are caused by nothing less than seismic ruptures deep inside the Earth, set off by the forces of plate tectonics. There’s not a lot we can do about that. Climate change, on the other hand, we know we can do something about. The cause of this problem is us and that means the solution can be, is and will be u

One of the best parts of my job with ACE is that I know this. I see it every week at high schools in Sacramento, Reno and in between. Those were my kids who started the Eco Warriors Action Team at Reed High in Sparks, NV. Inspired by ACE, they won $12,000 to green their school’s bathrooms. That was my girl, Laura Dang from West Campus High in Sacramento, showing off not just her DOT (Do One Thing to help the environment), but her 15 DOTs in ACE’s DOT Detectives contest this summer.

One of the coolest things I read about the earthquake is that people were getting tweets about it happening in DC just seconds before they actually felt the quake itself. That means with technology, we are faster even that those speedy P waves. Imagine what we’re capable of!

We know it: Climate change is not an earthquake. It’s our mess, we made it and we gotta solve it. Thousands of young people across the country are heading back to school, rejoining their ACE Action Teams and getting to work.

Step 1: Solve climate change.

Step 2: Stop plate tectonics.

National Journal: Surviving the Coming Clean Tech Crash

2011-08-17T18:10:00.000-07:00

Over at the National Journal's Energy forum, my Breakthrough Institute colleague Alex Trembath and I have a new submission to their ongoing discussion asking "How Can Washington Green America's Economy?" Here's the full text...

Before discussing the best way to green the economy, it’s important to note that the U.S. economy has been greening steadily over the past three years. Buoyed by the policies established and extended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the largest federal investment in clean tech in American history, the clean energy industry has experienced precipitous growth, as documented by Mark Muro and colleagues at the Brookings Metro program in their recent "Sizing the Clean Economy" report.

Unfortunately, the path of progress may be coming to an end. Our research shows that over 70% of the federal policies and funding support for clean energy that has catalyzed the recent growth of the industry is expected to lapse in the next three years, or has already expired. And make no mistake—clean energy is an industry dependent on government subsidy: tax credits, depreciation and other subsidies compose one third or more of the total after-tax value of most solar, wind or other renewable energy projects, for example. So while ARRA provided a “down payment” on a green economy, as these public investments fade away, we are now more likely to witness a clean tech crash than a clean tech revolution.

As the current programs supporting clean energy, like the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Section 1603 Treasury Grants, approach their expiration, there are a number of steps the federal government can and must take to avert an impending industry crash.

The first would be to get serious about the long-term energy innovation challenge. Until clean energy becomes cheap and cost competitive without subsidy, the pace of clean energy growth will remain constrained and the markets will face continual risk of industry busts if subsidy and policy support changes. We must treat energy innovation with the same priority we afford other national innovation quests, such as the Apollo or Manhattan Projects or the quest to cure cancer. We must invest far more -- eventually on the order of $15 billion annually -- and far more wisely -- restructuring America's energy innovation system and supporting effective new policy models such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs), and new public-private regional innovation consortia.

Second, Congress can establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA). CEDA would act as a public investment bank whose mission is to help leverage private-sector investment to bring emerging, innovative clean technologies to commercial maturity. CEDA would bridge the commercialization “Valley of Death” and provide a viable and predictable development path for technologies from the laboratory to grid-scale deployment. The Congressional Budget Office calculates that the agency would cost just $1.1 billion over the next four years. While leveraging billions more in private sector investment, the public bank would return profits from investments and financial products to the fund, making CEDA self-sustaining over time.

Another needed policy change is to reform the current clean energy deployment subsidy regime for maturing energy technologies, which today is comprised of a hodgepodge of tax credits like the PTC and the Investment Tax Credit, depreciation benefits and grants that primarily incentivize firms to deploy more of the same, current-generation technology. Instead, we need a smarter new deployment mechanism that is disciplined and designed to drive technology innovation to decrease the unsubsidized cost of clean energy so that it can be competitive without perpetual subsidy. Such a policy could augment a national renewable or clean energy standard (RES/CES) with a set of technology tiers based on technology maturity, which would provide the incentive for utilities to adopt and deploy clean energy technologies across a range of maturities, and demand continual cost reductions from technology firms over time. One way to augment this smart deployment policy would be with a small price on carbon, wires fee on electricity, or oil import fee, which instead of returning a dividend to consumers would generate dedicated revenues for a federal energy R&D fund to help support the continual innovation needed to get clean tech costs down to parity with fossil competitors.

The fate of many ARRA policies remains uncertain, and the unpredictable political machinations of the “supercongress” and ongoing deficit debate in Washington bring yet more volatility to the clean tech policy debate. Nobody expects a second down payment on the green economy on the scale of the last several years. But as current subsidy support runs out, Washington must support the industry by investing more and differently in clean energy innovation to maintain America’s position in the global clean tech race and avoid an ongoing cycle of clean tech boom-and-bust in the future.

Say No to 'No Nukes' Revival

2011-08-04T12:23:00.000-07:00

My colleague Sara Mansur & I have an op ed in today's San Francisco Chronicle, issuing a stern rebuttal to the revival of the "No Nukes" concerts this Sunday at Shoreline in Mountain View, CA.

The world has changed since the original five-night concert series in 1979. An anti-nuclear position may have made good sense then, but is no longer tenable today.

Graham Nash and the MUSE cadre of septuagenerian rockers appear woefully ignorant of the real intergenerational threat faced in the 21st century -- climate change -- and the implications that a 'No Nukes' world would have for public health and the environment.

You can find the print edition in today's Chronicle and an extended edition online here.

UNIDO: Does energy efficiency lead to increased energy consumption?

2011-06-30T16:23:00.000-07:00

In the pages of United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)'s Making It quarterly magazine, I and my colleague and Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow Harry Saunders published an article explaining the impact and implications of the energy demand "rebound effect" spurred on by energy efficiency.

The article builds upon the Breakthrough Institute's "Energy Emergence: Rebound and Backfire as Emergent Phenomena," a comprehensive literature review pointing to the expert consensus and evidence that below-cost energy efficiency measures drive a rebound in energy consumption that can erode much of expected energy savings.

Read the full article: "Hot topic: Does energy efficiency lead to increased energy consumption?," Making It June, 2011

In the article, we argue:

Truly cost-effective energy efficiency measures lower the effective price of the services derived from fuel consumption - heating, cooling, transportation, industrial processes, etc. - leading consumers and industry alike to demand more of these services. There are other indirect and economy-wide effects as well, as consumers re-spend money saved through efficiency on other energy-consuming goods and services, industrial sectors adjust to changes in the relative prices of final and intermediate goods, and greater energy productivity causes the economy as a whole to grow. Collectively, these economic mechanisms drive a rebound in demand for energy services that can erode much - and in some cases all - of the expected reductions in total energy use, along with much-hoped-for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, rebound effects are often most pronounced in the productive sectors of the economy, including industry and agriculture, as well as throughout the world's emerging economies.

...

Conventional climate mitigation strategies count on energy efficiency to do a great deal of work. For example, the IEA in a global climate stabilization scenario published by the agency in December 2009, estimates that efficiency measures could account for roughly half of the emissions reductions needed. Yet, from a climate or global resource conservation perspective, rebound effects mean that for every two steps forward taken through greater efficiency, rebounds take us one (or more) steps backwards. This is particularly true throughout the developing world, and in the productive sectors of the global economy.

A clear understanding of rebound effects therefore demands a fundamental re-assessment of energy efficiency’s role in global climate mitigation efforts.

A continued failure to accurately and rigorously account for rebound effects risks an over-reliance on the ability of efficiency to deliver lasting reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Without a greater emphasis on the other key climate mitigation lever at our disposal – the de-carbonization of global energy supplies through the deployment and improvement of low-carbon energy sources – the global community will fall dangerously short of climate mitigation goals.

At the same time, however, we can re-affirm the role of energy efficiency efforts in expanding human welfare and fueling global economic development. Unlocking the full potential of efficiency may very well mean the difference between a richer, more efficient world, and a poorer, less efficient world. The former is clearly the desirable case – even if the world uses more or less the same amount of energy in either scenario.

The pursuit of any and all cost-effective efficiency opportunities should thus continue as a key component of an efficient course for global development, even as we reconsider the degree to which these measures can contribute to climate mitigation efforts.

You can also find an introductory FAQ on the rebound effect here.

5 Reasons I Love the Solar Panel Industry

2011-06-24T08:09:00.000-07:00

Its funny how a simple thing like a computer virus can make take a step back appreciate your business. This morning a virus shut down my computer and let me have some time to just think about the business I have. (Anyone else notice how useless you are without a computer these days?)

And in thinking about my business I was able to break down what I love about this industry and why.

1. The People

The people in the solar power industry are different. They get it. Sure there are some jerks and scam artists, but for the most part they people in this business are here because they are passionate about renewable energy and want their work to make a difference. And this translates to how they relate to others and conduct themselves. And the customers that are interested in solar panels usually share the enthusiasm and become infected by it.

2. The Purpose

In my previous business I owned a concrete and excavation company. And my purpose was to make as much money as possible. I wanted to do good work, and provide a living for my employees, but at the end of the day there was very little satisfaction. With solar, I know that even a little system is going to provide clean energy instead of using fossil fuels, and that is very satisfying. Knowing that I can make a good living and help people and the planet? Slam dunk.

3. The Science

I’ll admit it, I’m no genius. How solar power actually works is still a bit of a mystery to me. I know the basics of photons and electrons and yada yada. But how this wonderful science came to be and how we actually turn sunshine into power still amazes me. Making something powerful and wonderful out of something you can’t really see sounds like the stuff of children’s books, and the child in me loves it for that reason.

4. The Technology

I love it that this business changes, if even a little, everyday. All over the world, at any given moment, someone is having a ‘Eureka’ moment in a lab somewhere that will improve how solar power works for us. Whether its more efficient solar panels, racking systems, inverter technology or even financing, millions of people worldwide are working their butts off to make this technology more viable and more affordable.

5. The Future

I’ve never had a business where I could look into the future and say “In 10 years, this industry will be lightyears ahead of where we are now”. Whether its rules requiring solar panels on all buildings (eg in Japan), costs being cut in half, or just widespread acceptance of solar as an alternative to dirty fuels, the future is bright. There will be bumps and misses and setbacks, but the future belongs to solar.

Kriss Bergethon is an entrepreneur and solar writer from Colorado, visit his site at Solar Panels for more information.

Webinar - Fukushima and Nuclear Power: Can we live without it?

2011-06-20T10:12:00.000-07:00

Live Webcast June 29, 3 PM ET / 12 PM PT

Following the earthquake and tsunamis that tragically impacted Japan in March, the unfolding crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has captured public attention for months. Energy experts are now questioning the long term impact of the Fukushima disaster on nuclear policy, international power generation, and the global carbon picture:

How has the Fukushima crisis impacted public opinion and policy debates about nuclear energy?

What do countries like Japan and Germany stand to gain or lose by giving up nuclear power generation?

What is the carbon cost of giving up nuclear plants?

How will countries that move away from nuclear make up that power elsewhere?

Has the demise of the nuclear industry been exaggerated? While some countries are taking aggressive steps away from nuclear, some accounts suggest that overall, the number of nuclear plants continues to grow.

Join The Energy Collective's latest webcast as we seek answers to these questions and discuss nuclear power's role in our energy future. Register here today.

You'll hear from:

Matthew Wald is a Reporter for the Washington Bureau at The New York Times, covering environmental and energy issues, as well as transportation, aviation and highway safety. Having joined The Times in October 1976 as a news clerk in the newspaper’s Washington bureau, Wald held positions at the New York metropolitan desk, the State Capitol in Hartford, and as a national correspondent, covering a variety of areas including housing and nuclear power, before joining the Washington bureau in September 1996. Wald has covered the Fukushima crisis extensively in the New York Times.

Edward Kee is a VP at NERA Economic Consulting and a specialist in the electricity industry with experience in nuclear power, electricity markets, restructuring, regulation, private power, and related issues. For more than 20 years, he has provided testimony as an expert witness on a range of electricity industry issues in state and federal courts, before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and before other legal and regulatory bodies in the US and around the world. Mr. Kee also provides strategic advice to companies and governments on issues related to the nuclear and electricity industries. Mr. Kee holds an MBA from Harvard University and a BS in Systems Engineering from the US Naval Academy.

Jesse Jenkins is Director of Energy and Climate Policy at theBreakthrough Institute, and is one of the country's leading energy and climate policy analysts and advocates. He is the co-author with Devon Swezey of the "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" report on global clean energy competitiveness strategies, and is currently working on an update to the report. Jesse has written for publications including the San Francisco Chronicle, Baltimore Sun, Yale Environment 360, Grist.org, and HuffingtonPost.com, and his published works on energy policy have been cited by many more. He is founder and chief editor of WattHead - Energy News and Commentary and a featured writer at the Energy Collective.

Marc Gunther is a veteran journalist, speaker, writer and consultant whose focus is business and sustainability. Marc is a contributing editor at FORTUNE magazine, a senior writer atGreenbiz.com, and a lead blogger at The Energy Collective. He's also a husband and father, a lover of the outdoors and a marathon runner. Marc is the author or co-author of four books, including Faith and Fortune: How Compassionate Capitalism is Transforming American Business. He's a graduate of Yale who lives in Bethesda, MD.

ACE students offer White House fresh ideas to spur energy efficiency

2011-06-14T12:06:00.000-07:00

Shreya Indukuri and Daniela Lapidous, ACE Youth Advisory Board members and juniors at the Harker School in San Jose, CA, paid a visit to the White House yesterday, but they didn't just go for a tour. Through working with ACE, this energy-smart duo is scaling up their efforts to spur efficient energy use in America’s high schools – and sharing their ideas with America’s leaders.

Yesterday, in front of an invite-only audience of CEOs, White House advisors, and utility industry leaders, Shreya and Daniela shared the story of how they reduced their school’s energy use by 13 percent and founded their own non-profit, SmartPowerEd.

They shared a stage with U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu; Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack; Director of the Office of Science and Technology, John Holdren; and Chairperson of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Nancy Sutley.

In their talk, they let our leaders know that young people care about the future and energy use, and that they are ready to get involved with solutions. They closed with two questions for Secretary Chu and others: how are you going to harness the potential of young people? How are you going to prioritize energy education and inspire young people to act?

You can see a video of their talk with White House officials here. More to come from ACE's Emily Adler, who accompanied Shreya and Daniela to the event. What a day!

How Much Gas Do You Use? Track Gas Use With This New Widget.

2011-05-26T11:27:00.001-07:00

As the Memorial Day Weekend approaches, many of us are planning road trips — according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), over 30 million Americans will get in their personal vehicles for a weekend get-away, with many driving hundreds of miles.

Although gas prices have dropped slightly during the past few weeks, they are still a dollar per gallon higher than they were one year ago at this time. These prices have made many of us think hard about the efficiency of our vehicles — how much is it costing us to drive?

We have developed a tool to help you determine the costs of driving your car or truck, including how much carbon dioxide (CO2) your vehicle produces. Carbon dioxide is a key greenhouse gas that is contributing to global warming. Using the tool below, select your state, your car’s gas mileage, and how many miles you drive in a typical year (default values are set to national averages).

This widget — which you are welcome to embed on your webpage — also displays the CO2 emissions that result from a particular amount of driving. Gas price data are automatically updated daily from the AAA.

Weighing in on the Gas Tax Debate

2011-05-05T17:48:00.000-07:00

By Jesse Jenkins and Sara Mansur

Kevin Drum's recent post on the low price elasticity of demand for oil has reignited an old debate over gas taxes and energy innovation.

Drum draws our attention to some "eye popping" figures for price elasticity of demand for oil from the IMF. According to Drum, these elasticities mean that, in the short term, a 50 percent increase in price leads to a 1.2 percent decrease in consumption. In the long term, it leads to a 4.7 percent decrease.

Conservative blogger Jim Manzi rightly points out that, with elasticities as low as these, a gas tax at any politically realistic level is not going to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Specifically, to the extent that we continue to progress in making non-fossil-fuels technology cheaper and more effective for an ever wider array of applications, we can accelerate the ongoing de-carbonization of our economy. The idea of economists to use artificial scarcity pricing to do this is aggressively marketed in blogs, magazines and TV shows, but is extremely unlikely to work, because the current price elasticity of oil is so low. The work of engineers and physical scientists, however, is likely to be determinative.

In response, several bloggers have argued that these elasticities are underestimated, pointing to the unreliability of estimates of long-run price elasticity of oil demand in general and to other literature with higher estimates than the IMF study. While the IMF estimates are low, revised estimates certainly aren't so high as to penalize consumption, particularly in the absence of viable, and cheap alternatives to fossil-fuel based technologies.

This brings us to a second, crucial reason that a gas tax won't solve our dependence on foreign oil. As Matt Hourihan of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation argues on Andrew Sullivan's blog, price hikes alone won't do much to spur clean energy innovation, mostly because of the risks inherent with nascent, early-stage technologies, risks that private companies aren't willing to bear on their own.

The problem is that just as price changes have to be severe to manifest any impacts on gas consumption, price changes on their own also tend not to do much to inspire the development of radical new tech solutions, unless prices are through the roof. This is mainly due to the high levels of risk and uncertainty that come with new tech: private firms would generally rather seek out low-risk, low-cost alternatives (i.e. more efficient internal processes or capital goods) than to invest time and effort into developing high-risk, initially-high cost alternatives (i.e. hydrogen fuel cells). It takes a real, permanent shock to get any real effects, and suffice to say the American political system is unlikely to ever pass a gas tax high enough to drive these kinds of changes.

Hourihan points to the European example, where, despite significantly higher gas prices than in the US, the population is still dependent on fossil fuels, and high gas prices haven't led to the widespread uptake of electric cars.

But this doesn't mean that a gas tax doesn't have a place in a smart model for a clean energy infrastructure. As Ryan Avent noted last summer, a $5 per barrel oil tax could raise about $40 billion annually. That's the equivalent of about 12 cents per gallon of gasoline -- certainly not enough to seriously alter consumer behavior, but $40 billion in revenues is enough to fund the development and construction of an improved clean energy infrastructure.

As the Breakthrough Institute has previously argued, a low and politically sustainable carbon tax or gas tax or other fee on today's energy consumption, coupled with direct federal investments in innovation, will go a long way towards developing the clean energy infrastructure of the future. In fact, the revenues raised by a carbon or gas tax could be used to fund the public-private partnerships that have so successfully spurred private sector innovation in the past.

The mental model for this effort shouldn't be the high gas taxes of Europe - designed as they are to penalize consumption (and relatively ineffective at doing so). Rather the right precedent is the relatively low gas taxes of the United States, which raise revenues dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund.

The reasons for developing a cleaner, safer, more secure energy system are well known. What we need is a user fee charged for the enjoyment of today's affordable and efficient energy infrastructure, used to generate revenues set aside and specifically tasked with building the affordable, efficient, and improved energy infrastructure of tomorrow.

Whether imposed on oil or gasoline or electricity or on all carbon fuels, such a user fee would amount to pennies on the gallon for consumers. But it would ensure that we dedicate the tens of billions needed nationally to develop and deploy the clean, reliable, and affordable energy sources of tomorrow.

In sum, carbon pricing or gas taxes alone won't lead to breakthrough energy innovations. What will lead us there are directed government investments in energy innovation, in which a smart user fee on energy consumption or carbon emissions can play an important, but fundamentally different (and less central role) as envisioned by conventional cap and trade, carbon tax, and gas tax proponents.

Unified Diversity - lessons from PowerShift '11

2011-04-27T10:34:00.000-07:00

By Daniela Lapidous, high school junior at the Harker School in San Jose, CA, and member of the ACE Youth Advisory Board

Phew… it’s been a week since one of the most amazing weekends of my life.

You see, from April 15-18, fellow ACE Youth Advisory Board member Shreya Indukuri and I got the chance to attend PowerShift in Washington, D.C. and it was INCREDIBLE!

Basically, it was a gathering of about 10,000 inspiring young people rallying for clean energy action - you can read more about our trip on the blog post Washington D.C.'s awesome regional educator, Daisy, wrote up.

Besides the details of who we met and what we said, I guess one thing I still marvel at when I look back at the experience is the unified diversity we saw there. (Attack of the oxymorons!)

The thousands of college students there came from all walks of life – from all parts of the country – from all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. We don’t listen to the same music, we don’t all say “hella”, and we probably don’t even have the same definitions of what being completely “green” looks like – but we were all there, being united by the issue of clean energy! Who expected that?

The fact is, everyone should have expected that, because the issue of climate change and clean energy deserve to unify us all.

Shreya and I met people who are being affected by these issues now. We met Cassie, a 17 year-old activist from Southern California who got asthma because of pollution-emitting factories in her city. We met countless people who live next to toxic waste, who have seen extreme weather, and who are seeing pollution destroy their communities. We heard stories of people in Appalachia who are suffering enormously because of mountaintop removal (for the sake of coal mining!).

Climate change and dirty energy are not issues that will "someday" affect our "grandchildren" - they are right here, right now. It's only a matter of time before they show up on all of our doorsteps and force us to work together, whether we like it or not.

There was also the diversity of people we met outside of PowerShift. We met Aneesh Chopra, the Chief Technology Officer of the US, and Arun Majumdar, the director of ARPA-E (an innovative energy research department of the government).

Let’s face the facts: Shreya and I are still high school juniors. We are from California, and we do not wear business clothes on a regular basis. We have APs next week and prom in two weeks. We are very different from the high-level executives we were lucky enough to meet.

But hearing about a low-cost, very effective solution to energy efficiency – the smart meters that we are installing at high schools – was positive for everyone! Mr. Chopra and Mr. Majumdar were both impressed that we saved 13% off our school’s energy bill in one year and they want all of the schools in the country to get involved.

No matter how different you are, passion and simple solutions can inspire and connect people – “environmentalists” and “non-environmentalists” alike. When you share your story, people are inspired to craft their own.

So, go – it’s not hard to find a diverse group of people, or a diverse group of problems, or a diverse world out there… but it’s your job to find the one way to communicate climate change in a way that will unify your audience.

You, the reader, and I are probably pretty different, too. But we're also pretty alike, because Shreya and I are average students who just sat in an ACE assembly two years ago and were inspired to act. Last weekend, we couldn’t believe we were standing in front of the White House as part of this chain of events. The fact is – this could be you. This WILL be you, because - since you're reading this - we're connected by at least a spark of inspiration to act on climate change.

Now get offline and... go unify some diversity or something!

Interactive Map: All the World's Nuclear Reactors

2011-04-25T19:46:00.000-07:00

Cross posted from Climate Central.

To better understand the state of the nuclear power industry, Climate Central has built the following interactive map of nuclear facilities as reported by the World Nuclear Association. This map shows every nuclear reactor that has ever been connected to the electric grid, as well as a number of plants (though not all) that are planned. The table beneath the map — which will fill in once you press “play” — shows how many power plants have been built during each decade.

How To Use This Map:

Toggle the different categories of power plants (operating, shut down, etc.) on and off by using the check boxes at the bottom right. Multiple reactors are typically co-located, so you might not see them unless you deselect other categories. To learn more about a reactor, click on it to see its vital statistics, as well as a link to the World Nuclear Association, where you can find more facts about each.

Click “Play” to watch how the global nuclear power industry has changed over time, with reactor startups and retired reactor shutdowns. Note that while the timeline is playing, you cannot check or uncheck the boxes.

This data was last updated prior to the nuclear crisis at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi power plant. Since then a number of power plants have been shut down in Japan, and a few in Germany are also temporarily closed.

Why did most countries stop building power plants in the 1990s and 2000s?

The table beneath the map tells a dramatic story: 391 reactors were built between 1970 and 1990, but only 92 were built between 1990 and 2010. In the United States, where 104 reactors currently provide electricity, only five reactors have been built since 1990. Why?

Many point to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 (see Mike Lemonick's story on the fact that this event is still unfolding), and the Three Mile Island Accident in 1979 as reasons that the public turned against nuclear power. Yet, in the United States, the nuclear industry was already slowing down before Three Mile Island.

In the U.S., many orders for new nuclear power plants were cancelled in the late '70s and '80s largely because the costs of building plants were more expensive than coal or natural gas-fired power plants. One important reason that costs escalated was growing public opposition to building new plants, and unresolved safety and cost questions about radioactive waste disposal and plant decommissioning. These concerns increased legal costs and dramatically extended the time required to build a nuclear plant. Thus, construction costs escalated. Another important reason is that the massive size of nuclear reactors and lack of standardization in technology required each power plant to be more or less custom-built.

Europe’s drive to build nuclear power plants was largely spearheaded after the oil embargos of the 1970s, with France playing a major role — today France generates about sixty percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors. New orders, though, fell off in the late 1980s for similar reasons as in the United States: high costs and public opposition. The Chernobyl accident, which resulted in radioactive fallout across Europe, further deepened public opposition.

Today, China and India are the only countries pursuing nuclear power on a significant scale: India has plans for another 18 power plants, and China has 110 in the pipeline. It remains to be seen whether the costs of building nuclear reactors in these countries will be less than they were in the U.S., or whether the crisis at Japan’s Fukushima facility will scuttle plans for many of these plants. Some experts have been advocating for small modular reactors as a less costly way of generating nuclear power, but those have remained on the drawing board.

How much carbon dioxide pollution have nuclear power plants avoided?

If the few hundred nuclear reactors on the map had not been built, other power plants would likely have been constructed, the majority of which would have been powered by fossil fuels. How much carbon dioxide (CO2) would these plants have emitted?

We can’t know for sure, but by using data from the map and making a few basic assumptions, we can get a rough estimate. The data includes the lifetime and generating capacity of every nuclear power plant that has ever been built.

Today, nuclear power plants worldwide operate on average about 80 percent of the time. In earlier years, they were shut down for longer periods, with closer to a 55 percent in service rate. Given these operating percentages, let’s assume for estimation purposes that nuclear power plants throughout their entire history have operated on average at 70 percent of their capacity. In that case, the nuclear power industry globally has produced about 60 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity.

If these power plants had not been built, let’s assume the electricity would have been generated instead from a mix of coal, natural gas, and hydropower in the proportions that these are used today (roughly 2:1:1). Given how much CO2 these sources emit on average per kilowatt hour (natural gas: 907 grams of CO2; coal: 590 grams; hydropower: 0 grams), we can estimate that each kilowatt-hour of nuclear power avoided about 600 grams of CO2 from entering the atmosphere.

That means that the nuclear industry has avoided emissions of about 40 billion tons of CO2. That is one third more CO2 than humans put into the atmosphere every year from burning fossil fuels. It is also about one-twelfth of the cumulative CO2 people have added to the atmosphere during the past 160 years from burning coal, natural gas, and petroleum. This is a rough estimate, yet it shows that nuclear power has played a major role in lowering CO2 emissions.

The clear question for society — and one that is highly debated — is whether the risks and costs of nuclear power outweigh the industry’s significant potential to offset fossil fuels.

Map Data and Disclaimer
The data was obtained from the World Nuclear Association’s online database, which can be accessed from their website. Many countries have “planned” reactors that are not shown on this map. Furthermore, the location of some planned reactors, especially in China, is only approximate.

Election Season or Innovation Season?

2011-04-14T13:14:00.000-07:00

I'm reminded recently of Daffy Duck fighting with Bugs Bunny, the duck demanding that it's Rabbit-Hunting Season and Bugs refuting that it's Duck Season. In this cartoonish analogy, President Obama is both Bugs and Daffy, in a shouting match with himself. It's either Investment Season or Election Season. It apparently can't be both.

There's a reason Energetics' subline is "A blog on climate, energy and politics." As frustrating as it sometimes is, the pursuit and achievement of goals on the path towards decarbonization and a clean energy future depend heavily on the institutional intricacies set up by our political landscape. The political infrastructure in place establishes the ability of our nation to invest in our future. President Obama's speech at George Washington University yesterday illustrated this notion, and his stump speech that ostensibly kicked off his 2012 campaign was often inspiring in its liberalism and rhetorical embrace of innovation economics.

The America I know is generous and compassionate. It’s a land of opportunity and optimism. Yes, we take responsibility for ourselves, but we also take responsibility for each other; for the country we want and the future we share.
...
I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs.

In place of "jobs," the President could have easily said "a national infrastructure renovation" or "a clean energy economy." All three are true, but the politics of the game will probably guarantee that jobs are the key focus of his speeches from now until at least November 2012.

Like Bugs vs. Daffy though, there is some trickery at play. The President is calling this moment Investment Season when it's shaping out to be anything but. The sweeping and not entirely insincere verbiage dedicated by the President to investing in a "future we want" is undercut by the recent budget debacle, where we see funds for innovation, science and research cut across the board. The Breakthrough Institute crunches the thoroughly uninspiring numbers, and while investments levels for FY2012 aren't quite as low as they would be if Congressional Republicans had their way, more often not the President and his allies came away on the losing end of the draw.

I believe the President would be better served by a more ambitious agenda, one that aims to significantly increase investments in our nation's transportation grid, energy infrastructure, education and technological robustness. Indeed, I wish Obama would act exactly like he said he would in his 2011 State of the Union address. Instead, we have conflicting messaging coming from his podium. "Invest in our future" is sidelined by "live within our means" and calls for the government to tighten its belt like millions of families across the country. Economists agree this is a red herring -- now is not the time to worry about the deficit, but instead a time to rebuild a nation whose citizens, infrastructure and resources will guide it out of debt in the future.

The President is going to win next year. But a victory without a bold agenda will ill-serve the needs of an American economy desperately crying for the investments it's been robbed of for decades. Obama need not fret whether it's Investment Season or Election Season. It's both. Investing in America's future is good politics, and Obama's characteristically hopeful and progressive political rhetoric needs a policy backbone that seriously invests in the future we want.

Interactive Maps: Worldwide Nuclear Power

2011-03-30T10:02:00.001-07:00

Cross posted on Climate Central.

As the world continues to watch the crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant unfold, many are asking what the repercussions will be for the future of nuclear power. First, though, we must understand the current state of the nuclear industry: Where are the world’s nuclear power plants located? How much electricity do these plants produce? How much more nuclear generating capacity is planned, and for where?

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that about 16 percent of the world’s electricity comes from nuclear power, and that given pre-Fukushima plans, this percentage would stay roughly constant over the next two decades, barring any major changes in policy.

The maps below, which come courtesy of Katherine Marvel, a post-doctoral fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, show where the world’s nuclear reactors are presently located and how many more are planned. (Visit Climate Central to see the maps with full interactive capabilities.).

Number of Nuclear Reactors

Percent of Electricity from Nuclear Power

Before Fukushima, there were 443 functioning nuclear power plants in the world. About 62 were under construction, and another 324 were in various stages of planning. (This data comes from the World Nuclear Association, a nuclear power advocacy organization).

The world’s nuclear power is concentrated in a handful of countries: Of the world’s 192 countries, only 30 have nuclear power plants, and 75 percent of global nuclear generation is concentrated in just eight countries: The United States, France, Japan, Russia, South Korea, India, the U.K., and Canada. Membership in the "nuclear power club," though, is set to expand considerably if current proposals come to fruition.

The following eleven countries lack nuclear power today, but are planning to build or are building power plants: United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Turkey, Poland, Belarus, Bangladesh, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, and Kazakhastan. Another eight countries: Israel, Italy, North Korea, Thailand, Lithuania, Chile, Italy, and Malaysia, have proposed to build power plants.

Number of Nuclear Reactors Under Construction

Number of Nuclear Reactors Planned

Number of Nuclear Reactors Proposed

Operating = Connected to the grid.
Under Construction = first concrete for reactor poured, or major refurbishment under way.
Planned = Approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8-10 years.
Proposed = Specific program or site proposals, expected operation mostly within 15 years.

Another fact shown by the graphics is that although many countries have proposed or are planning to construct nuclear power plants, only China is aggressively building them — they have proposed 110 and are building 27. By comparison, the United States has 23 proposed reactors, but only one is under construction. And that single reactor, which is located in southern Tennessee, was begun in the 1980s, put on hold for 20 years, and is only now being completed.

The disparity between planned power plants and plants under construction raises the question of how many of these proposed plants will actually be built. Also, the expansion of nuclear power to new countries raises issues related to nuclear proliferation — the technology to build certain nuclear power plants could be used to make nuclear weapons with relative ease. And what these maps do not show is what would be built instead of these nuclear plants, should they not move forward. In place of nuclear power, will these countries invest in coal, natural gas, hydropower, solar, or wind energy?

Answering these questions will require continued work to balance the benefits and risks of nuclear energy against the growing energy demands of society.

WattHead's Jesse Jenkins on NPR: Nuclear as Usual

2011-03-28T17:25:00.000-07:00

WattHead.org Founder and Chief Editor and Breakthrough Institute Director of Climate and Energy Policy Jesse Jenkins was on NPR's Weekend Edition this past Sunday discussing Japan's nuclear crisis and what it means for the future of nuclear power.

The interview touched on many of the issues that were the subject of a recent Atlantic Monthly article co-authored by Jenkins and Breakthrough Institute co-founders Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger.

Here is an excerpt of that article:

[L]ost in the hyperbolic claims of nuclear opponents, the defensive reactions of the nuclear industry, and the carefully calibrated repositioning of politicians and policymakers is the reality that Fukushima is unlikely to much change the basic political economy of nuclear power. Wealthy, developed economies, with relatively flat energy growth and mature energy infrastructure haven't built a lot of nuclear in decades and were unlikely to build much more anytime soon, even before the Fukushima accident. The nuclear renaissance, such as it is, has been occurring in the developing world, where fast growing, modernizing economies need as much new energy generation as possible and where China and India alone have constructed dozens of new plants, with many more on the drawing board.

Absent Fukushima, developed world economies were not going to build much new nuclear power anytime soon. The deliberations in Germany have involved whether to retire old plants or extend their lifetimes, not whether to build new plants. The decade long effort to restart the U.S. nuclear industry may result in the construction of, at most, two new plants over the next decade.

By contrast, even a much more serious accident would have been unlikely to delay the construction of new nuclear plants in the developing world for long. For major emerging economies like China and India, energy is still too scarce and expensive for much of their populations and economies and they will likely continue to build new nuclear plants as fast as they can in the coming decades.

In the end, what it all looks like is business as usual, for nukes specifically and the global energy economy more generally. Despite the claims of proponents, present day renewables remain too expensive and undependable for any economy in the world to rely upon at significant scale. So Germany, despite its vaunted solar feed in tariffs, will rely more heavily upon coal, which it has in abundance, as it retires its aging nuclear fleet. The US, already in the midst of a natural gas boom, will use more gas. And China and India, desperate for every kilowatt of power they can produce, will develop every available energy resource they have as fast as they can, including nuclear.

Jenkins also appeared on MSNBC's The Dylan Ratigan Show at 1:40 PM PST/ 4:40 PM EST today to discuss nuclear power and the situation in Japan. Here's the clip:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Exploring Earthquake Risks to US Nuclear Power Plants

2011-03-16T11:41:00.000-07:00

Cross posted on Climate Central.

This click-able map shows the 104 active nuclear reactors in the Lower-48 states, overlaid with both recent earthquakes and the 15 strongest earthquakes in the region's history. Note that the most powerful earthquake on record, estimated to have measured 9.0 on the Richter scale, shook the Pacific Northwest back in 1700. You can click on each power plant to obtain more information about it, including the type of reactor design.

The second (static) map shows the earthquake risk as measured by "Peak Ground Acceleration" or PGA. During an earthquake, the ground shakes back and forth, and the damage is roughly proportional to the ground's maximum acceleration. The map shows the two percent likelihood that the PGA will exceed the shown values in the next 50 years.

Explore the maps, and read on for additional details below.

The nuclear crisis following the disastrous 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan continues, and it's raising broader questions about nuclear safety both in and outside of Japan. Many Americans now are asking how vulnerable our country's nuclear facilities are to natural disasters, particularly earthquakes.

Of the reactors in the U.S., about one third of them are boiling water reactors, using the same technology as the Fukushima Daiichi reactor in Japan. In addition, there are eight nuclear facilities located along the seismically active West coast. Twelve of the American reactors that are of the same vintage as the Fukushima Daiichi plant are on seismically active areas around the country.

Unsurprisingly, most of the earthquakes in the contiguous U.S. have occurred in California. But three of the most powerful 15 quakes occurred in Missouri, and another took place in South Carolina. And the strongest ever recorded, estimated to have measured magnitude 9.0, shook the Pacific Northwest back in 1700.

The bottom map above shows the earthquake risk as measured by "Peak Ground Acceleration", or PGA. During an earthquake, the ground shakes back and forth, and the damage is roughly proportional to the ground's maximum acceleration. The map shows the two percent likelihood that the PGA will exceed the shown values in the next 50 years.

In other words, if the map shows that the PGA is 1.0g for a given spot (say, southeast Missouri), that means there is a two percent chance that the peak ground acceleration will be greater than 1.0g at some point in the next 50 years. PGA is measured in "g," with one g being how quickly an object accelerates in free fall (you can also think about "pulling Gs," as in a fighter plane).

The PGA risk is what is typically used to set building codes. Most nuclear power plants are designed to operate under 0.2g PGA, and automatically shut off if the PGA exceeds 0.2g. However, they can withstand a PGA many times larger than that.

The magnitude scale is a measure of the total energy an earthquake releases. This is related to, but not directly proportional to the PGA. For instance, the recent earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, recorded a deadly PGA of 2.2g, even though it was "only" a 6.3 magnitude earthquake, while a recent earthquake in Chile, which measured 8.8 magnitude, recorded an acceleration of 0.78g.

If you click on the nuclear power plants on the map at the top, you can see what the 50-year two-percent likelihood PGA is for each power plant.

The following nuclear power plants have a two percent or greater chance of having PGA over 0.15g in the next 50 years:

Diablo Canyon, Calif.

San Onofre, Calif.

Sequoyah, Tenn.

H.B. Robinson, SC.

Watts Bar, Tenn.

Virgil C. Summer, SC.

Vogtle, GA.

Indian Point, NY.

Oconee, SC.

Seabrook, NH.

As the unfolding situation in Japan has demonstrated, ground acceleration is only one concern. In fact, the Fukushima reactor -- which is protected by a thick casing of concrete designed to withstand even a plane crash -- was built to survive an earthquake like the one Japan just experienced, and the peak ground acceleration at the plant on March 11 measured only 0.18g, according to one report. The safety of nuclear reactor design is addressed by "defense in depth," which means multiple back-up systems are installed as precautionary measures. If one safety measure fails, there are several others in place to prevent a nuclear emergency. The Fukushima complex was evidently not sufficiently prepared for the combination of an earthquake and a massive tsunami, and when the waves crashed around the power plant, the cooling system failed, leading to a cascade of problems. Some claim that the reactor design is partially to blame, as well. Whether the events at Fukushima will reveal systemic problems at other plants remains to be seen, but it certainly highlights the need to be somewhat imaginative when planning for the worst-case scenario.

The bottom line is that a major earthquake would probably not result in a nuclear meltdown at the reactors on the above map, but it could present significant engineering challenges. Quantifying the risks, and minimizing them as much as possible, is a key task for everyone involved in the nuclear energy industry.

Alyson Kenward contributed reporting to this article.

A Roadmap for America's Energy Future? Hardly

2011-03-11T13:32:00.000-08:00

For the second time in eight months, a coalition led by California Rep. Devin Nunes has proposed their Roadmap for America’s Energy Future (H.R. 909). The plan, introduced in the House last week, is advertised as a set of “comprehensive and forward thinking initiatives designed to address both the short and long-term energy needs of the United States.” Nunes and company deserve some credit for trying to straddle the market-and-drilling approach on the right with the green-deployment-now approach on the left; but, calling it a comprehensive energy policy solution? Far from it: the plan would do little more than drive fossil fuel development with some marginal progress on nuclear and renewables, while generally ignoring the need to drive innovation in the energy sector.

First, the key components: the bill would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the outer continental shelf (OCS) to drilling for oil & gas, codifying the aggressive five-year leasing program (PDF) proposed, quite literally, during the Bush Administration’s waning hours. It would also restore Bush Administration plans to open roughly 2 million acres of western lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to oil shale development, which were suspended by the Obama Administration, much like the OCS drilling program. The bill would then deposit the federal revenues gained from leasing royalties — generally 12.5 percent or 16.7 percent of the value of the lease, depending on location and water depth — in a new “American-Made Energy Trust Fund” establish within the Treasury Department. These funds would, in turn, be used to carry out a series of reverse auctions for renewable energy: contracts would be awarded to those generators who could produce megawatts at the lowest cost, multiple times a year and in different regions.

On nuclear, the bill takes several steps. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would be required to issue 200 new permits by 2040, and to finish consideration of Yucca Mountain or find an alternative site within a year. The bill attempts to streamline the licensing process, establishes a national nuclear council, and opens the door to increased funding for small modular reactors (SMRs) and spent fuel recycling, among other things. Lastly, the bill would direct the Defense Department to move forward on coal-to-liquid fuel technology.

The real goal of any “comprehensive” energy policy must be to efficiently drive the clean energy transformation, simply put. This is best achieved through aggressive investment and support for energy innovation from lab to market, with the end goal of delivering affordable technology. The Roadmap’s sponsors take a worthwhile stab at this goal through the renewable energy reverse-auction idea. It’s an appealing premise: whereas production tax credits from clean power offer a flat subsidy per unit of energy produced, a reverse auction — with DOE as the demanding buyer and renewable generators as the striving sellers — can award contracts to those power producers who are able to achieve the best performance, each year. That means a built-in competition mechanism, forcing companies to compete against one another. And it sets limits on awards per source and per size, which means contracts wouldn’t be the exclusive domain of any one (or two) cheap technologies or biased in favor of large producers, ensuring an open field. As an incentive to help drive continual technical improvements in existing technology, it seems solid.

Beyond the auction, the plan also takes some decent first steps on innovation in the nuclear space, specifically on SMRs. The NRC does need to increase its manpower and resources devoted to assessing SMRs, a promising next step in nuclear technology, and while the bill guarantees nothing in terms of funding, it nevertheless acknowledges the problem. And some future reactor designs will run on spent fuel, so requiring NRC to pursue rulemaking on spent fuel recycling in the next two years is a good step forward.

But beyond these measures, there’s not much else to recommend it. There’s zero investment in the building blocks of innovation: no R&D support or tax credits, no public-private partnerships to develop energy gamechangers, no mention of manufacturing. This is a real shame, given that Nunes and company have devised what could be a sizeable fixed revenue stream for investment via drilling royalties. Revenues should theoretically reach tens of billions per year — well within the range of investment most experts say we need. The reverse auction is a nice idea for back-end competitive market creation to drive down costs of existing technology, but without investing in front-end development to achieve big breakthroughs in new technology — especially technologies too risky for a risk-averse private sector — you’re not really solving the problem and filling the critical innovation gaps. Radical new technologies will naturally be more expensive than existing, deployed technology at first, so you have to be careful about crowding them out.

About that revenue stream: the truth is, while a carbon tax would undoubtedly be a better source of revenue, clean energy advocates might want to at least give drilling royalties a look, counterintuitive as it may be. Expanded drilling is probably more likely to pass Congress than a decent carbon tax at this point. With the recent run-up in gas prices, the typically short-sighted chorus for expanded production has already started.

In fact, using expanded drilling royalties to fund a clean energy revolution might be the single best argument for opening up federal lands and waters...not that there are many other good ones. If the goal of national energy policy were to promote prolonged fossil fuel use without having a meaningful impact on petroleum prices, the bill could succeed wildly. The Minerals Management Service (now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement) has estimated the existence of roughly 85 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the OCS, and the USGS says there are 10 billion barrels in ANWR. The real mother lode, however, is western oil shale: the U.S. easily holds the largest reserves in the world, and could yield 800 billion recoverable barrels or more, assuming any commercialization challenges could be met.

Given that the country consumes around 19 million barrels per day, these appear to be large sums…except when one considers production ceilings. RAND has said it could take decades to achieve even three million barrels per day from the oil shale deposits; the president of Chevron has said we might see 1 million barrels per day from the OCS; and EIA has estimated similar sums from ANWR, eventually. So we realistically might see, what, a 5 million barrel-per-day boost in 10-20 years? The idea that global oil prices will somehow be restrained by expanded domestic drilling anytime soon is sublimely stupid. And this doesn’t even get into the emissions question.

All drilling does is expand the long-term availability of fossil fuel sources, which is not what we should be doing – so if we do drill more in the near future, it just means we need to be that much more aggressive in developing viable clean alternatives. Which, unfortunately, the Roadmap for America’s Energy Future doesn’t really do. Nunes and company get credit for a couple innovative proposals, but they’ll need to do a lot more if this is to be considered anything like “comprehensive.”

Originally posted at ITIF's Innovation Policy Blog.

The Nuclear Energy Game Changer? Thoughts After the NRC Regulatory Information Conference

2011-03-10T06:52:00.000-08:00

By Matthew Stepp, Clean Energy Policy Analyst, ITIF

There is a growing chorus of experts, businesses, and public sector leaders espousing for one key clean technology: small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). And the reason is clear. These next generation advances in nuclear energy may be – dare I say – a silver bullet energy solution that transforms electricity generation, provides the military with an independent and more secure energy source, and offers industries a low-carbon energy alternative. And like other clean technologies, and maybe even more so, SMRs require significant federal support to make them a viable clean energy option.

The significant up-front capital cost and decade-long development time for licensing and constructing large power plants has renewed interest in smaller nuclear options in recent years. In response, nearly 60 SMR designs have been proposed worldwide, though none have been deployed. Their main selling points: reduced cost, customizability, safety, less nuclear waste, and long power generation lifetimes without refueling (table below).

SMR_Benefits

Currently, two broad design categories have emerged. Light water reactor (LWR) SMRs are similar to scaled down versions of current large nuclear power plants. LWR-SMRs range between 200-300 megawatts and are aimed at providing new baseload capacity or act as a replacement for retiring coal power plants with a 4 to 5 year fuel replacement cycle. LWR-SMRs are also closest to deployment. The first demonstration project – the mPower LWR by Babcock and Wilcox - is set to take place at the Clinch River Site by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The second category is advanced SMRs, otherwise called fast-reactors or high temperature gas-cooled reactors. These designs are at an earlier stage of development because of their use of untested coolant system designs and more highly enriched fissionable material than presently regulated plants. But these reactors offer the prospect of much longer refueling lifetimes, often in excess of 10 years, and more flexible site locations, because many don’t use water for cooling.

So, while “silver bullet” may be too strong of a statement – SMRs don’t solve all our clean energy needs - the potential benefits of SMRs are significant and the key to realizing these benefits comes down to creating a cohesive national clean energy policy to innovate through a number of technological barriers. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. This week was the 23^rd Annual Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information Conference that brought together hundreds of nuclear energy leaders from industry and government to talk all things nuclear. The hottest topic? SMRs. The clear message? Industry and government leaders are ready to move forward in developing new small reactors as soon as policy makers give the green light.

In his opening conference speech, NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko remarked that his agency will be taking the first steps in licensing new SMRs by announcing that, “[the NRC] may take final action on three design certification rules for new [LWR-SMR] reactors as early as this summer, and conduct the first mandatory hearing on a new reactor license since the 1970s.” Department of Energy’s Director for Advanced Reactor Design Sal Golub presented that the goal of his office is to “license and deploy LWR-SMRs by 2020.” The President proposed in both his 2011 and 2012 budgets to create a nearly $100 million SMR program within the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy that would focus on deploying LWR-SMRs as well as perform much needed advanced SMR RD&D. And bipartisan group of Senators have recently proposed a bill designed to speed up the deployment of SMRs.

But there is an immediate policy barrier: the federal clean energy innovation budget. While Congress debates how best to reduce the federal budget deficit, clean energy innovation is in the unfortunate position of being a prime target. Like other emerging clean technologies, reducing or eliminating support for SMRs could effectively set back the United States nuclear industry by decades. NRC Chairman Jaczko stated firmly that possible budget issues require, “…tough choices…because if everything is a high priority then nothing is.” Essentially, if the NRC budget is slashed, its staff would have to focus on the 44 large reactor applications it is currently reviewing and not be able to more quickly attend to licensing first-of-kind SMR designs. The same budget decisions would have to be made by DOE if their proposed SMR program is not funded.

And the stakes are high for policy makers to “get it right” on clean energy innovation policy. Presently, Russia is preparing to deploy the world’s first electricity generating SMRs and France has quickly progressed in developing their own SMR designs. In fact, the majority of SMR designs aren’t being developed in the United States and many U.S. nuclear technology companies are looking to foreign countries to deploy their technology. Whether this possible clean energy game changer has an impact environmentally and economically in the United States is up to policy makers because everyone else is waiting.

Senate Democrats Propose Across-the-Board Cuts in Energy Innovation Budgets

2011-03-09T15:30:00.000-08:00

In the latest in DC's battle over the federal budget, the Senate Democrats released on Friday their plan to fund the government through FY2011, which would make substantial cuts in federal energy innovation across DOE agencies.

While ultimately keeping energy innovation-related spending at a higher level than would the House's Continuing Resolution (CR) (passed two weeks ago), the Senate's plan decreases budgets for each of the DOE's offices involved in energy-innovation as compared to FY2010 appropriations, in sharp contrast to the proposed increases for energy innovation related spending through President Obama's proposed FY2012 budget.

(click to enlarge)
*ARPA-E received $400 million in ARRA funding, to be spent over FY2009 and FY2010, or $200 million per year on average. No additional funding was provided for the agency in regular FY2010 appropriations.
**The estimates for Fossil Energy R&D used in this post refer solely to the Fossil Energy R&D program, rather than Fossil Energy Program as a whole, as Fossil Energy R&D is where energy innovation investments are concentrated.
***For exact figures, see chart at the end of this post.

Overall, the plan would cut over $800 million from the overall budgets of key DOE agencies engaged in energy innovation, relative to FY2010 levels (see Graphic 1/Table 1). Below, we estimate the impact on direct energy innovation investments that would result from these cuts. (Graphic 2/Table 2). We find that the overall budget cuts would strip at least $332 million in energy-innovation specific investments from these DOE agencies relative to FY2010 levels.

(click to enlarge)
*Calculations for share of FY11 House and Senate CR budgets devoted to energy innovation for the Fossil Energy R&D program are estimates based off of proportion of 2010 Fossil Energy R&D budget devoted to energy innovation projects. However, calculations for share of the FY12 Obama Administration's proposed budget for Fossil Energy R&D differed, as the Administration stated throughout the proposed budget its goal of phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and proportions of total budget devoted to energy innovation are expected to change accordingly. For an explanation of the calculation used to estimate that number, see this post.
**See here for details on methodology used to estimate energy-innovation proportions of office budgets.
***For exact figures, see chart at the end of this post.

The largest of these cuts would come from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which is engaged in the research, development, demonstration and deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, and whose energy innovation budget would be decreased by approximately $152 million. The Office of Science (OS), too, would see an energy innovation budgetary decrease of $55 million from FY2010, and the Office of Nuclear Energy's energy innovation investments would decrease by $81 million.

This plan is merely a starting point as the House and Senate gear up for negotiations with the White House over how to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. However, this presents a worrisome development for energy innovation investments, as the opening positions of both chambers of Congress now embrace across-the-board cuts in energy innovation investments. Senate Democrats appear poised to abandon the Obama Administration's efforts to preserve or enhance critical national investments in energy innovation, and as the House and Senate close the gap between their two proposals, more cuts may be forthcoming.

------------------------------------------------------------
(click to enlarge)
*ARPA-E received $400 million in ARRA funding, to be spent over FY2009 and FY2010, or $200 million per year on average. No additional funding was provided for the agency in regular FY2010 appropriations.

(click to enlarge)
*Calculations for share of FY11 House and Senate CR budgets devoted to energy innovation for the Fossil Energy R&D program are estimates based off of proportion of 2010 Fossil Energy R&D budget devoted to energy innovation projects. However, calculations for share of the FY12 Obama Administration's proposed budget for Fossil Energy R&D differed, as the Administration stated throughout the proposed budget its goal of phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and proportions of total budget devoted to energy innovation are expected to change accordingly. For an explanation of the calculation used to estimate that number, see this post.
**See here for details on methodology used to estimate energy-innovation proportions of office budgets.

Climate Science Roundup

2011-03-04T09:28:00.000-08:00

Cross posted on Climate Central.

Welcome to Climate Central's weekly science round up. Among last week’s noteworthy research papers were an investigation of over-estimating improved energy efficiency, a look at how the allergy season is growing longer, and a study of the history—and future—of drought in the American southwest. Also published last week were a pair of studies on heavy rain (over North America and Hawaii) and a review of California's changing temperature trends.

These studies, and a number of others, published between February 22^nd and 28^th are summarized here:

Paper Title: Modifying the rebound: It depends! Explaining mobility behavior on the basis of the German socio-economic panel
Journal: Energy Policy
Authors: Wenzel Matiaskea, Roland Mengesb, and Martin Spiessc
The Gist: This paper investigates the “rebound effect" — the idea that if consumers replace old products with more energy efficient ones, they won’t save as much energy as expected because they will actually use some of their extra savings to buy more energy. For instance, the rebound effect says if lighting is more efficient (and thus cheaper) consumers might end up using more lighting in their homes. People would probably still use less electricity than they did originally, but they wouldn’t have “saved” as much energy as anticipated by simple calculations. This new study concludes that in Germany (where the research was done), consumers who purchase more efficient cars drive more miles, but only up to a point. In this case, the rebound effect is strongest for users switching from low-efficiency cars to medium-efficiency cars, but it disappears with cars that get about 30 miles to the gallon. More generally, the “rebound effect” has recently been discussed by The New Yorker, The Breakthrough Institute, and Rocky Mountain Institute.

Paper Title: Climate change and evolutionary adaptation
Journal: Nature
Authors: Ary A. Hoffmann and Carla M. Sgro
The Gist: Some plant and animal species — especially those with short life spans and large populations — will adapt to climate change through natural selection and evolution. In fact, some species, such as mosquitoes, which have short life spans and can thus adapt quickly, have already “evolved” due to climate change. Scientists have shown that warmer temperatures have caused the genetics of some mosquito populations to change. This particular study suggests improved ways to model how different species will adapt to global warming, taking into account their ability to evolve relatively quickly.

Paper Title: Extended megadroughts in the southwestern United States during Pleistocene interglacials
Journal: Nature
Authors: Peter J. Fawcett and 18 others
The Gist: By studying sediments in New Mexico, these researchers estimated precipitation and temperature in the region for the period between about 370,000 and 550,000 years ago. Why is does this past climate matter? The researchers found that during the warmest times of that period — which might have been slightly warmer than today — the region experienced extreme drought. Most climate models predict that the U.S. southwest will experience severe drought as the planet warms. This new study shows this type of “permanent dust bowl” could develop in the future because it happened in the past. The New York Times offered a nice summary of this research earlier in the week. And in the journal PNAS this week, another study examined how a drier Southwest could increase wind erosion as the vegetation changes in response to drought.

Paper Title: The identification of distinct patterns in California temperature trends
Journal: Climatic Change
Authors: Eugene C. Cordero. Wittaya Kessomkiat, John Abatzoglou, Steven A. Mauge
The Gist: Analyzing 80 years worth of climate data in California, this study finds some interesting results: the average daily low temperature warmed more than twice as much as the average daily high (a warming of 1.36°C versus 0.56°C over 80 years). The researchers did not study why these trends have evolved differently over time but they say the discrepancy is a sign that there are probably many different factors influencing how temperatures are changing in the region.

Paper Title: Influence of hurricane-related activity on North American extreme precipitation
Journal: Geophysical Research Letters
Author: Mathew Barlow
The Gist: Last week we reported on a series of papers that provide evidence climate change has probably already increased the amount of rain falling in big storms. This week, a new paper looks at heavy rainstorms specifically in North America, finding that for locations along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, hurricanes account for a disproportionate number of the storms with heavy rainfall. How hurricanes respond to climate change — which is still uncertain — will determine the future of heavy rainstorms in these areas and this topic is now being heavily researched.

Paper Title: Projection of changes in the frequency of heavy rain events over Hawaii based on leading Pacific climate modes
Journal: Journal of Geophysical Research
Authors: O. Elison Timm, H. F. Diaz, T. W. Giambelluca, M. Takahashi
The Gist: Climate change is expected to increase heavy rainfall, on average, across the globe. But will every place experience stronger storms? Because there are so many factors that influence regional rainfall, including temperature, humidity and larger climate oscillations like El Niño, more localized studies can offer more insight to this question. This study examines projections for rainfall in Hawaii and finds that climate models don’t show a major change in number of days with heavy rain. This estimate, though, is highly uncertain because currently climate models don’t agree on how rainfall will change in that region.

Paper Title: Recent warming by latitude associated with increased length of ragweed pollen season in central North America
Journal: PNAS
Authors: Lewis Ziskaa and 19 others
The Gist: Global warming is lengthening the ragweed pollen season, and this trend is especially evident in northern areas. Within the northern U.S. (northward of Oregon, South Dakota and Vermont, for example) the pollen season has increased between 13 and 27 days since 1995. Last week, Climate Central provided a more in depth summary of this article.

Paper Title: Climate change risks for African agriculture
Journal: PNAS
Authors: Christoph Müllera, Wolfgang Cramera, William L. Harea, and Hermann Lotze-Campena
The Gist: This paper surveys recent studies of how climate change could affect agriculture in Africa and finds there is wide disagreement. Some research says crop yields will generally increase across the African continent but others say yields will decrease. The range is broad because not only are modelers trying to predict how greenhouse gases will warm the planet and how plants will respond, but they are also trying to predict how farmers and markets will respond. Combining these natural environmental factors with socioeconomic influences is still particularly difficult task. Nonetheless, this new review paper concludes that Africa’s agriculture faces significant risk from warming temperatures.

Paper Title: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Domestic Anaerobic Digesters Linked with Sustainable Sanitation in Rural China
Journal: Environmental Science & Technology
Authors: Radhika Dhingra, Erick R. Christensen, Yang Liu, Bo Zhong, Chang-Fu Wu, Michael G. Yost, and Justin V. Remais
The Gist: Last year China set a goal of powering 27 million homes with biogas — gas from fermented human and animal waste (yes, that can include animal feces). The biogas is produced by putting waste in airtight containers where anaerobic microbes turn it into methane gas. The methane can then be burned for heat, allowing people to heat their homes without using fossil fuels. Methane, however, is also a potent greenhouse gas; if large quantities of the gas escape into the atmosphere before being burned, it could potentially cause more warming than the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. This study analyzed methane leaks at the gas production sites and people’s houses and determined that even somewhat leaky systems emitted much less gas to the atmosphere than houses that used coal or natural gas.

That’s all for this week. If you have a question about one of these papers, feel free to ask in the comments below.

The Fierce Urgency of Now: Notes from the ARPA-E Summit

2011-03-03T10:58:00.000-08:00

by Matthew Hourihan and Matthew Stepp, Policy Analysts for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

There are times when the nation’s political leadership in Washington is perfectly in sync with the realities of the day, and there are times when much of that leadership is out to lunch. Exhibit A: the current energy debate. Even as global demand and instability threatens to challenge affordable supply, and as overseas states are investing heavily in clean technology, many of the nation’s leaders are contemplating gutting domestic investment in clean energy.

Amid this context, enter the 2011 ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, a gathering of some of the best and brightest in clean energy innovation intended to showcase often-astounding advances in energy technology. The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy – one of the single most important agencies in the federal innovation portfolio – has recently been fighting for its budgetary life, surviving a recent push to de-fund the program, and still facing significant uncertainty over future appropriations. Yet few programs are doing what ARPA-E is doing: supporting cutting-edge energy research in the private and academic sectors in search of revolutionary game-changers to fundamentally alter our energy landscape.

ARPA-E was modeled after DARPA – the cutting-edge Defense Department research agency – to be an agile, dynamic innovation engine at the recommendation of the National Academies. It’s early yet (the agency’s research programs are multiyear endeavors), but if just a handful pay off, the potential upside is enormous. Already, certain awardees are leveraging public funding to entice private investment at a 4-to-1 ratio. Agency Director Arun Majumdar summed up the program’s mission on the first day: “What ARPA-e does best is identify the opportunities and create the competition. And eventually, the market will pick the winners.” (video)

Even given its relative youth and small size, the agency has attracted plaudits for its ability, as when CO Sen. Mark Udall remarked of ARPA-E at the summit, “You're a model of efficiency. That’s government at its best.” On top of this well-earned reputation, multiple expert recommendations have said ARPA-E is critical to American cleantech competitiveness and urged a boost to its original $400 million budget. And last year Congress saw fit to reauthorize the agency for three more years in the America COMPETES Act, albeit at lower levels than has been recommended.

Nevertheless, some leaders want to zero out the agency, and even those who nominally support it remain unwilling to invest adequately. AK Sen. Lisa Murkowski acknowledged as much, warning that “Many programs are never funded at their authorized levels, let alone higher. At what level Congress will support funding for ARPA-E remains uncertain.”

Suffice to say, we hope those leaders out to lunch will finish up soon and get back to investing in the future.

The Future on Display
Congressional disconnect notwithstanding, what the conference made clear is that there is enormous vitality behind the movement towards energy innovation. This is partly due to the urgency of the cleantech competitiveness challenge. As Energy Secretary Stephen Chu put it, “Clean energy is a race and the train is leaving the station.” Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was more colorful, but still spot on, ending his sterling keynote address with a reference to his past role as Conan the Barbarian that got plenty of laughs: “I’ve made a lot of action movies in the past, so I know about action. And you are the true people of action. Conan [the Barbarian] was asked, 'What is best in life?' He answered, 'To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of the women.' Now, my views have evolved since. But my point is that Conan was not big on philosophy or navel-gazing. He was big on action, just like you.”

And that vitality is there for good reason: the energy technology sector—from private entrepreneurs and investors to scientists and engineers in university labs—is brimming with, well, energy, in the form of radical and frequently eye popping ideas for advanced low-carbon energy technology. Dozens of these experimental projects – many of which are supported by ARPA-E – were on display at the technology showcase, a sampling of which can be found here (with photos here). In the midst of a burgeoning trillion-dollar market, many of these technologies could yield massive returns on investment – assuming, of course, adequate and appropriate policy support is there to accelerate their development.

The discussion covered much more ground than can be summarized here, but there were a few key themes that rose to the surface through the summit.

DOD Wants Effective Cleantech
Top Navy official John Quinn told the summit his superiors need to “be bold” on energy innovation. Partnering with ARPA-E is a good start: Navy Secretary Ray Mabus made news by announcing a pair of energy storage projects in partnership with ARPA-E. Many have made the connection between overseas fossil fuels and national security risks, but Mabus also made clear during his speech that clean energy also represents an opportunity: to make a more agile and efficient fighting force free of dangerous supply convoys, as well as to reduce the need to defend the global oil pipeline. Solar-powered rucksacks save marine patrols from having to carry 700 pounds of extra weight. And alternative fueled ships like the USS Makin Island could save hundreds of millions of dollars in costs. Contrast this with Mabus’ observation that every $1 increase in the price of oil costs the Navy $31 million (and keep in mind, world crude has increased by $30 over the past year). These are resources to purchase, transport, and protect that could be used elsewhere.

As for the naysayers who argue that an effective fighting force can’t rely on petroleum alternatives, Mabus pointed out that they’ve been there every time the Navy transitioned to new energy sources, from wind to coal to oil, but “every time it’s lead to a better navy.”

IT and Power Electronics Have a Big Role to Play
Whether through the use of supercomputers to develop more efficient wind turbine blades or the development of innovative software to develop new and better chemical energy solutions, IT was a common theme throughout the summit and stamped on nearly every project.

For example, CREE Inc. – an ARPA-E supported business – is developing the necessary technology to seamlessly integrate grid-capacity clean energy and rapidly charge electric cars on-grid. Their idea seeks to create an efficient, intelligent substation, replacing traditional transformers, to manage the stream of energy coming from clean sources to consumers. These new transformers would be drastically smaller and much less costly, and act as an IT middle man – allowing bidirectional flow of energy (consumers both producing and consuming clean energy) as well as efficiently managing the often time-inconsistent flow from clean generators through a smarter grid (which would of course be mitigated by advanced storage eventually).

Another showcased example is Arkansas Power Electronics International (APEI). Consumers will require plug-in vehicles to rapidly charge, just like gasoline power vehicles can be quickly refueled. But with greater penetration of PHEVs, rapid charging could quickly strain or overload the grid and local infrastructure. APEI showcased advances in small, modular power conversion technologies utilizing silicon-carbide semiconductors that promise high-temperature operation, meaning they would allow for high power densities conducted by rapid-charge PHEVs. And because this technology is modular and significantly smaller than typical high power density converters, their cost is greatly reduced.

Manufacturing Needs to Be Here
Many economists shrug off the need to maintain a viable manufacturing base. But this is of course mistaken thinking, as the message came through loud and clear from the manufacturing-oriented panel. As Siemens Chairman Peter Solmssen pointed out, “Innovation includes R&D, and the 'D' part in particular is important to a competitive manufacturing sector.”

What also was clear is that government has an important role to play in boosting that sector, through a comprehensive approach: stable market creation for scaleup, targeted R&D support, incentives for investment, and a coherent strategy to tie it all together. Business Roundtable President and former Michigan Governor John Engler highlighted the importance of making the R&D credit permanent and in continuing to foster productive programs like NIST’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

Climate Challenge Hinges on Fueling China with Clean and Cheap Energy

2011-03-02T17:58:00.000-08:00

This column originally published at the Breakthrough Institute blog

I've said it before and I'll say it again: when it comes to the global climate challenge, as goes China, so goes the world.

Driving that aphorism home, co2scorecard.org, a not-for-profit project that closely tracks global greenhouse gas emissions, now reports that China's CO2 emissions increased by 906 million tons in 2009 -- the second largest annual increase for any country in recorded history. China's soaring emissions were enough to completely offset the drop in emissions wrought by the economic havoc plaguing much of the Western world (see graphic below).

China's unprecedented surge in CO2

As Goes China, So Goes the World: Soaring CO2 emissions from energy use in China drive global greenhouse gas trends (click image to enlarge; source: co2scorecard.org)

Over the last decade, China's annual emissions of climate destabilizing CO2 jumped by 5 billion tons per year. According to Shakeb Afsah, President and CEO of co2scorecard.org, that's "the highest [increase in annual CO2 output] for a single country in recorded history, representing an average annual emissions increase of almost 12%--more than four times the rate observed [for China] the previous decade."

To put this unprecedented 5 billion ton increase in annual CO2 emissions in context, Mr Afsah and colleague Kendyl Salcito note that during the 14-year long post-war boom period of 1959-1973, during which U.S. CO2 emissions rose each year, America's annual output of CO2 jumped by only 2 billion tons.

This new analysis comes on the heels of the latest International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook, which projects China's soaring demand will single-handedly account for 36% of all global energy demand growth over the next 25 years. According to the global energy watchdog group, China's energy use will rise 75% between 2008 and 2035, raising the nation's share of global energy use to 22 percent, up from 17 percent today.

Sliding backwards?

Despite a much-publicized national climate policy centrally focused on driving down the CO2 intensity of the Chinese economy through greater industrial and power plant efficiency, the amount of carbon emitted per unit of economic output in China slid backwards during four of the last ten years. In 2009, after four years of steady progress, the carbon intensity of China's economy took a big step backwards, regressing to 1999 levels, according to co2scorecard.org (see graphic below)

Backsliding: The carbon intensity of China's economy took a big step backwards in 2009, erasing a decade's worth of periodic gains to revert to 1999 levels. (Click to enlarge; Source: co2scorecard.org)

That factoid means there's more going on here than just simple economic growth driving emissions growth. China's macroeconomic policies are actually driving the carbon intensity of the nation's economy backwards, working at cross-purposes with the central government's avowed climate strategy.

The analysts at co2scorecard.org point the finger at China's promotion of an export-oriented manufacturing economy, including the nation's increasingly controversial currency policies.

Since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, China has built up a manufacturing juggernaut that has taken over global supply chains for some of the world's most energy intensive industrial processes, including cement, steel, glass and chemicals production, turning predominately to carbon-intensive coal to fuel this economic engine. That was a recipe for both soaring economic output and carbon emissions alike.

The recent impact of the global recession has only exacerbated China's outsized role in global emissions. According to co2scorecard.com:

Through the global recession, China's depressed exchange rate protected its energy intensive industries, serving as a subsidy for export-oriented manufacturing industries (Wolf 2009). Other countries that would have grown their industrial sectors couldn't compete against China's deflated prices. So China has ended up with a lion's share of industrial production within its economic pie, subjecting itself to a sub-optimally large share of CO2 emissions and other industrial pollution.

China's carbon commitments: ambitious or lackadaisical?

To meet a targeted 40-45% reduction in carbon intensity by 2020, announced in November 2009 as China's pledge at global climate negotiations in Copenhagen that year, China's central government has recently forced the closure of inefficient factories and power plants, enforced planned blackouts, and launched other seemingly heavy handed steps to reduce the energy intensity of the national economy.

Despite these high-profile measures, analysts including Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke Jr., have repeatedly warned that China's seemingly ambitious climate target really just amounts to continuing on a course of business-as-usual -- which would mean another decade of unprecedented emissions growth.

Messieurs Afsah and Salcito note that this latest evidence adds credence to such concerns. "Though impressive on paper," China's carbon intensity pledge "represents the status quo," the duo writes.

Between 2005 and 2008 China's average annual CO2 intensity reduction rate was 4.35%, according to co2scorecard.org's analysis. Simply continuing that BAU rate would see China's emissions shrink 45% in around 13 years - by 2018, or two years ahead of their pledged goal.

"Maintaining the 4.35% reduction rate would not require any additional effort on China's part," Afsah and Salcito write. But hitting their goal in 2020 instead of 2018 would mean China could even slack off a bit, requiring just a 3.9% annual reduction.

"China is not just setting itself up for a business-as-usual carbon intensity reduction plan; it has committed to a lazier plan, allowing its emissions to continue increasing for an extended period of time," write Afsah and Salcito (see graphic above).

A recipe for rebound?

Worse yet, China's primary focus on improving industrial energy efficiency as the key to meeting carbon intensity goals is almost perfectly designed to trigger rebounds in energy demand that erode or even negate climate gains from such measures.

As noted in Breakthrough Institute's February report, "Energy Emergence: Rebound and Backfire as Emergent Phenomena," energy efficiency measures lower the effective price of the services derived from fuel consumption -- heating, cooling, transportation, industrial processes, etc. -- thus triggering a rebound in demand for those services (see a FAQ on rebound effects here).

These "rebound effects" are likely to be particularly pronounced in both industrial sectors and in developing nations, like China, where demand for goods and services, including energy services, is far more elastic (responsive to changes in price), and where industrial productivity improvements are key drivers of economic growth. For every step forward taken through efficiency, rebounds in energy demand take China -- and the world -- one or more steps backwards away from climate mitigation goals.

Thus, increased efficiency, particularly in China's industrial sectors, will drive greater economic growth and energy use. The net effect: total CO2 emissions are likely to keep soaring, even as China meets its lackadaisical carbon intensity goals.

Breaking China's carbon dependence

Is there any way then to really break the link between China's soaring economic output and soaring emissions?

Pursuing China's current path of unambitious carbon intensity goals -- principally met with industrial efficiency efforts likely to trigger serious rebounds in energy demand -- looks like a recipe for continued disaster.

And while co2scorecard.org's Afsah and Salcito note that a halt to China's currency depreciation efforts and other economic policies designed to spur an exports and industrial manufacturing-fueled growth strategy would cool both emissions and economic growth rates, this analyst considers it unlikely that China will assent to policies that drive down carbon by simply slowing economic growth.

That leaves only one other real option then: de-link economic growth from carbon emissions by fueling China -- and the world -- with clean, affordable, and massively scalable energy technologies.

Unfortunately, the menu of technologies that meet all three of those criteria -- clean (e.g. zero or very low-carbon), cheap (e.g. relatively affordable compared to conventional fossil fuels), and massively scalable -- is still quite limited. Cleaner energy alternatives must continue to improve in price, performance, or both, to meet a 'China-sized' appetite for energy.

China, America, Europe and the rest of the world must rapidly accelerate the pace of improvement in a whole suite of clean energy technologies, from nuclear and solar alike to plug-in hybrid vehicles, energy storage, and advanced biofuels. And a whole set of next-generation energy technologies must cross the Valley of Death from laboratory to commercialization in the coming decades

On this point, a cadre of energy experts including analysts at the IEA, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, dozens of Nobel Laureates, high-profile American business leaders, and leading think tanks, are all united: we must make clean energy cheap, and fast.

China is already on a roaring path towards single-handedly swamping any hopes of climate stability, and success is far from assured.

The only thing that is certain is that the clock is ticking, and there's no time to waste in developing clean, cheap, scalable energy technologies to fuel both China and the world. The entire climate challenge hinges on our ability to do just that.

As the writer and environmental activist Bill McKibben is fond of saying, "You can't negotiate with the planet."

Bill's right of course. But as TIME magazine environmental correspondent Bryan Walsh observes, "it turns out you can't negotiate with the human desire for growth and development either--not in any political system on this planet. We need policies that provide us with the energy for both--or we may end up with neither."

Jesse Jenkins is the Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute

Solving the Energy Poverty Problem

2011-02-28T14:31:00.000-08:00

Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership | By Natalie Relich

In the age of iPhones, Facebook, and Twitter, we have instant access to information and constant means of communication. It is difficult to imagine life without these luxuries, but they are just that, luxuries. For a large portion of the world these technologies are not only a rarity, but an impossibility, as there is no access to electricity.

1.5 billion people do not have access to electricity; 585 million of them living in Sub-Saharan Africa and 404 million in India. Three billion people, almost half of the world’s population, rely on biomass, such as wood, charcoal, and dung for cooking and heating purposes. Sub-Saharan Africa is an especially dire case. Only 31% of the population has access to electricity and the Sub-Saharan African population (excluding South Africa) of 791 million consumes as much energy annually as New York State, a population of 19.5 million, according to a recent IEA and UNDP report entitled "Energy Poverty: How to Make Modern Energy Access Universal."

These people are living in energy poverty, the ramifications of which extend far beyond heating and cooking. Instead of children - usually young girls - going to school, they have to spend hours collecting firewood to heat their homes and cook. If the children are able to go to school, they can only do school work during daylight hours because they have no light to study by at night.

Energy poverty is one of the least discussed aspects of our current energy challenge, yet it poses serious threats to economies, national security, the environment, and public health throughout the world. It is unacceptable that such a massive social problem exists, yet here in the U.S. we do little to alleviate it. This article seeks raise awareness about energy poverty and to describe the threats posed by it and what is being done to remedy them.

Energy Poverty and Economic Development

From an economic standpoint energy poverty is a serious hindrance to growth. Households and countries as a whole cannot develop economically if a significant portion of the population is living in energy poverty. Time that could be spent working must be spent gathering fuel for cooking and heating. This task usually falls on women, preventing them from pursuing economic opportunities like starting their own business.

People cannot charge cell phones, if they have them, limiting their access to information and markets. They have little access to machinery, so their farming techniques (most of the energy poor live in rural areas) are primitive and inefficient. If businesses or households do have access to electricity, there are often power cuts and blackouts, seriously limiting productivity and efficiency.

Energy Poverty and Health Risks

The use of wood, charcoal, and dung cook stoves poses serious health risks; these risks are some of the most serious health risks in the developing world today. Primitive cook stoves create indoor air pollution because homes are poorly ventilated and the dirty air sits in the home, breathed in by the occupants. The number of deaths from this kind of indoor air pollution currently kills more people each year than malaria or tuberculosis according to the IEA report. The report also estimates that by 2030 the number of premature deaths from household air pollution will be more than the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS, malaria, or tuberculosis, all of which are projected to decline over this period. By 2030 the number of deaths from biomass smoke is estimated to increase to 1.5 million per year, or 4,000 deaths per day.

Energy Poverty and National Security

Economic development and security are inextricably linked. In a post 9/11 world, the security of a nation is no longer guaranteed by a large military; the biggest threat to national security is no longer a strong, well organized military of another country, but rather disconnected, unpredictable networks of extremists. When people have a job, food on their table, and an overall good standard of living, they are less likely to turn to radical groups for change. One of the contributing factors to the recent protests across the Middle East is high unemployment and lack of economic opportunities. Instability in the Middle East or any region that is home to extreme groups is a threat to US security. There are of course many reasons why people turn to extremism and poverty is just one of them, but one cannot overlook this important link.

How to solve the energy poverty problem

Alleviating energy poverty poses numerous problems. Most of the energy poor live in remote rural areas making it difficult and costly to connect to the electrical grid. Some energy poor countries simply do not have the infrastructure or economic means to connect rural inhabitants to the grid.

Environmental and climate change issues also makes dealing with energy poverty a tricky situation, mostly because coal remains the cheapest source of energy for much of the world. If electricity was generated from clean, but more expensive sources like wind and solar, rural inhabitants would likely be unable to afford it. Over a billion people are without electricity, so how do they improve their quality of life without adding huge amounts of greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere?

Because of the difficulty in connecting rural inhabitants to the grid, small-scale, off the grid energy projects currently provide the most feasible way of bringing energy to people in remote areas, but achieving this on a large scale is difficult. Large corporations and governments are the most financially and technically equipped to deal with these issues, but corporations lack incentives to do so. Funding a small scale project in a rural Africa does not yield as much return as funding a large scale renewable energy project in China. For governments, finding funding for such innovative projects has largely proven tricky.

One potential funding source could come from the developed world. Those countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol are required to purchase carbon credits in order to offset their own emissions. This could be done by funding small scale projects that would greatly enhance the quality of life for rural inhabitants, but for now these offsets are most easily achieved by investing in large utility scale projects. There is also much uncertainty associated with these small scale projects because they are in such remote areas and funding these types of projects is a relatively new concept.

The United States is not a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol and therefore not required to offset carbon emissions, however we still fund renewable energy projects in developing countries. In 2009, the Obama administration announced the launch of Climate REDI(Renewable and Efficiency Deployment Initiative) a program to “accelerate deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies in developing countries.” The initiative created several programs and partnerships as well as funding mechanisms to bring energy efficiency to developing countries. New programs were:

“The Solar and LED Energy Access Program will accelerate deployment of affordable solar home systems and LED lanterns to those without access to electricity. This program will yield immediate economic and public health benefits by providing households with low-cost and quality-assured solar alternatives to expensive and polluting kerosene.
The Super-efficient Equipment and Appliance Deployment Program will harness the market and convening power of MEF countries to improve efficiency for appliances traded throughout the world.
The Scaling-up Renewable Energy Program (S-REP), under the World Bank’s Strategic Climate Fund, will provide policy support and technical assistance to low-income countries developing national renewable energy strategies and underwrite additional capital costs associated with renewable energy investments. Funding through Climate REDI will accelerate the launch of S-REP.

The $350 million pledged for these programs will come from the United States as well as other developed nations.

Despite modest government lead efforts, most small scale energy production in the energy impoverished world is being taken on by nonprofits and local organizations. The NY Times recently ran an article about small scale renewable energy systems and the role they are playing in Sub Saharan Africa. The article discussed one woman and the arduous process she had to go through to charge her cell phone. She relied on a cell phone for “small money transfers, contacting relatives, and checking prices at the nearest market”, but had no electricity and therefore no means of charging her phone.

“Every week, Ms. Ruto walked two miles to hire a motorcycle taxi for the three-hour ride to Mogotio, the nearest town with electricity. There, she dropped off her cellphone at a store that recharges phones for 30 cents. Yet the service was in such demand that she had to leave it behind for three full days before returning.
That wearying routine ended in February when the family sold some animals to buy a small Chinese-made solar power system for about $80. Now balanced precariously atop their tin roof, a lone solar panel provides enough electricity to charge the phone and run four bright overhead lights with switches.
Since Ms. Ruto hooked up the system, her teenagers’ grades have improved because they have light for studying. The toddlers no longer risk burns from the smoky kerosene lamp. And each month, she saves $15 in kerosene and battery costs — and the $20 she used to spend on travel.
In fact, neighbors now pay her 20 cents to charge their phones, although that business may soon evaporate: 63 families in Kiptusuri have recently installed their own solar power systems.”

These small scale solutions are spreading throughout Africa and other parts of the developing world as a result of small businesses and nonprofits. One such organization called E+Co invests in green businesses in developing country to provide them with the capital to implement off the grid energy solutions. E +Co has offices in 20 developing countries and has invested $40 million in various businesses. Some of E+Co’s investments include a $127,000 investment to Ghanaian company, Wilkin Solar, that sells solar powered lanterns to rural and urban homes in Ghana so homes do not have to rely on kerosene and firewood for lighting; a $224,241 investment to an Indian company, Selco India, that has sold small scale solar systems to more than 70,000 households in India, and an equity investment in Chinese company, DLLD, that manufactures mini hydropower systems that are used to generate electricity in rural China.

Energy in Common is another organization working to fight energy poverty by allowing individuals to make micro loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries. Individuals can choose from a list of green entrepreneurs on their website, make a loan to help fund green energy projects, track the progress of the project, and eventually get repaid. This is a sustainable and affordable way for ordinary citizens to become involved in remedying energy poverty.

Solar CITIES is a nonprofit that works in Cairo to install solar-powered hot water systems and biogas reactors in Cairo’s slums. The Charcoal Project works to raise awareness about the dangers associated with using biomass fueled stoves and bring together stakeholders to work towards potential solutions. The Lumina Project, an initiative of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, works to “enable small companies to innovate more rapidly, advises international organizations how to support these emerging [energy] markets, designing market research and performing market research, and helps students engage in the issue.”

These organizations are doing inspiring work, have noble goals, and continue to make a real impact on the lives of the world's poorest citizens; however, they are small organizations with limited capacity and funds. Small scale projects are for now, the most feasible and economical way of bringing people out of energy poverty, but the projects are just that, small. For the 3 billion people living in energy poverty, this relief is not coming fast enough.

R&D and the Future of Energy Poverty

At AEL, we have frequently written on the need for energy innovation and the role it has to play in America's economic growth, competitiveness, and national security. By investing in energy innovation America can simultaneously fuel its economy and help to alleviate international energy poverty. AEL President Teryn Norris and CEO of the Cleveland Foundation Ronald Richard recently wrote an op-ed entitled "Winning Ohio's Energy Future" that highlights the energy innovation projects occurring in Ohio's private sector and the 35,000 jobs they have created. The article notes that while Ohio's private sector has stimulated innovation and growth, there is also a need for the federal government to do the same:

"If America wants to lead the next great growth industry, it’s imperative that we make a serious national commitment to advanced energy technology. Today, the United States spends more on potato chips than federal energy research and development, and continues to spend billions of tax dollars subsidizing fossil fuels."

The American Energy Innovation Council has issued similar calls for government investment in energy research. The AEIC is a group whose mission is to "foster strong economic growth, create jobs in new industries, and reestablish America’s energy technology leadership through robust, public investments in the development of world-changing energy technologies" and is led by a group of prominent American business leaders such as Microsoft's Bill Gates, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, Norman Augustine, and the chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jeff Immelt. The AEIC recommends investing $16 billion annually in energy research, increasing funding of the Department of Energy's ARPA-E program to $1 billion, and establishing a New Energy Challenge Program to build large scale pilot projects.

To put $16 billion in perspective, the US currently spends $30 billion in health research and $80 billion in defense research and development. In an op-ed Gates and Holliday wrote for the Washington Post last year, they discussed the US's lack of initiative on energy research, the importance for energy innovation, and why the public sector should be the one to do it:

"But our country is neglecting a field central to our national prospect and security: energy. Although the information technology and pharmaceutical industries spend 5 to 15 percent of their revenue on research and development each year, U.S. companies' spending on energy R&D has averaged only about one-quarter of 1 percent of revenue over the past 15 years...
...We need a vigorous strategy to invent our future and ensure its safety and prosperity. In the realm of energy, as with medicine and national defense, that requires a public commitment. Why can't the private sector do this? What makes energy different from, say, electronics? Three things.
First, there are profound public interests in having more energy options. Our national security, economic health and environment are at issue. These are not primary motivations for private-sector investments, but they merit a public commitment.
Second, the nature of the energy business requires a public commitment. A new generation of television technology might cost $10 million to develop. Because those TVs can be built on existing assembly lines, that risk-reward calculus makes business sense. But a new electric power source can cost several billion dollars to develop and still carry the risk of failure. That investment does not compute for most companies.
Third, the turnover in our power system is very slow. Power plants last 50 years or more, and they are very cheap to run once built, meaning there is little market for new models.
It is understandable, then, why private-sector investments in clean energy technology are so small. Yet, while it may make sense for individual companies to make these choices, accepting the status quo would condemn our country to very bad options. There is vast opportunity in energy. Prices are declining in solar energy and wind, and they could fall further with new technology. There is a critical need for better electricity storage technologies to enable electric vehicles and very-large-scale renewable energy."

Investment into energy R&D would not only help secure America's future, but could also do much for the billions living in energy poverty. As noted earlier, small scale renewable projects provide the best opportunity for alleviating poverty while not adding to greenhouse gas emissions. By driving down the cost of solar cells, wind turbines, and energy storage electrifying rural areas could become not only become a cost effective proposition for governments, but profitable endeavor for private investors. While renewables remain a tough business pitch in much of the developed world, these margins become even smaller in the developing world, with lower electricity prices and increased technical hurdles. Lowering prices and creating more logistically feasible renewable power could also stem off the growing trend of developing nations looking to coal as the basis for electrification.

In Conclusion

Energy poverty is one of the most important and devastating social issues of our time that has been neglected for too long, and bringing half of the world’s population out of energy poverty is an enormous task. Innovative policies are needed to bring energy to people who live away from the grid and financing is needed to implement those solutions. America’s Climate REDI initiative is certainly a step in the right direction as are the efforts of groups like E+Co and Energy in Common. Projects like E+Co and the Energy in Common need continued sources of funding so they can reach the small businesses and local entrepreneurs in energy poor areas who are trying to make a difference.

Ultimately, more public-private investment in these initiatives -- especially those based around energy R&D and technology transfer -- and strategic partnerships between developed and developing countries are needed to truly reach all of those off the grid. Nonprofits and small businesses alone will not be able to bring electricity access to billions of people. Meanwhile, technological innovation is needed to drive down the cost of clean technologies so they are competitive and no longer need international subsidies. New ways of connecting remote rural areas to the grid are needed, and in cases where connection to the grid is impossible, improved storage mechanisms for distributed generation resources would improve electricity access in remote areas.

Natalie Relich is a Contributor in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project and her work will be regularly featured on the website. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of AEL.

Senate Democrats' Agenda Aims to Invest in Energy Innovation

2011-02-22T17:34:00.001-08:00

Originally posted by Sara Mansur at the Breakthrough Institute

Last week, a group of Senate Democrat leaders unveiled their plan to build off of the innovation-centered budget proposal released by the President two weeks ago, including several important energy innovation investments. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the proposal as an effort to simultaneously "create jobs, promote growth and help America win the future by making smart investments in education, innovation and infrastructure while cutting spending to live within our means."

The Senate Democrats' plan to judiciously invest in innovation while cutting wasteful spending stands in sharp contrast to the Continuing Resolution bill passed by the House this weekend. The House bill budget would recklessly cut more than $60 billion from the federal budget to fund the government through FY2011, slashing several important energy innovation initiatives.

Instead, the Senate Democrats' agenda will focus on pushing investments across the energy innovation cycle, from R&D to manufacturing to deployment. Below are some key components of the plan:

R&D Tax Credit: Senate Democrats will seek to make permanent the income tax credit for research and development, which acts as an important incentive for private companies to invest in early-stage R&D.

Establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration: Senate Democrats will aim to develop a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA), whose purpose would be to provide financial support to the riskiest clean energy technologies, helping them move from the laboratory to commercialization. Without creative public-private partnerships, these capital-intensive, high-risk technologies are at great risk of getting stuck in the commercialization "valley of death," an innovation fate that can spell doom for the widespread deployment of potentially critical clean energy technologies.

Expand the Build America Bonds Program: Democrats will focus on extending and expanding the Build America Bonds program, which lowers the cost of borrowing for municipalities to support new infrastructure projects and create jobs.

Extend the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit: The Senators will aim to further the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit, which offers a 30 percent credit for domestic companies to build new clean energy technologies. This tax credit is an effort to boost domestic clean energy manufacturing and compete with China.

These measures, among others, are vital to encouraging American competitiveness in the clean energy sector. By establishing a policy environment conducive to innovation, the US will attract the entrepreneurs, industry, and private capital necessary to encourage a thriving clean energy sector.

The Senators' plan for a selective and targeted approach to clean energy investment will post a much higher return than the House's proposal to carelessly slash programs that are most vital to American growth. Senate Democrats have realized this fact, but it remains to be seen if Senate Republicans can get on board.

Presidents Day: Winning Our Energy Future with $15 billion for R&D

2011-02-21T11:38:00.000-08:00

Today, we have an op-ed published in the Presidents' Day edition of The Plain Dealer, the largest newspaper in Ohio. The op-ed, "Winning Ohio's energy future," arrives one day before President Obama visits Cleveland to promote the administration's "winning the future" agenda and host a business forum on entrepreneurship and innovation.

Co-authored with the CEO of the Cleveland Foundation, one of the country's largest community foundations, we discuss how greater federal investment in clean energy technology innovation -- on the scale of $15 billion annually for R&D -- can unleash economic growth in the Midwest and across America, help recapture our global clean-tech leadership, and drive down the price of low-carbon energy.

Winning Ohio's energy future
The Plain Dealer – Cleveland, OH
Monday, February 21, 2011

By Ronald B. Richard and Teryn Norris

When President Barack Obama visits Cleveland on Tuesday to talk about entrepreneurship and innovation, he will find a city and state where those forces are driving a revolution in clean, green energy – and where a greater federal commitment to energy innovation can secure our national competitiveness.

Northeast Ohio entrepreneurs are building an innovation ecosystem in clean-energy technologies and pushing the region and state into national leadership. NorTech, the regional technology-promoting nonprofit, has pulled together more than 400 public and private partners to create a cluster of advanced-energy innovation. Case Western Reserve University's Great Lakes Energy Institute is conducting cutting-edge research into improvements in power generation, storage and transportation.

All over Ohio, advanced energy is spawning employment: The industry already accounts for more than 35,000 jobs in Ohio -- more than all but three other states. Toledo gave birth to one of the world's largest solar-power companies. Some 90 manufacturers are supplying parts for wind turbines.

And we hope the most visible symbol of Ohio's place in this 21st-century economy will soon sprout from Lake Erie near downtown: a wind-turbine farm that will energize homes and help position our region as a global leader in the freshwater wind-power niche.

But the president and his Cabinet must depart from Cleveland State University with the clear understanding that all of this progress is precarious. Without substantial federal and state investment, leadership and policy change, energy innovation in Ohio and all across the United States will short-circuit.

If America wants to lead the next great growth industry, it's imperative that we make a serious national commitment to advanced energy technology. Today, the United States spends more on potato chips than federal energy research and development, and continues to spend billions of tax dollars subsidizing fossil fuels. The results are clear: Since the 1970s, the United States has failed to cut our dependence on fossil fuels. Meanwhile, China recently announced a plan to invest a whopping $740 billion in its clean-tech industry over the next decade.

Recognizing this challenge, a growing group of business leaders, scientists and economists has settled on a target for increased federal energy R&D: $15 billion, compared to the current level of about $3 billion. The consensus extends from a coalition of business titans including Bill Gates and GE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt, to dozens of Nobel Prize-winning scientists, to the president's chief technology advisers. This investment, they argue, can drive down the price of low-carbon energy, help regain U.S. clean-tech leadership and spur the development of entirely new industries. The Obama administration's latest budget proposes a $750 million increase in annual energy innovation spending -- a critical first step.

For decades, the Department of Defense has been hugely successful at fostering breakthrough technology. Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, but an organization called the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency did -- along with the GPS in your phone, speech-translation technology, stealth planes and much more. Today, a new organization modeled after DARPA at the Department of Energy, called ARPA-E, is doing the same for energy technology, and it has already leveraged more than $100 million in private capital. Similar to a venture capital firm, ARPA-E can direct federal energy-research dollars to drive innovation and growth, and eventually pay for itself many times over.

Our nation's track record is indisputable: When the United States wants to lead, we make a national commitment and invest the necessary resources. Since World War II, few policies have enjoyed as much bipartisan support as research and development. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Manhattan Project created the nuclear power industry; Presidents Dwight Eisenhower's and John Kennedy's post-Sputnik programs sparked the information technology and aerospace revolution; and Reagan's investments in defense technology helped win the Cold War.

Energy innovation won't solve all of America's and Ohio's economic woes, and broader federal support is necessary to spur clean-energy deployment and manufacturing, including a national target for clean-energy production. But public investment in technology innovation was central to making the 20th century the American century, and with bold federal commitment today, the United States might begin achieving the energy revolution we need.

--
Ronald B. Richard is president and CEO of the Cleveland Foundation. Teryn Norris is president and founder of Americans for Energy Leadership, a national energy policy advocacy group.

House GOP Budget Proposal Slashes Energy Innovation Investments

2011-02-18T16:32:00.000-08:00

The House Republican's Continuing Resolution proposal to fund the government through the rest of FY11 would recklessly slash energy innovation investments across federal agencies. The bill, H.R. 1, was introduced last Friday as the GOP's misguided attempt to reduce the deficit, a proposal that would strip highly leveraged dollars from important federal programs, while representing merely a drop in the bucket of the $1.3 trillion federal deficit.

The Continuing Resolution as it stands would slice over two billion dollars from the DOE's budget alone and would have detrimental impacts on the state of American energy innovation. The budget cuts would force the layoffs of scientists and engineers, shrink the capabilities of laboratories and universities to perform the most critical cutting-edge energy research projects, and, by cutting funds for highly-leveraged loan guarantee programs, steer private sector funds away from American entrepreneurs and small businesses looking to demonstrate and deploy their innovative energy technologies on American soil.

The Continuing Resolution proposes cuts of at least 17% as compared to FY10 levels in each of the most innovation-oriented offices in the Department of Energy:

The agency which would be hardest hit would be the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which funds both the riskiest and most transformative, early-stage energy innovation projects, and would lose a staggering 75% of its budget under H.R. 1.

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which was responsible for roughly 34% of the DOE's energy innovation investments in 2010, would lose 35% of its FY10 budget.

The Office of Science, which funds critical early-stage energy innovation research, would see a 20% decline in its budget. Office of Science devoted 20% of its 2010 budget to energy innovation funding, while supporting additional fundamental physical science research.

The Office of Nuclear Energy, which devoted 41% of its funds to energy innovation projects in 2010, would lose 23% of its budget.

Meanwhile, the Office of Fossil Energy would see an 11% reduction in its budget. 43% of the office's 2010 budget was devoted to energy innovation efforts.

These are the offices and programs that fund the most critical and innovation energy technology projects, and such broad budget cuts would be detrimental to their operations. As the graph below illustrates, these proposed budgets stand in sharp contrast to President Obama's proposed budget for FY12, which would responsibly ratchet up critical energy innovation investments in each of these offices.

Budget of Selected DOE programs, ($ US)

To make matters worse, the budget would cut funding for several of the DOE's loan guarantee programs, which aim to fill the gap left by the private sector in financing the development and deployment of innovative renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. For instance, the DOE's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program's budget would drop 50%, or by $10 million.

And the Continuing Resolution rescinds all unobligated ARRA funds, effectively stripping away financing for 20 DOE loan guarantee applications that are currently in review, but have not yet been finalized. Further, six innovative energy projects have received conditional loan guarantee commitments from the DOE and secured developer financing, but, because the OMB will not consider loan guarantee funding to be obligated until loans have closed, these projects, too, will be cancelled.

As Rhone Resch of the Solar Industries Association wrote in an open letter to the House,

All of these projects would be cancelled by H.R. 1, not only eliminating the construction jobs associated with these projects, but also impacting the manufacturing orders to our domestic US solar industry... In today's economic climate, these programs are critical to attract investment in nuclear, clean coal and renewable energy projects. Until the financial community witnesses the successful completion of several of these projects, it will continue to charge substantial premiums or not lend to those projects at all.

This Continuing Resolution, if passed, would not just eliminate jobs from the solar industry, or from construction or manufacturing orders, but would eliminate jobs across the energy innovation cycle and across various innovative energy technology sectors. This, in turn, would drive private sector funds away from the American market and towards overseas soils, where governments are recognizing the importance of investing in energy innovation, manufacturing, and markets.

Obama's proposed FY12 demonstrated a clear understanding that budget cuts, while important and necessary, need to be strategic. At a time when other countries are actively investing in energy innovation to remain competitive, the House Continuing Resolution proposal would weaken the engine of American growth - innovation. Far from fiscally responsible, these untargeted and sweeping cuts to energy innovation budgets are short-sighted and will amount to no long term gain for the country, our economy, or the deficit situation.

President Obama's Budget Would Invest in Energy Innovation

2011-02-18T15:54:00.000-08:00

President Obama released his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal this morning, a solid endorsement of the necessity to increase public investment in energy innovation amidst proposals to indiscriminately cut discretionary spending across all federal programs. The President's budget proposal builds off of the innovation-centered economic growth strategy presented in the State of the Union Address last month and the White House Innovation Report released two weeks ago.

On the energy investment front, the budget proposal aims to increase the DOE's budget by 11.8 percent over FY2010's current appropriation levels, or $3.1 billion dollars, a comparatively small increase in an overall budget proposal of $3.7 trillion that proposes reducing the projected deficit by roughly $110 billion per year for the next ten years.

This budget increase is a vital step towards meeting the scale of the energy innovation challenge long-underlined by the Breakthrough Institute and by a general consensus of leading energy innovation experts, think tanks, and policymakers.

However, not all of these increases lie with funding for energy innovation. Using the Energy Innovation Tracker, a tool that compiles federal energy-innovation funding across nine federal agencies for the years 2009-2011, inclusive of ARRA, we've broken out investments in energy innovation (defined in the tracker as Basic Science, RD&D, and Education investments) from general energy investments in measures such as deployment, facility construction, and program management.

To do so, we've calculated the share of total budgets for each of these programs in FY2010 dedicated to energy innovation spending, and have assumed, for discussion's sake, that an equal proportion of each proposed FY2012 program budget is intended for energy innovation spending. The FY2010 budget is used rather than FY2011 budget request, as federal agencies are currently operating with a continuing resolution under FY2010 budget levels. The summary table for a selection of these energy innovation measures is presented below. Please note that these are ballpark figures. For a more extensive discussion of the methodology behind these assumptions, see the bullets at the end of this post.

Selected DOE Program Energy Innovation Budgets, FY2010 and Estimated Proposed FY2012 ($ millions)
(click to enlarge)

In addition to these budgetary increases:

The Administration is proposing an additional $5 billion investment for the Section 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit program, which provides a 30% tax credit for energy manufacturing facilities to encourage advanced manufacturing processes.

The budget also proposes increasing funding for several of the DOE's loan guarantee programs, aiming to scale-up loan guarantees for the development and deployment of innovative renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, nuclear power projects, and advanced technology vehicle manufacturing.

Budget increases will be funded through the proposed reform of fossil fuel energy spending, through the elimination of tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry and a 45% cut to DOE fossil energy research programs. Hydrogen research and a few other programs also receive targeted reductions in the budget request.

These elements of President Obama's proposed budget are key moves towards the larger energy innovation system reform advocated for by several leading innovation scholars in "Post-Partisan Power", and in "Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy" a 2009 report published by the Breakthrough Institute and Third Way.

With these proposed investments across the energy innovation cycle, from research in breakthrough technologies to investments in advanced manufacturing and demonstration of later-stage technologies, the proposal recognizes that public investments in energy innovation are not just critical to the nation's energy future, but also to securing the country's economic prosperity. The proposal adds to a growing chorus of voices on both sides of the political spectrum that recognize that smart, targeted investments, rather than sweeping spending cuts, can be used to spark innovation and overcome the fiscal deficit.

The President's proposed budget is an important first step towards meeting this country's energy innovation imperative. Now, it remains to be seen if the budget proposal is largely symbolic, or if the President is fully committed to making this case to the American public and to winning over conservative policymakers and fiscal hawks who have been reluctant to embrace an innovation-focused strategy for fiscal responsibility and economic renewal.

------------------------
*Calculations for share of proposed FY12 budget devoted to energy innovation for the Office of Fossil Energy differed from calculations used for other offices, as the Administration stated throughout the proposed budget its goal of phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Thus, it was assumed that the proportion of budget devoted to energy innovation would have increased in the FY12 proposed budget, and this share was calculated by summing: the changes listed in the FY12 proposed budget for the Carbon Capture & Power Systems Programs, the Advanced Energy Systems Programs, and a portion of the FY10 energy innovation budget that was assumed to be unchanged from lack of indication otherwise.

The DOE's Office of Science (OS)'s budget is proposed to increase by 9.2 percent from FY2010 appropriation levels to $5.4 billion, mostly to continue funding basic energy research and to fund workforce development programs. However, not all of the Office of Science's funding goes towards energy science research, as the office also is a major funder of the nation's fundamental physical science research. With approximately $1 billion, or 20%, of the Office of Science's FY2010 budget devoted to basic energy science research, $1.1 billion, an increase of $100 million over FY10, of the OS' budget will be devoted to basic energy science through this proposed budget.

The Administration is requesting a $550 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) to continue funding early-stage transformational energy research projects, an increase of $350 million from ARPA-E's original funding of $400 million over two years through the ARRA stimulus package. 88% of ARPA-E's funding through ARRA was apportioned to energy-innovation RD&D, thus about $487 million of this $550 million can be expected to be spent on energy-innovation RD&D through the FY12 proposed budget.

The budget proposes an increase in funding for the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)'s budget, from $2.2 billion in FY10 to $3.2 billion, to continue funding research, development, demonstration and deployment on renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Of EERE's FY10 budget, 48% was spent on energy innovation-related RD&D and training programs, thus we can assume roughly $1.5 billion will be spent to energy-innovation related programs through the FY12 proposed budget.

o In the vehicle technology realm, the Administration proposes an 93% increase in the DOE EERE's Vehicle Technologies budget to $588 million to advance R&D for innovative transportation technologies. With an 80% dedicated to energy innovation funding in FY2010, we can assume that almost $486 million will be spent on energy innovation related projects in the Vehicle Technologies program through the proposed budget.

The Administration is proposing a decrease of 0.6% in the Office of Nuclear Energy's (NE) budget, from $858 million to $853 million. 40% of NE's FY10's budget went towards energy-innovation spending, and resultantly we would expect about $349 million of Obama's proposed Office of Nuclear Energy budget to go towards nuclear energy innovation projects.

o Amidst growing interest in the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology, the FY 2011 DOE budget request was the first to propose a project specifically geared towards supporting RD&D of SMR technologies, a $39 million project through the Reactor Concepts RD&D program. Obama's budget proposes a $125 million budget for the Reactor Concepts R&D program, which will reportedly include R&D on advanced SMR designs.

The proposal includes funding to launch three additional Energy Innovation Hubs, to bring the total number of DOE Energy Innovation Hubs to six, two shy of the eight hubs advocated for by the Breakthrough Institute and a coalition of think tanks in a policy report on the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. These three new hubs would focus on batteries and energy storage, smart grid technologies and systems, and critical advanced materials. The three original Energy Innovation Hubs received funding of approximately $22 million each in FY2010, and are conducting research in the areas of Energy Efficient Buildings, Fuels from Sunlight, and Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear Reactors.

Uncertainty or Definitiveness in Climate Science?

2011-02-17T13:36:00.000-08:00

Two new studies, published in Nature (subscription required), find a link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and extreme weather events. At least, that's what I keep hearing. But something else is happening here, beyond the humans-are-changing-the-climate narrative. Behind the boilerplate conclusions offered by the two studies, and in the context of climate-fueled extreme weather research in general, is an interesting discussion of the value and validity of such specific scientific findings to policymakers and the general public.

As The New York Times reports:

In the first major paper of its kind, the researchers used elaborate computer programs that simulate the climate to analyze whether the rise in severe rainstorms, heavy snowfalls and similar events could be explained by natural variability in the atmosphere. They found that it could not, and that the increase made sense only when the computers factored in the effects of greenhouse gases released by human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.

The two studies each used climate modeling to predict the likelihood of observing discrete precipitation levels that, according to their findings, were impossible without the contribution of human-influenced atmospheric moisture content. The first study (Min, Zhang, Zwiers, and Hegerl) analyzed global rainfall over a fifty-year period (1951-1999) and used climate simulations to calculate the effect of increased GHG levels in the atmosphere on precipitation. The second (Pall, Aina, Stone, Stott, Nozawa, Hilberts, Lohmann, and Allen) established causal relationship, using climate simulations, between emissions and a unique extreme weather event (specifically, a flood in England in 2000).

The context for the two respective papers is important. The conclusion offered by the Min et al. indicates that climate change is both happening and having an effect on macro-scale phenomena, specifically global precipitation preceding extreme weather events. The paper by Pall and colleagues ostensibly asserts that we can identify a climate "fingerprint" in specific extreme weather events, indicting humankind for its increasing frequency.

Joe Romm at Climate Progress used the evidence put forward by these two studies in saying that "key weather events are becoming more extreme — especially deluges, heat waves, and droughts — as climate scientists have long predicted they would if atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases kept rising." He is referring here to the conventional wisdom in climate change research that, while we anticipate increasing and intensifying climatological extremes associated with anthropogenic emissions, no single weather event can be attributed to the effects of climate change. Climate Progress (which, incidentally, censored me just last week) seems to have put this conventional wisdom to rest.

Not so fast, say others. Over at his blog, Roger Pielke Jr. provides the following contribution to this discussion:

I have been asked by many people whether these papers mean that we can now attribute some fraction of the global trend in disaster losses to greenhouse gas emissions, or even recent disasters such as in Pakistan and Australia.

I hate to pour cold water on a really good media frenzy, but the answer is "no." Neither paper actually discusses global trends in disasters (one doesn't even discuss floods) or even individual events beyond a single flood event in the UK in 2000.

Pielke notes that the Min et al. paper discusses precipitation only, omitting any data on streamflow or damage. On this, he says,

Precipitation is to flood damage as wind is to windstorm damage. It is not enough to say that it has become windier to make a connection to increased windstorm damage -- you need to show a specific increase in those specific wind events that actually cause damage. There are a lot of days that could be windier with no increase in damage; the same goes for precipitation.

Further, Pielke criticizes the Pall et al. paper for drawing conclusions on extreme weather trends in a study with an overly narrow focus on a single weather event. The data, Pielke suggests, don't add up to such a compelling conclusion as has been reported.

Perhaps the most interesting dynamic at play here is what Pielke referred to as "a really good media frenzy." Andrew Revkin at DotEarth has probably the best compilation of opinion and fact surrounding this story, and he uses these two studies to discuss the interplay between scientists and journalists. Specifically, Revkin reminds us, climate science does not tend to lend itself to soundbites and easy conclusions:

As I wrote recently, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the definitiveness of an assertion and its credibility. This doesn’t mean that everything definitive is wrong (only Joe Romm could find a way to interpret it thus). It means that a reporter, or citizen, confronted with a flat statement on a tough issue would do well to dig a bit deeper.

Reporting on the issues, and making policy in response to them, becomes that much more difficult because of the simplistic diagnostics many of us seek. This is the key trouble with climate science, in my view. Science and journalism very often present us with definitive climate predictions, and when credible non-deniers like Pielke chime in with data-driven skepticism, the zeitgeist of climate change as a whole suffers in the public arena. The trouble with trying to solve the climate crisis by using climate disasters as harbingers is that we have yet to accurately predict in advance or attribute in retrospect any direct culpability to anthropogenic emissions in high-profile weather events. Thus, insofar as climate change is a technical challenge with a technical solution, it is extremely difficult to define the parameters which we seek to address.

These two studies, and the reporting on them, are examples of how messy the arena of public discourse can get without even inviting the flat-earthers who refuse to entertain the notion that climate change might just possibly be a bad thing. It is for this reason primarily that I (taking a cue from Revkin) like to frame the challenges we face as an energy quest, for which the technical challenges posed are far more simple to diagnose, even if they are just as daunting.

The Curious Case of the Texas Wind Industry

2011-02-09T13:24:00.000-08:00

By Chris Head | Originally publishes at Americans for Energy Leadership

In January, Cape Wind attained what appeared to be the final permits needed to break ground on the long-awaited wind farm. For the past 10 years, the Massachusetts-based Cape Wind project has faced political and legal pressure from advocacy groups and residents who have lobbied hard against the 130 turbine offshore wind farm. In that same amount of time, almost 10,000 MW of onshore wind capacity has been installed in, of all places, Texas.

By 2010 Texas had become the undisputed leader of wind energy in the United States, a fact that flies in the face of conventional logic. How is a state steeped in oil and gas, and run by climate-change denying politicians, spearheading some of the largest renewable energy developments in the US? The answer could provide some insights into how renewable energy can flourish in states where environmental and climate concerns aren’t necessarily the main drivers of energy policy.

Oil, Money, and Politics

The Texas economy is valued at $1.2 trillion, putting it on roughly the same GDP level as India, Russia, and Spain. The State's economy also produces, and consumes, more electricity than any other state in the country. The vast majority of this electricity comes from fossil fuels, making Texas the largest CO2 emitting state in the United States, which until 2006 was the largest emitter of CO2 in the world.

Fossil fuels are intrinsic to the politics and economy of Texas. According to the EIA, in 2009 Texas was the leading crude oil-producing state in the U.S., and its 27 refineries account for more than ¼ of total U.S. refining capacity. In 2008, the oil and gas industry contributed 16.5% of Texas’ Gross State Product, while employing over 360,000 people.

Oil and natural gas companies such as ConocoPhillips, Exxon-Mobil, and Halliburton are headquartered in Texas, and these companies have enjoyed substantial support from politicians such as Governor Rick Perry, who has been an unapologetic ally of the coal, oil, and natural gas industries throughout his decade-long tenure. Indeed, Governor Perry has long been one of the most prominent anti-environmental politicians in the country. And yet, Governor Perry has overseen one of the greatest renewable energy success stories in the United States.

Wind energy accounted for almost 8% of Texas electricity in 2010, up from 3% in 2007. Texas is home to over 30 grid-scale wind farms (each with a nameplate capacity of at least 120 MW) for a total installed capacity of around 9,700 MW. The EIA reports that this is more than 25% of total installed wind capacity in the United States, and almost three times as much capacity as Iowa, the second-ranked state.

There are multiple reasons why Texas is winning the wind race in the US. True, the state is home to some of the best wind resources in the world. But as the stalled Cape Wind project has shown, strong winds do not necessarily translate to grid-sale renewable energy projects. Political, technical, and regulatory barriers all must be overcome for any significant grid scale renewable electricity rollout. Texas has managed to create a favorable policy environment by streamlining regulatory processes, tapping into rural development concerns, and supporting transmission and distribution projects, all of which allow investors to confidently sink money into utility-scale electricity generation projects.

Along the way, the Texas wind industry is establishing best practices not just for wind, but for all renewable intermittent electricity generation sources. Says Peter Behr of the New York Times,

“the lessons learned from the Texas wind power story are also writing the first chapters for new energy policies that will be required when the climate threat becomes a political reality. Grid operators who want to know how much wind or solar power the grid can handle look first to Texas for answers.”

Texas’ ability to formulate a comprehensive policy framework has been essential to supporting the deployment of grid-scale wind farms. Below are specific aspects to this framework, many of which could be replicated in areas of the country where wind generation rollouts face political and logistical hurdles.

Solving the Transmission Dilemma

The process of developing major transmission and distribution (T&D) projects for renewable electricity generation has proven problematic across the US. The main problem is the inherent paradox in which developers need transmission lines to build wind farms, but investors won’t build transmission lines unless they are confident that these lines will carry electricity. As these concerns started to arise in the early 2000s, the Texas legislature responded with a bill which called for the development of Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, or CREZs. These zones are the optimal areas for an electric transmission infrastructure that can move electricity from wind farms to major demand centers.

In July of 2008, the Public Utilities Commission selected a $4.93 billion transmission package capable of transporting 18,456 MW of new power from West Texas and the Panhandle to metropolitan areas. According to analyst Will Furgeson, “If the CREZ implementation is a successful antidote to transmission constraints, the plan could provide a model that might be duplicated across the nation.” The CREZ bill is an example of comprehensive infrastructure appropriation bill that attempts to solve the transmission dilemma in one fell swoop - compared to the on-again/off-again nature of federal production tax credits - which provides wind investors with greater incentives to sink costs into grid-scale developments. This also appears to be a good investment for taxpayers, as the one-time $5 billion transmission line investment is expected to save Texas consumers more than $3.4 billion a year on electricity costs and more than $1.5 billion a year on fuel costs.

Importance of Renewable Portfolio Standards

In 1999, Texas passed a modest renewable portfolio standard that was tucked into a much larger bill that deregulated the state’s electricity sector. The RPS was met four years ahead of schedule, so in 2005, Governor Perry signed a much more ambitious RPS which called for 5,880 MW of renewable generation by 2015 and 10,000 MW by 2025. Remarkably, this goal will be met over a decade ahead of schedule, as Texas has already reached 9,700 MW of installed wind capacity. According to the Environmental Defense Fund’s Jim Marston, “Wind is working so well that [Texas] doesn’t even have to continue to have mandates.”

At first, volatile fossil fuel prices were arguably the greatest driver for wind energy development, rather than the RPS -in 2000. Wind operators responded to a sudden natural gas price spike by offering long term fixed price contracts to customers, boosting the nascent wind industry.

Regardless of what the spark was, the RPS did push officials to take critical steps to integrate renewable electricity generation into the regulatory structure of state government. Some of the main impediments to the growth of grid-scale renewable energy generation projects are rooted in conflicts between government agencies and private stakeholders over pricing, land-use, grid usage, T&D infrastructure, and permits. With an RPS in place, Texas was obligated to formulate policies which could address those issues. At least 26 states have passed an RPS, which is a good first step to building a comprehensive grid-scale renewable generation policy.

Getting Grid Operators and Regulators on Board

The regulatory landscape in Texas has been just as valuable as the natural landscape in cultivating the most successful wind industry in the US in just a little over 10 years. Texas has a key regulatory advantage over other states in the country in that power providers and utilities operate almost exclusively within Texas borders. By contrast,

“federal policy on transmission is hogtied by regional conflicts over who pays for long-distance transmission lines for renewable energy.” Will Furgeson adds, “The lack of oversight from multiple state governments allows for a greater degree of adaptability for the industry. Wind developers can usually expect much shorter project timelines in Texas, due to the state’s permissive regulatory policies and business friendly environment.”

The key player for electricity regulation is ERCOT, the state grid operator, which handles more wind power than any other grid operator in the US. Each day, ERCOT orders the next day’s power for the state based on historic data and weather forecasting tools. ERCOT uses an open access policy for purchasing its electricity from generators, which means they will first purchase and dispatch the lowest cost electricity generation. Since wind turbines use a fuel source that is essentially free, wind operators can produce electricity at a low marginal cost, and thus they can sell power at competitive prices with natural gas, coal, and nuclear generated electricity. Federal production tax credits for wind energy, currently 2.2 cents/kWh, also help lower costs.

Solving the Intermittency Problem

The intermittency challenges facing a grid that gets 8% of its electricity from wind energy are substantial. ERCOT has taken measures to help alleviate intermittency problems and stabilize the grid, notably through its load demand program. Similar to demand-response companies such as EnerNOC, ERCOT signs contracts with major power consumers stipulating that, in the case of a rapid drop in wind-generated power, ERCOT will pay these companies to immediately reduce electricity demand and shift the excess power to the grid within minutes, averting a blackout. ERCOT has also switched from zonal to nodal pricing, a move that improves grid reliability, increases market efficiency, and enables transparency of wholesale energy prices. Nodal pricing improves marketing and operations efficiencies through “more granular pricing and scheduling of energy services,” leading to projected consumer savings of over $5.5 billion over the next decade.

Texas wind generators, regulators, and grid operators are already challenging some long-held assumptions about wind power. For example, grid operators around the world have expressed concern about the supposed cap of 20% electricity from intermittent sources that can be integrated into existing grid systems. Yet, according to an Austin utility manager, the 20% grid intermittency problem “isn’t nearly as intractable as it looked 10 years ago.” Common assumptions regarding intermittent energy sources can be challenged when utilities and power providers have a financial incentive to increase efficiency and cultivate in-house innovation. Other states are already looking to Texas as an example of how to structure their wind industry rollouts.

Turning Local Politics into an Asset Rather Than Liability

Technical and regulatory problems are not the only hurdles which must be overcome for renewable energy generation projects. Local politics and ‘not-in-my-backyard’ arguments are enough to sink promising wind and solar projects, even if such a project is financially and technically feasible.

In many areas of Texas, developers have been able to spread the message that wind farms can provide significant benefits for rural communities, which in turn has helped green-light numerous wind farms. In the dry, arid regions of West Texas and the Panhandle, large ranches that previously supported few crops or little livestock are faced with a new, potentially lucrative option. Some wind developers are willing to pay landowners hundreds of dollars a year for every wind turbine placed on their property. Since a wind turbine only occupies between 3-8% of the area leased by developers (wind turbines must be spread out to operate effectively), a farm or ranch can still be productive with other activities while generating revenue from turbines. In Texas, leases for wind farms are generally granted for 30 – 50 years, which means that landowners can depend on wind turbines to generate income for decades.

According to Clifford Krauss of the New York Times, “it has dawned on many Texans that wind power, whatever its other pros and cons, represents a potent new strategy for rural economic development.” Property values are doubling in some wind-rich counties, and tax revenue from wind developments provide local governments with tangible benefits from renewable energy. The Papalote Creek wind farm on the Gulf Coast is set to top the gas industry as the largest local taxpayer, only 2 years after the project’s completion. It is expected to pay 1/3 of the district’s entire tax bill by 2011.

Wind energy proponents across the country should pay careful attention to the specific stakeholders who will be affected by both generation and transmission projects. While opposition will continue for most large electricity projects, anticipating opposition and working with stakeholders to alleviate their concerns can help mitigate a local political backlash.

Leveraging Environmentalist Pockets in Conservative States

In many parts of Texas, wind energy’s low-carbon characteristics play second fiddle to rural economic development and a diversified energy portfolio. But in some pockets of Texas, clean energy proponents have pushed utilities to integrate clean energy generation into their electricity mix. Austin’s GreenChoice program, for example, allows consumers to pay a premium for renewable-generated electricity. GreenChoice has been the most successful utility sponsored voluntary pricing program in the US for the last 8 years, exemplifying how the purchasing power of environmentally conscious consumers can support renewable energy when such policies might not be feasible at the state level.

In Texas, environmental concerns (especially among urban populations) can effectively be tapped to support clean energy, as some consumers will voluntarily choose renewable premiums for renewable-generated electricity. Similar programs in San Antonio and El Paso are meeting consumer’s demand for clean energy as well.

Conclusion

If renewable electricity generation can thrive in Texas, it can happen anywhere. But implementing major energy generation projects involves more than competitive pricing and a RPS mandate. As Massachusetts has experienced with its Cape Wind project, an environmentally progressive populace means little without the support and facilitation of public utilities, grid operators, and legislatures. Indeed, once the decision has been made to construct a new wind or solar farm, a myriad of challenges remain before such a project actually starts producing electricity. Texas has taken a nuts and bolts approach to developing a comprehensive wind energy policy, addressing such disparate though essential areas such as local politics, publicly funded infrastructure projects, and nodal pricing.

The Texas case also provides hints into the future of renewable energy in conservative and/or rural states, and may help to shift the clean energy dialogue to a more productive route. Overall, looking at clean energy technologies through the lens of an economic driver, rather than costly mandated CO2-reduction measures, adds incentives for a wider variety of stakeholders while providing financial incentives for best practices. As AEL’s Teryn Norris and Daniel Goldfarb recently posted, President Obama adopted a similar strategy in his State of the Union address, calling for significant investments in the clean energy economy while neglecting to mention the word ‘climate.’ Such investments are a popular idea among many folks across the ideological spectrum, which might provide the critical leverage needed for grid-scale renewable energy projects in both red and blue states.

Chris Head is a Contributor in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project and his work will be regularly featured on the website. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of AEL.

Webinar: China and Energy - Innovation, Competitiveness, and Meeting Soaring Demand

2011-02-04T10:25:00.000-08:00

On Monday, I appeared on an hour-long webinar hosted by theEnergyCollective.com on China and Energy, diving into questions of energy innovation, competitiveness, and the challenge of meeting China's soaring demand.

Carolyn Bartholomew, a commissioner on the US-China Economic Security and Review Commission joined myself and moderator Marc Gunther to dive into the issues at stake.

We discussed how China can be both the world leader in clean and dirty energy, simultaneously leading the world in the production of clean energy technologies and global contributions to climate-destabilizing carbon dioxide and coal consumption; the economic stakes of the global clean energy race and China's rising prowess in clean tech innovation and production; and the huge scale of energy demand in the rapidly developing nation.

You can give a listen here.

See also: "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" report on global clean tech competitiveness

A Clean Energy Competitiveness Strategy for America

Full Breakthrough Institute archives on Clean Energy Competitiveness

Nuclear Power in a Post-Partisan Approach to Energy

2011-02-04T10:06:00.000-08:00

Originally published by Alex Trembath at Americans for Energy Leadership.

In the wake of cap-and-trade’s defeat, and as we begin a new session of Congress, common ground must be found on policy to renovate America’s energy infrastructure. Now may be the time to explore the possible benefits of renewing America’s once vigorous nuclear power production. Notably absent in recent advances in America’s energy portfolio has been nuclear power. Public safety fears stemming from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have left nuclear policy in stasis for decades, but as our President aims to launch a new industrial policy and our nation trends towards a new national energy policy, it may be time to revive our commitment to this method of zero-emissions baseload power generation.

Nuclear power is unique among clean energy technologies in that Democrats tend to be more hesitant towards its production than Republicans. Indeed, it has a reputation for its appeal to conservatives -Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman included provisions for nuclear technology in their ultimately unsuccessful American Power Act (APA) with the ostensible goal of courting Republican support. The urgency with which Democrats feel we must spark an energy revolution may find a perfect partner with Republicans who support nuclear power. But is there anything more than speculative political evidence towards its bipartisan viability?

If there is one field of the energy sector for which certainty of political will and government policy is essential, it is nuclear power. High up front costs for the private industry, extreme regulatory oversight and public wariness necessitate a committed government partner for private firms investing in nuclear technology. In a new report on the potential for a “nuclear renaissance,” Third Way references the failed cap-and-trade bill, delaying tactics in the House vis-a-vis EPA regulations on CO₂, and the recent election results to emphasize the difficult current political environment for advancing new nuclear policy. The report, “The Future of Nuclear Energy,” makes the case for political certainty:

“It is difficult for energy producers and users to estimate the relative price for nuclear-generated energy compared to fossil fuel alternatives (e.g. natural gas)–an essential consideration in making the major capital investment decision necessary for new energy production that will be in place for decades.”

Are our politicians willing to match the level of certainty that the nuclear industry demands? Lacking a suitable price on carbon that may have been achieved by a cap-and-trade bill removes one primary policy instrument for making nuclear power more cost-competitive with fossil fuels. The impetus on Congress, therefore, will be to shift from demand-side “pull” energy policies (that increase demand for clean tech by raising the price of dirty energy) to supply-side “push” policies, or industrial and innovation policies. Fortunately, there are signals from political and thought leaders that a package of policies may emerge to incentivize alternative energy sources that include nuclear power.

One place to start is the recently deceased American Power Act, addressed above, authored originally by Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman. Before its final and disappointing incarnation, the bill included provisions to increase loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction in addition to other tax incentives. Loan guarantees are probably the most important method of government involvement in new plant construction, given the high capital costs of development. One wonders what the fate of the bill, or a less ambitious set of its provisions, would have been had Republican Senator Graham not abdicated and removed any hope of Republican co-sponsorship.

But that was last year. The changing of the guard in Congress makes this a whole different game, and the once feasible support for nuclear technology on either side of the aisle must be reevaluated. A New York Times piece in the aftermath of the elections forecast a difficult road ahead for nuclear energy policy, but did note Republican support for programs like a waste disposal site and loan guarantees.

Republican support for nuclear energy has roots in the most significant recent energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which passed provisions for nuclear power with wide bipartisan support. Reaching out to Republicans on policies they have supported in the past should be a goal of Democrats who wish to form a foundational debate on moving the policy forward. There are also signals that key Republicans, notably Lindsey Graham and Richard Lugar, would throw their support behind a clean energy standard that includes nuclear and CCS.

Republicans in Congress will find intellectual support from a group that AEL’s Teryn Norris coined “innovation hawks,” among them Steven Hayward, David Brooks and George Will. Will has been particularly outspoken in support of nuclear energy, writing in 2010 that “it is a travesty that the nation that first harnessed nuclear energy has neglected it so long because fads about supposed ‘green energy’ and superstitions about nuclear power’s dangers.”

The extreme reluctance of Republicans to cooperate with Democrats over the last two years is only the first step, as any legislation will have to overcome Democrats’ traditional opposition to nuclear energy. However, here again there is reason for optimism. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry bucked their party’s long-time aversion to nuclear in a precursor bill to APA, and Kerry continued working on the issue during 2010. Jeff Bingaman, in a speech earlier this week, reversed his position on the issue by calling for the inclusion of nuclear energy provisions in a clean energy standard. The Huffington Post reports that “the White House reached out to his committee [Senate Energy] to help develop the clean energy plan through legislation.” This development in itself potentially mitigates two of the largest obstacle standing in the way of progress on comprehensive energy legislation: lack of a bill, and lack of high profile sponsors. Democrats can also direct Section 48C of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 towards nuclear technology, which provides a tax credit for companies that engage in clean tech manufacturing.

Democrats should not give up on their policy goals simply because they no longer enjoy broad majorities in both Houses, and Republicans should not spend all their time holding symbolic repeal votes on the Obama Administration’s accomplishments. The lame-duck votes in December on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the tax cut deal and START indicate that at least a few Republicans are willing to work together with Democrats in a divided Congress, and that is precisely what nuclear energy needs moving forward. It will require an agressive push from the White House, and a concerted effort from both parties’ leadership, but the road for forging bipartisan legislation is not an impassable one.

The politician with perhaps the single greatest leverage over the future of nuclear energy is President Obama, and his rhetoric matches the challenge posed by our aging and poisonous energy infrastructure. “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment,” announced Obama recently. Echoing the calls of presidents past, the President used his State of the Union podium to signal a newly invigorated industrialism in the United States. He advocated broadly for renewed investment in infrastructure, education, and technological innovation. And he did so in a room with many more members of the opposition party than at any point during the first half of his term. The eagerness of the President to combine left and right agendas can hopefully match the hyper-partisan bitterness that dominates our political culture, and nuclear power maybe one sector of our economy to benefit from his political leadership.

How Nuclear Fits into Obama's Ambitious Goal

2011-02-03T08:00:00.000-08:00

By Dan O'Connor | Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership

The target which President Obama proposed in his State of the Union address – that 80% of the United States’ (US) energy would originate from clean sources by 2035 – sets the bar for near-term clean energy implementation absurdly high. But there is no real disappointment in failing to reach an unreachable goal, so long as significant progress is made toward it. Seemingly, how near the target (or how far off) we land depends on, more so than any other realistic strategy, badly-needed reform in the regulatory and financial systems associated with the nuclear industry.

The energy industry has many technologies and tools for tackling the 80% challenge, but most are small in the face of such a daunting task. Electricity generation from solar photovoltaic cells and wind turbines cannot meet base load demand without breakthroughs in energy storage technology. Solar water-heating systems could be more widely implemented but their collective reduction of natural gas and electric heating would be tiny given the localized and season-dependent solar availability in much of the US.

Optimistically, hydroelectric capacity could be increased by 50% to top out once and for all at about 6% of current national energy production. Fusion technology is further from being economically-viable than it is from being sufficiently-proven in the lab. And while “clean coal” could eventually do its part to reduce carbon-to-energy ratios, a teeth-laden federal clean energy standard would be necessary, very soon, to incentivize the expensive technology’s installation in new or existing coal plants.

To be sure, all of these options should be tried and will improve in time, but the scales on which they currently or could soon operate are too small to have both quick and significant impacts on clean energy numbers. For instance, a recent assessment by Ken Kolk of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Energy Committee concluded that the 80% target would necessitate installing 1,410,060 2.5-MW wind turbines in tandem with 1,568 500-MW natural gas plants for support during intermittency. That is not going to happen in 25 years, if ever. Granted, this is a high level calculation that makes broad assumptions; it also equates to 784 1,000-MW nuclear plants by 2035, which is infeasible too. But it illustrates the enormity of the task.

The fact that the nuclear industry provides 70% of US carbon-free energy without a new plant built in the last 3 decades, while the renewable sector still only contributes a minority share but has seen 31% growth in generation in the last 3 years, points to nuclear as the appropriately-sized tool for the president’s challenge. But how do we make it happen?

The first move in ramping up clean energy production is to ensure we squeeze as much out of our current nuclear fleet as possible. This means optimizing operations in order to maximize capacity factors, as well as extending reactor-lifetimes from the typical 4 decades out to 6 or even 8. The former approach has been in the works since the first nuclear plant was switched on, and it is nearing its apex. The capacity factors in the nuclear industry, now consistently 90% or greater, are the highest in the energy business.

The latter strategy has more recently been adopted as our reactors close in on their originally-assigned retirement ages. Indeed, reactor retirement is the single biggest threat - not even to our clean energy portfolio’s growth - but to its maintenance. The trends, depicted from left to right in the plot above, project total US nuclear capacity (1) without license renewal, (2) with current renewals, (3) with proposed renewals, (4) with all licenses renewed, from 2010 to 2055.

It is clear that, were our reactors allowed to retire as originally planned, the nuclear industry’s contribution to clean energy production would all but disappear by 2035. Fortunately, some license renewals, which extend a reactor’s lifetime by 20 years, have been approved and others are in line. There is also growing support for 40 rather than 20-year extensions, but “degradation phenomena that affect performance of plants operating for as long as 80 years are not well understood…and further research is needed prior to decisions about further license extensions,” according to “America’s Energy Future” (AEF) published in 2009 by the National Academies. Therefore, even in the best case, in which all licenses are renewed, about 25% of our fleet will be retiring in 2035, making it very unlikely that the US’s clean energy portfolio can grow in that time frame.

This alarming scenario should hurry the construction of new reactors. Though building 784 new plants is an impossible target, the AEF Committee judged that 5 to 9 additional nuclear plants could be brought online by 2020. As espoused in my first article, there is no need to wait around for research breakthroughs; proven reactor technologies are ready to be built now, as China continues to demonstrate.

The AEF Committee predicted that the successful completion of new builds would inspire public confidence in the awakening industry and the construction experience would reduce the duration and cost of subsequent builds. On this “Nuclear Renaissance” track, the Committee concluded that a 73% increase in nuclear energy production is feasible by 2035 (this estimate involves uprating existing plants, building new ones, and retiring some). This result would fall well-short of the measures necessary to meet the president’s target, but it would still represent momentous progress. Without the 5 to 9 plants built by 2020, the track tends toward a “Nuclear Stall,” and the capacity could drop by 14% by 2035.

Two questions naturally arise from these possible scenarios. First, how many reactors are likely to be relicensed? The decision to apply for a license renewal is entirely voluntary and up to the organization which owns or operates the aging plant. In nearly all cases, extending the life of a nuclear plant that is already paid off makes economic sense. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considers and grants the licenses in a process that takes about 30 months. The NRC has already renewed licenses for 34 power plants, is currently reviewing 14 renewal applications, and anticipates 12 more through 2017. This activity is certainly a promising sign, and there is good reason to believe that the majority of plants will eventually be cleared for this 20-year extension. However, looking forward, the NRC should demonstrate urgent concern in the aging fleet and strongly consider the possibility of 80-year reactor lifetimes. Deep research is necessary, as 80-years of material exposure to fission is uncharted territory, but without this option nearly all currently operating reactors will be retired by 2050.

Second, which nuclear track are we actually on, a renaissance or a stall? The NRC can play a crucial role in answering this question as well. At the moment, 17 new license applications and 3 design certifications are pending its approval. Accelerated hiring at the Commission may be necessary were the country to follow the former track; the AEF Committee notes that “the processing of the current surge of applications could cause short-term delays in beginning new plant construction.” However, the expertise required of an NRC employee is considerable and expensive to draw. Moreover, the wealth of experience in reactor operations and design has begun to dwindle and is unlikely to be replenished unless we revitalize the industry soon. In order to streamline the design certification and license application processes (consequently reducing power plant price tags), the NRC should work with companies like General Electric, Westinghouse, and Areva to consider a booklet of standardized plant designs for customers to choose from. Such a project could attract new talent to the Commission and nurture a new brand of engineering leaders able to engender and manage public-private cooperation in the industry.

But of course, which nuclear track we follow is largely controlled by funding issues. The federal loan guarantees program has fallen short because the possibility of accruing a decade’s worth of interest on $10 billion remains too risky for most utilities to swallow, especially when there is cheap electricity to be made with low-cost natural gas.

So, in addition to the regulatory reform proposed above, a well-developed financial-assistance system is needed for the rapid deployment of nuclear power, and a federal clean energy standard may be just the solution. Granted, the idea of a CES has been interpreted differently across energy industry experts, and some designs would help the nuclear industry more than other. A design that would help the industry deal with its financing problems would be as follows: Utilities operating coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants could be made to allot a certain percentage of revenue generated by carbon-intensive technologies for investing in carbon-free technology. Instead of loans for nuclear power plants, the federal government could match the utility’s carbon-derived investment. Construction could happen once the required cash accumulates, and the utility could slowly pay back the government for its initial investment.

There is plenty of room for brainstorming ways to incentivize clean energy as the federal standard idea picks up steam, and the next few months promise to be active in this regard. As the proposals materialize, it will be important to keep in mind the necessarily public-private nature of the energy-utility sector so we ensure that regulatory reform and financial incentives grow together as one cooperative system. Without the necessary reforms the trajectory of the nuclear industry could prove to be more of a burden than boon on Obama's ambitious goal to produce 80% clean energy by 2035.

Dan O’Connor is a Policy Fellow in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project and will be a regular contributor to the website. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of AEL.

America Says: Keep Your Dirty Hands Off my Clean Water

2011-02-02T10:28:00.000-08:00

By JW Randolph. Cross-Posted from Appalachian Voices' Front Porch Blog

Some members of Congress have started a war on the Clean Water Act by attempting to revoke a vital resource that allows the EPA do its job to better protect our nation's waterways.

Congressman McKinley (R-WV01) recently introduced legislation (HR 457) for consideration United States House of Representatives that would remove EPA's ability to veto Clean Water Act permits under Section 404(c) if the permit has already been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has promised to introduced similar legislation in the US Senate. These bills might have the unintended affect of encouraging the Army Corps to approve permits quickly. Congressman Don Young (R-AK)'s bill, H.R. 517 cuts even deeper by entirely removing EPA's veto authority.

In the entire existence of the Clean Water Act (1972), the EPA has only exercised this prerogative 13 times.

The EPA recently used this long-standing though seldom-used tool to veto the Spruce Mine No. 1 permit, which would have been the largest single permitted mine in West Virginia history, because of the massive negative impacts to water quality. Mountaintop removal mines have already buried over 2000 miles of Appalachian headwater streams in a witch’s brew of heavy metals and chemicals such as arsenic, lead, chromium, mercury, and selenium.

The coal industry is attempting to nationalize this recent veto, claiming the EPA’s recent decision creates regulatory uncertainty across all industries. The truth is that Arch Coal, the company who had applied for the permit, refused to work with the EPA on modifications that would have made the mine more than likely immune to a veto.

Furthemore, Big Coal doesn’t seem to be too concerned about “regulatory certainty” when it comes to industries that depend on a strong Clean Water Act, like fisheries, outdoor recreation and tourism. Studies have shown that the annual financial benefits of the 1972 Clean Water Act are somewhere in the realm of $11 billion.

However HR 457 and 517, however, truly do have national implications for communities' basic right to clean water. The EPA would lose their ability to intervene in projects that would have serious impacts to water quality, environmental and human health across the entire nation.

Appalachian Voices stands with national, regional, community, human health organizations and fisherman prepared to fight this perilous political theatre from Representatives McKinley, Young and Senator Manchin.

The Clean Water Act was put into place in the 70s, at a time when corporate pollution was virtually unregulated and a national consciousness grew that without clean water, our nation could not prosper and grow. Attempts at weakening the Clean Water should be taken seriously, because there are parts of American history that do not bear repeating.

Our children don’t need to find themselves back to a time where major rivers catch on fire. Remember the Cuyahoga!

Obama’s Climate Omission: Can We Disagree on Climate and Win on Clean Energy?

2011-01-31T12:05:00.000-08:00

By Teryn Norris & Daniel Goldfarb | Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership

President Obama’s exclusion of “climate change”from the State of the Union, combined with Carol Browner’s exit as the administration’s top climate advisor, has sparked wide debate across the climate movement. On one hand, many climate advocates are backing the president’s strategy. As Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) put it, “He's trying to unify… I think it was very smart of him.”

On the other hand, climate advocates like Joe Romm of Climate Progress and David Roberts of Grist are criticizing the president for not using climate change as a central justification for his clean energy proposals. Unfortunately, even after the collapse of cap and trade legislation, Roberts and other critics continue to follow a type of policy literalism that has undermined environmentalists and climate advocates for years.

The argument goes something like this. First, Roberts claims that without climate change as the central justification, the case for federal investment in the clean energy industry “is no stronger than the argument for supporting pharmaceuticals, or telecom, or any other industry that's likely to be big in the 21st century.” (Roberts wrote partly in response to Norris’ article on the rise of “innovation hawks.”)

However, as the American Energy Innovation Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recently explained in their reports, other industries like pharmaceuticals, aerospace, and computer electronics spend far more on research and development than the energy industry, due to a variety of market and non-market barriers. The underinvestment is dramatic: whereas pharmaceuticals invest about 18.7% of sales in R&D, the U.S. energy industry only invests 0.3%. The federal government already invests over $30 billion annually in health research, and $80 billion on military R&D, but only $3-5 billion in energy R&D.

Moreover, the current economic challenge from China and other “rising tigers” in clean-tech is clearer than any other industry, and it remains one of the most powerful motivating factors for the U.S. public and policymakers alike (analysts predict the global clean-tech market could surpass $600 billion by 2020). The importance of clean energy technology for the Department of Defense, and for saving the lives of American troops, is creating a new imperative in the defense community. Rising oil prices andinstability in the Middle East are simultaneously strengthening the energy security consensus to reduce U.S. reliance on oil. And disasters like Deepwater Horizon and Massey Energy continue to highlight the public health and environmental benefits of reduced fossil fuel consumption.

So much for the argument that only climate change can seriously justify major federal investment in clean energy technology over other industries. The case for expanding these investments for economic competitiveness, national security, and public health reasons is stronger than ever before. (And beyond domestic concerns, cheaper forms of clean energy can help alleviate the poverty of billions who lack electricity access and already suffer from the vagaries of the climate.)

The second reason Roberts criticizes President Obama is that he believes “The only way that well-worn partisan division can be transcended is through reference to climate change.” In anotherreaction to Obama's decision, Roberts asserts that “telling the truth about climate change is also good politics.”

Could it be true that only climate change can transcend partisan divisions? Was the president wrong to appeal to a broader set of public interests to advance clean energy RD&D investment and a portfolio standard? Let’s revisit the latest public opinion analysis. In a recent report titled "Little Change in Opinions about Global Warming: Increasing Partisan Divide on Energy Policies," the Pew Research Center concluded:

“Views about climate change continue to be sharply divided along party lines… Among Republicans, only 38% agree the earth is warming and just 16% say warming is caused by humans… Just 14% of Republicans say global warming is a very serious problem and 27% view it as a somewhat serious problem; only about a quarter (24%) think it requires immediate action by the government… Among Republican registered voters who agree with the Tea Party, fully 70% do not think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth is warming.”

No wonder Republican strategists have successfully used climate change as a wedge issue to rally their base and tarnish Democrats. Even with cap and trade gone, the Republican leadership sees opposition to EPA greenhouse gas emissions authority as a major linchpin of its 2012 election strategy.

How could Roberts and others possibly get the idea that focusing on climate change is good politics in this environment? Contrary to their assertions, a focus on climate change would only serve toundermine the possibility of clean energy reform, fueling an ever-greater climate war and potentially contributing to another major Democratic defeat in 2012.

Based on this data, the recent collapse of cap and trade, and the current state of climate change politics, we conclude that the president’s choice made sense. Although climate change remains extremely divisive, Gallup and Pew polling continues to indicate that federal investment in clean energy technology remains one of the most popular forms of energy policy. These investments will drive down the price of low-carbon energy and pave the way for stronger deployment efforts -- perhaps even including a strong carbon price at some point -- both here and in the developing world, where the vast majority of future emissions will originate.

The question is not whether climate change is an important reason for action on clean energy. That is obvious. The question is what type of political and policy strategy can successfully expand the national clean energy consensus and begin shifting us in the right direction. In this context, the role of effective leaders is not just to "speak truth to power," but to bridge our divides to achieve the outcomes we need.

We can agree to disagree on the role of climate and focus on policy achievements in the near and medium term. Climate change will eventually get its moment in American politics. Until then, Obama and his administration have outlined a new approach, and climate advocates would be wise to get behind it.

The Rise of Innovation Hawks

2011-01-28T11:54:00.000-08:00

By Teryn Norris | Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership

Last night, President Obama crystallized a new moment in U.S. political and economic history. The president is declaring it the “new Sputnik moment,” but whatever the label, it represents a major development in U.S. politics.

The catalyzing force behind this trend is the rise of China and the aftermath of the Great Recession, which is quickly producing new political fault lines. Just as the rise of the Soviet Union caused a fundamental political realignment in the United States, so the rapid rise of China is causing another today.

This realignment is just beginning, but one of the clearest implications is the rise of a new national economic strategy based on “innovation economics.” Instead of emphasizing spending cuts, even in the face of the Tea Party and new Republican House, Obama strongly promoted an active, innovation-centric federal strategy at the front and center of his agenda – a first for any modern president.

The key to American leadership in the face of China, Obama argued, is to make large-scale federal investments in the three pillars of economic competitiveness: innovation, education, and infrastructure. “We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world,” he declared. “That's how we'll win the future.”

By embracing an investment-centric strategy, Obama adopted a growing expert consensus: modern economic growth primarily emerges from technological innovation, and the federal government plays a central role in innovation. The information technology revolution was grounded in federal investments in microchips and the Internet – especially by the Department of Defense – and so were major growth sectors like aviation, biotech, and others.

One of the key areas Obama emphasized was a new approach on energy policy. “We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology,” he said. “We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo projects of our time.”

The new energy and climate movement will not be led by “climate hawks,” as David Roberts of Grist recently coined. Rather it will be led by innovation hawks, most recently represented by the American Energy Innovation Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Indeed, even after the collapse of cap and trade, the rapid decline of climate-centrism was highlighted by Obama’s choice to omit “climate change” from his speech entirely.

Innovation hawks are reemerging today, but they held a much stronger position throughout the Cold War. During this period, the success of federal investment shared a strong bipartisan history, from President Eisenhower’s interstate highway system, to President Kennedy’s Apollo Project, to President Reagan’s defense technology efforts. This industrial and innovation policy was often conducted by DOD under political radar. The Soviet threat produced a powerful political consensus behind defense spending, even if parts of it represented industrial policy.

Unfortunately, beginning in the Reagan administration, neoliberal doctrine began to discredit the role of public investment. And when the Soviet threat dissolved, the underlying investment imperative disappeared. On one hand, the diminished threat increased political polarization and anti-government sentiment, beginning with the 1994 mid-term election. On the other hand, the Soviet collapse fueled the triumphal neoconservative movement, represented by Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History” and Charles Krauthammer’s “The Unipolar Moment,” which argued that U.S. dominance was complete.

Despite the economic success during the Clinton administration – much of which came from past federal investments in information technology – Reaganomics and neoconservatism won the day, and the Bush administration was installed. September 11th crystallized the neoconservative foreign policy agenda, and the invasion of Iraq dominated the administration, distracting from “nation-building” at home and the need to guard against financial crisis.

Throughout this period, a significant part of the U.S. innovation system was dismantled. Federal research and development as a portion of GDP declined by over 50 percent since 1964. Infrastructure investment declined from 3 percent of GDP between 1950-70 to less than 2 percent since 1980, and the American Society of Civil Engineers now calls for $2.2 trillion of upgrades. Meanwhile, the U.S. fell behind in STEM education and clean energy technology, among other sectors.

The rise and fall of the Soviet Union, the twilight of American unipolarity, the foreign terrorist threat – each of these foreign policy events caused realignment in the U.S. polity. But Fukuyama and Krauthammer were wrong: history didn’t end, and unipolarity only lasted a brief moment, if it ever existed at all. Today, in the aftermath of the Great Recession, we are witnessing another realignment with the rise of the next great power – one which may have far greater implications than Sputnik.

Obama believes that with the rise of China, America’s future belongs to leaders who can convince the public of a strategy for national greatness. As national pollster Stan Greenberg recently said, “People think the country is in trouble and that countries like China have a strategy for success and we don’t. They will follow someone who convinces them that they have a plan to make America great again. That is what they want to hear. It cuts across Republicans and Democrats.”

If he’s correct, and if China produces the same type of public investment imperative as the Soviet Union once did, then the current Tea Party and Republican resurgence is doomed. Either the party itself will collapse under its own weight, or more hopefully, a new brand of “innovation conservatives” will rise within the party and take over the reins. Conservative intellectuals like David Brooks, Steven Hayward, and George Will are already starting this trend, but they’re still a small minority.

If he’s wrong, and the current political polarization and anti-government sentiment reflects a deeper trend, then the United States is most likely destined for slow but steady decline. This would imply an inability to confront the grand challenges of the century, including global energy transformation and continued role as the underwriter of international security, among others.

Either way, the rise of China is transforming the U.S. political landscape as we know it. The fault lines are still emerging, but Obama’s second State of the Union was one of the first major attempts to draw a clear battle line in the sand. Those committed to America’s global leadership have little choice but to get behind the president and fight for the next innovation agenda. As Obama put it, “Our destiny remains our choice.”

Obama's Breakthrough

2011-01-28T09:38:00.000-08:00

By Devon Swezey, Originally Published at the Breakthrough Institute

With last night's State of the Union address, President Obama has shifted the debate from the partisan climate wars to an expansive energy innovation policy which has the potential to draw support from across the political spectrum.

"In embracing breakthrough innovation for solar and nuclear power alike -- for economic competitiveness rather than climate reasons -- President Obama took a bold first step toward a national commitment to energy innovation that is in the long tradition of bi-partisan support for science and technology," wrote Breakthrough Institute co-founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in a statement. "While the road forward will not be easy, at least it is one America has traveled before."

In a State of the Union speech framed centrally around restoring America's global economic leadership, President Obama argued forcefully for increasing federal investment in energy innovation, declaring that "breakthrough" technologies have driven decades of innovation that "created new industries and millions of new jobs."

Obama's speech was a rejection of proposals to cut federal spending across the board, as he finally made the case before the American people about why public support for innovation is critical for the country's long-term prosperity:

"Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS. Just think of all the good jobs - from manufacturing to retail - that have come from those breakthroughs."

In its recent report, "Where Good Technologies Come From," Breakthrough Institute documents how America's blockbuster pharmaceutical drugs, high-yield agricultural crops, and revolutionary technologies like the iPhone were all due to the federal government's sustained, multi-decadal investments in innovation.

Obama also embraced a key element of the "Post-Partisan Power" proposal issued by scholars from the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Breakthrough Institute, which is to stop subsidizing the production of old technologies and start using competitive deployment and military procurement to purchase new ones.

"We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo Projects of our time...instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's"

In a fact sheet sent out after the speech titled "President Obama's Plan to Win the Future by Investing in Clean Energy Research and Development," the White House detailed new clean energy investments expected in the President's FY 2012 budget proposal, which are expected to grow modestly to $8 billion.

They include:

"More than doubling" the current $300 million budget for the Department of Energy's ARPA-E.
Doubling the number of the Department of Energy's Energy Innovation Hubs, from three to six.
Doubling the investment in applied R&D, including efficiency, vehicle technology R&D for advanced batteries, and building technology R&D.

Obama's plan includes investment in more than R&D, and embraces the tripartite clean energy competitiveness framework--R&D, manufacturing, and markets--that Breakthrough Institute and ITIF first advanced in "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant."

A Lesson from the History of Clean Energy Research

2011-01-28T09:34:00.000-08:00

By Tucker Willsie | Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership

The focus on innovation in Obama's State of the Union marks a new high point for clean energy R&D advocacy. In the coming months, politicians and policy makers will likely align around proposals to encourage everything from basic research to putting solar panels on our roofs and hybrids in our garages. It is easy, in such an environment, to forget the barren stretch of time between the oil crisis induced renewable energy craze of the 1970s and the present day. During this time, funding dried up, programs were cut, and renewable energy research and deployment was forced to go abroad or wither in an apathetic United States.

Politicians, policymakers and enthusiasts talk about ways that new programs will help America race past its competitors as it did in the space race, but there is not enough attention on how the old programs died and what was the full impact of their disappearance. There are important lessons to learn, the biggest of which is that inconsistency in policy can be crippling to research. While proponents of clean and renewable technologies should welcome the renewed interest and funding, it is important that they learn from the past and focus on creating a support system that is not only robust but also provides some assurances of long-term commitments.

Most of the renewable energy technologies today owe their existence to research done in the United States over the last century. Many of the key technologies in modern windmills, including the variable speed drives and special composites used to make the blades, were developed here. Domestic research in semiconductors and other materials in American universities and national and private labs led to the birth of photovoltaics. This research was driven by a select group of dedicated programs. Prof. William Paul's group at Harvard, Prof. Hellmut Fritzsche's group at U. Chicago, and Prof. Richard Bube's group at Stanford were all examples of such labs that contributed important discoveries to photovoltaic technology. Given the resources to target renewable energy research, they were able to attract the brightest minds and give these scientists the experience in the field required to make them true experts.

But scientists need paychecks, and when programs in photovoltaics lost their funding, the individuals in these labs were forced to respecialize. Not only did their work get put on hold, but they were not able to attract and train the next generation of scientists to continue their legacy. As Paul, Fritzsche and Bube near retirement, some of their combined expertise in the field of photovoltaics will undoubtedly be lost.

Research teams of this caliber take time to create. Throwing a billion dollars at renewable energy research tomorrow will generate a mob of scientists willing to delve into the topic, but it might take years before they gain the level of collective expertise established in some of these labs. Continuity is essential to maintain a core of scientists that are true experts in the field and can lead new research initiatives. Even low but consistent levels of funding allow such cores to survive. An excess of funding might be wasteful if it goes to groups not capable of such high level work.

As America debates renewable energy policy, it should remember that research cannot thrive in a fickle funding environment driven by the mood swings of congress. In the last decade, America began to understand the massive research initiative it will require to maintain international competitiveness, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and restabilize the environment. The original America COMPETES Act, passed under President Bush in 2007, was a strong first step toward creating a well-trained group of American scientists to lead this initiative. However, momentum has only just begun to build and if funding is cut then much of the progress made over the last few years will be wasted.

Thankfully, the America COMPETES Re-authorization act was passed in the final days of the lame duck congress and finally signed into law. However, the appropriations committees of the next Congress will determine the actual amount of funding to be allotted for research initiatives. COMPETES was already reduced from $84 to $43 billion in order to pass the Senate, and the final amount appropriated could be much lower. This is particularly true with a new wave of Senators and Congressmen coming to Washington to cut spending. If America wants to see the volume and caliber of research that brought us these technologies in the first place (and propelled us past the Soviet Union during the Sputnik crisis), we must allow these research groups to form and collective expertise in these fields to build. While our support for research yields exciting discoveries today, we are also preparing the ground for the greater discoveries of tomorrow. We must take care not to falter in our commitment to these groups as we did before or we will forego the greatest rewards of their work.

Tucker Willsie is a Contributor in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project and his work will be regularly featured on the website. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of AEL.

EPA Vetoes Massive Mountaintop Removal Coal Mine

2011-01-14T09:21:00.000-08:00

By JW Randolph, originally posted at Appalachian Voices

EPA announced Thursday that they will be vetoing the largest mountaintop removal permit in WV history.

Appalachian Voices is thrilled to hear that EPA will be vetoing this permit in order to protect human health and aquatic ecosystems in central Appalachia. EPA's own science has shown that mountaintop removal has permanent negative impacts on Appalachia, and we hope they will continue to stand strong in stopping mine permits that will have a negative impact on the well-being of the central Appalachian land and people.

EPA's Peter Silva hit the nail on the head:

The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend. Coal and coal mining are part of our nation’s energy future, and EPA has worked with companies to design mining operations that adequately protect our nation’s water. We have responsibility under the law to protect water quality and safeguard the people who rely on clean water.

The bottom line is that we don't need to poison our streams and our communities in order to mine coal in the central Appalachian region. Three cheers to EPA for doing what is right, even though they faced tremendous political pressure to let this harmful and toxic mine just slide by.

Congress can make these protections permanent, while adding stability and clarity to the process by passing popular bipartisan legislation such as the Clean Water Protection Act (House) and Appalachia Restoration Act (Senate). Recently, 50 members of Congress sent a letter to EPA thanking them for doing the right thing by taking steps to end mountaintop removal. Congressman Rahall (D-WV) also said that legislation to end the practice had more than 400 votes in the House, but that he was the only person blocking the bill. Its time that Representatives like Congressman Rahall and Senator Manchin start protecting their constituents and stop wasting their time and political capital defending a destructive, toxic, and unnecessary practice like mountaintop removal. Its time that our elected officials start thinking less about appeasing the coal lobby and more about protecting Appalachian citizens who live in communities where coal is mined.

In one of his last public statements, Senator Robert C. Byrd said:

It is also a reality that the practice of mountaintop removal mining has a diminishing constituency in Washington. It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states. Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens.

Ken Ward has more at Coal Tattoo and Jeff Biggers has a beautiful piece at HuffPo called EPA Vetoes Largest Mountaintop Removal Permit: New Era of Civility in the Coalfields? .

Congratulations to every single person who helped make this possible.

Energy in China: Innovation, Competition, and Meeting Soaring Demand

2011-01-13T08:08:00.000-08:00

Live Webinar Jan. 31, 1 PM ET / 10 AM PT

According to a 2010 International Energy Agency report, Chinese energy consumption has doubled over the past decade, and will soar 75 percent by 2035, accounting for more than a third of total global consumption growth. To date, the largest portion of this demand has been met by burning coal, raising serious concerns about CO2 emissions and the battle against climate change, but China has also begun to aggressively invest in alternative energy.

In light of this, The Energy Collective's latest webinar seeks to explore how China may rise to the challenge of meeting its rising energy demand while fighting climate change, and how those efforts will impact energy markets and technology in the rest of the world.

The webinar will explore:

Innovation: Will China will be able to move down the innovation learning curve and successfully design new technologies, or continue to manufacture Western-designed technologies? Is there evidence this is happening?

Competition: Will China's policies and investments in alternative energy put on-par competition out of reach for the U.S., or is there hope the U.S. and EU will keep pace?

Coal and Energy Demand: What role will coal inevitably continue to play to meet steep energy demand increase projections for China? Can Carbon Capture & Sequestration help limit increases in coal-generated emissions?

Featuring:

Gardiner Hill is the Senior Advisor on CCS Technology, Regulations and Policy for BP Alternative Energy. He is responsible for developing strategies and advising on all matters related to carbon capture and storage across the portfolio of the BP group of companies. Hill has been involved heavily in the research and development of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and in 2000, Hill joined BP’s central Group Technology function and project managed the CO2 Capture Project, the first international joint industry scheme of its kind. Hill sits on the board of a range of associations and special projects including; Chairman for the Carbon Capture and Storage Industry Association, Chairman for the CO2 Carbon Capture Project, and Vice Chairman of the Zero Emissions Power Technology Platform in Europe.

Marc Gunther is a veteran journalist, speaker, writer and consultant whose focus is business and sustainability. Marc is a contributing editor at FORTUNE magazine, a senior writer at Greenbiz.com, a lead blogger at The Energy Collective. He's also a husband and father, a lover of the outdoors and a marathon runner. Marc is the author or co-author of four books, including Faith and Fortune: How Compassionate Capitalism is Transforming American Business. He's a graduate of Yale who lives in Bethesda, MD.

Jesse Jenkins is Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute, and is one of the country's leading energy and climate policy analysts and advocates. Jesse has written for publications including the San Francisco Chronicle, Baltimore Sun, Yale Environment 360, Grist.org, and HuffingtonPost.com, and his published works on energy policy have been cited by many more. He is founder and chief editor of WattHead - Energy News and Commentary and a featured wr iter at the Energy Collective.

Register today and spread the word on Twitter and Facebook using http://bit.ly/EnergyChina

A New Energy Economics and Security Consensus

2011-01-13T07:18:00.000-08:00

By Daniel Goldfarb

Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership

A confluence of recent events, both tragic and inspiring, have once again reminded us that America's national security is inextricably linked to its energy posture. As a result, a new consensus is emerging within government and the private sector: the U.S. military can make the nation and its soldiers safer while simultaneously aiding in an economic transformation to a less carbon intensive economy.

The emerging consensus was highlighted in this week's announcement of the military authorization's "Buy American Provision," which provides a glimmer of hope for U.S. competitiveness yet also sends shivers down the spines of those worried about a trade war with China. The importance of this development can only begin to be understood as the realization within Congress, and hopefully the general public, that clean energy stands at the nexus of economic recovery and the nation's security.

The horrifying shooting of Rep. Gabriel Giffords, a champion of renewable energy, prompted a thoughtful article by Politico's Darren Samuelsohn about Rep. Gifford's now notorious questioning of General Patreus. During a congressional hearing last June, Rep. Giffords posed a question about how the military was moving to adress the increasingly obvious link between troop safety, national security, and military energy practices:

“In places like Kandahar, where we have a large presence, we have been plugged into a very unsustainable and incapable grid system,” Giffords said. “We know that a major part of the upcoming Kandahar offensive will include some serious repairs and upgrades to the energy system, which will include small-scale solar and hydropower systems and also some solar-powered street lights. I’m just curious, General, whether or not there’s plans to utilize any of these same technologies at our bases around Afghanistan, and wouldn’t that greatly reduce our need for fuel?”

Gifford's rather straightforward question drew the ire of conservative pundits around the nation. Soon she had become a target of Glenn Beck, the Red State blog, and a number of other sources which moved to question her patriotism. Yet those attacking Rep. Gifford's poignent question failed to pick up on an emerging consensus amongst think tanks, legislators, but most importantly the DoD itself: the military must move to change its energy sources and usage.

In response to Glen Beck and other conservative pundits, Rep. Giffords, rather than counter attacking, simply quoted back to them Osama Bin Laden's own words:

“Even Osama bin Laden recognizes the threat posed by our military’s dependence on fuel supply, calling oil our military’s ‘umbilical cord’ and telling terrorists to ‘focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause the [Americans] to die off."

Rep. Gifford's efforts, though, did not end with a pointed question, she introduced legislation to strengthen the DoD's energy posture with the Department of Defense Energy Security Act of 2010 (DoDESA). This piece of legislation would have pushed the DoD to source 25% of its energy from renewable sources by 2025, strengthening the DoD's combat readiness in the process (see the video of bill's introduction by Rep. Giffords here).

What Reps. Giffords was in fact putting voice to is "The Military's Clean Energy Imperative," which is increasingly reaching a tipping point of consensus across Congress and the administration. The reason for the new push is threefold: the nation and military's energy posture puts the U.S. in strategic danger, its soldiers in tactical danger, and its economy in a growing hole.

Strategic Threat

The evolving threat that energy dependence and climate change pose to America's national security, starting this week, will be closely monitored by Medill's National Security Journalism Initiative's newest project, Global Warning. Boasting top level young journalism and a bevy of exceptional interactive graphics, the project is the latest effort to understand the complex threats posed by global warming and world energy relations.

These threats, and the strategic danger they pose to America, have been well documented by both those within the military, including the important 2010 Quadrennial Report, and those in the policy space, most notably CNAS's "Natural Security" initiative and CNA's "P owering America's Defense" report.

Most obviously, as a huge importer of oil, the U.S. is subjected to drastic fluctuations in energy supplies and prices. While some of America's biggest oil trading partners are in fact some of its closest allies, the global nature of oil market makes it impossible to keep America's massive oil consumption from fattening the pockets of unfriendly nations such as Iran. Concerns over oil production have undoubtedly effected America's approach to certain situtions, arguably pulling us into conflicts and wars, most notably in the Middle East.

Tactical Threat

Receiving less attention has been the the danger that our military's reliance on fossil fuels, especially oil, has posed to our troops. Brought into the spotlight by an October New York Times article, "U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels", the danger that fuel supply lines pose to American soldiers had been recognized by the military years earlier:

“Concerns about the military’s dependence on fossil fuels in far-flung battlefields began in 2006 in Iraq, where Richard Zilmer, then a major general and the top American commander in western Iraq, sent an urgent cable to Washington suggesting that renewable technology could prevent loss of life.”

The amount of lives which could be saved by a transition to renewable energy sources is truly staggering. A 2009 DoD report found that, "for every 24 fuel convoys that set out, one soldier or civilian engaged in fuel transport was killed."

Indeed, Glenn Beck would have done well to look into DoD assessments of our military's energy posture before laughing away Rep. Gifford's question to Gen. Petraeus. The importance of switching our military to more renewable and domestically produced forms of energy and fuel will be an essential aspect of soldier safety in forceable conflicts.

Economic Threat

On top of two prolonged wars America is facing tough economic times. Persistent unemployment has been made harder to bear by the increasingly apparent fact that U.S. is falling behind in the race for one of the largest emerging sectors: clean energy. China's massive investments in clean energy, to the tune of $740 billion, threaten to leave America in the dust. The unfeasibility of massive investments in clean-tech RD&D on the part of American private industry means that government will have to lead the charge, at least initially. The failure of the 111th congress to pass any sort of bold energy and climate bill, combined with the slim chance that the 112th congress acts to foster an American clean energy economy, means that leadership will have to come from other branches of government.

While not capable of single handedly driving the necessary innovation and deployment of renewable technologies, the DoD could be the spark that has been so sorely missing. Last July's CNA report, "Powering America's Economy: Energy Innovation at the Crossroads of National Security Challenges," began the conversation about the role that the DoD could play in catalyzing much needed innovation. "Post-Partisan Power," the recent report by the unlikely triumvirate of the Breakthrough Institute, Brookings, and AEI, furthered the dialogue by showing the bipartisan appeal of a DoD lead effort to invest in America's innovation capacity and the deployment of current technologies.

Both reports point to DoD's historic role as a driver of innovation. The DoD, due to its defense mandate and gigantic procurement budget, has been able to to both push and pull technology to market. We can thank DARPA and its predecessor ARPA, the military's high risk, high reward R&D unit, for the research that lead to the internet and GPS technology. On the other side of the equation, the military has driven down the cost curve on essential technologies through procurement. It is largely because of the DoD that personal computers can be purchased for under a thousand dollars rather than upwards of ten thousand. Between 1955 and 1958 the federal government, led by the DoD, purchased between 36 and 39 percent of semiconductors produced in the U.S. and that figure shot up to between 45 and 48 percent in 1959-1960. A robust and stable market for semiconductor technologies, provided by the military and NASA’s ‘Buy American’ policies, allowed producers to scale productions and thus drive down costs.

Merging Consensuses

For the past year, two separate consensuses have been forming around energy. On one hand has been the realization that we cannot compete in a globalized economy without investing in a domestic clean energy economy, and that we can't achieve a robust clean energy economy through pricing alone. The other has been that the strategic and tactical security of the U.S., and its military, are being put at jeopardy by a crippling dependence on fossil fuels, one that can only be overcome through direct government investment in renewable technologies.

Allusions to a "New Sputnik Moment" by President Obama, Secretary Chu and most recently Senator Kerry, capture the historic economic and national security imperative that the clean energy race currently represents. The events of the past few weeks have made clear that the future of our economy and national security are in fact intimately intertwined; American greatness in both respects rests on our ability to act boldly on energy. We must avoid the pitfalls of thinking about energy as an issue independently related to national security, the economy, and the climate, and realize that it is the challenge which binds all of them, and by extension all of us.

Economists Moving Beyond Carbon Pricing

2011-01-10T11:27:00.000-08:00

Over at the Economist, Ryan Avent notes that economists are beginning to move beyond a simple reliance on carbon pricing as the sine qua non of climate policy:

The typical baseline economist response to the problem of global warming is a very simple and straightforward one. Climate change is a negative externality, and the carbon emissions that generate it are easily targetable. The clear thing to do, then, is to place a tax on carbon emissions which will lead economic actors to internalise the cost of the warming they create with their decisions. This will discourage carbon-intensive activities and contribute to the development of clean alternative, reducing emissions and climate change.

Easy enough. Unfortunately, this strategy quickly runs into difficulty. One big problem is political. It's very difficult to convince people to accept higher energy costs, and it's very difficult to coordinate policy across countries, which is necessary to ensure that the policy works correctly. But there are also economic challenges. ... Economies are good at finding substitutes for key technologies, but it does take some time. And so because the world has waited so long to act, it now seems that the disaster-avoiding carbon tax path may itself be too economically damaging. So what's an economist to advocate?

Avent writes that while many economists continue to advocate carbon pricing -- even if they recognize that such policies, when implemented in real world political systems, are inadequate on their own terms -- a growing body of researchers are putting their focus elsewhere: "the potential role of positive policies--measures that encourage, rather than constrain, activities."

The authors of one recent paper on this subject presented at a great session on climate policy in Denver. "The environment and directed technical change", begins by arguing that the carbon externality isn't the only relevant externality in the mix. There is another important dynamic in which technological innovation draws on previous research, and so firms are more likely to continue on established innovation trajectories than to start new ones. Put simply: if most firms have been researching and building coal technologies in recent decades, they're much more likely to keep on working with coal than they are to switch to, say, solar. ...

What that means is that clean energy research will lag, even in the presence of a carbon tax. And the optimal policy response then is to subsidise clean technology research. Even a temporary subsidy will do; because of the innovation externality, the clean innovation trajectory will run on its own once established.

This isn't the only obstacle to clean energy innovation and a rapid and economic transition to a clean energy system. While economists risk stretching the term 'externality' beyond recognition in attempts to incorporate each of these obstacles into their neo-classical economic worldview, more and more economists have identified 'spill-over risks,' 'network failures,' 'incumbent infrastructure lock-in,' and many barriers to clean energy innovation and adoption.

(For a good summary of these barriers, see the discussion, "Barriers to Widespread Clean Energy Adoption and the Public Investment Imperative" in our Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant report, or this excellent paper from energy economist and analyst Karsten Neuhoff,)

After a thorough accounting of each of these challenges, a carbon price looks much less like the holy grail of climate action and more like just one tool to help overcome one (of the many) barriers to a clean economy -- and a tool plagued by political difficulty at that...

As Avent concludes:

At any rate, economics is clearly moving beyond the carbon-tax-alone position on climate change, which is a good thing. If the world is to reduce emissions, it needs technologies that are both green and cheap enough to be attractive to economically-stressed countries and people. And a carbon tax alone may not generate the necessary innovation.

Why Climate Deal Day?

2011-01-06T08:39:00.000-08:00

Solving climate change could be the best bargain ever offered to humanity.

A number of studies have estimated that we should invest roughly 500 billion dollars per year—slightly less than one percent of global GDP—in clean energy and solutions to climate change.

Why is this potential investment such an amazing deal? I will give you three reasons.

First of all, if we can replace fossil fuels, which are the main source of climate change, we will solve other problems as well. How many geopolitical problems—such as terrorism, corruption, and autocratic rule—are in part fueled by oil and the vast un-earned wealth it produces? Also, numerous health problems result from air soiled by smog and particulate matter, which are the non-greenhouse gas byproducts of burning fossil fuels. Every year millions of people die prematurely from this air pollution. One cannot put a price tag on life, but, some studies show that aggressively fighting climate change will largely pay for itself, because cleaner air will create fewer health problems. And all these benefits are in addition to whatever geopolitical solutions arise.

Second, even without these extra benefits, the cost of investing in solutions is far less than the cost of adapting to climate change. Although $500 billion dollars of investment per year is an enormous figure, it pales in comparison to the potential damages of climate change. Lord Nicholas Stern, one of the UK’s top economists, has estimated that unmitigated climate change could damage the world economy by more than five percent, costing the world trillions of dollars per year because of droughts, storms, and rising sea levels.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the $500 billion we need to spend per year is not wasted, but instead is an investment in next generation solar, wind, and electrical grids—the technologies of the future. Regardless of health, climate, or geopolitical concerns, the world has a finite amount of coal, oil, and gas, and we must have alternative fuels. As scarcity of traditional fuels grows, prices increase. We are seeing this on a regular basis with oil, even now it is climbing back up toward $100 per barrel. We need to create choices to lessen demand to keep prices low. The companies and countries that develop cheap alternatives will be those with winning economies, with new jobs and economic growth. In fact, we are already witnessing the clean technology boom—jobs in clean energy are growing faster than almost any sector, and clean technology will likely be the world’s third largest industrial sector by 2020.

Solutions to climate change will thus create health, geopolitical, and economic benefits—in addition to avoiding climate change. This is an enormous deal for society. Unfortunately, global investments in clean energy are less then half what they need to be.

So, how do we spur this investment?

We need leadership from individuals, companies, and governments. We need governments to make it easier to invest, and we especially need companies to show their eagerness to make these investments.

At Climate Deal Day, we are attempting to encourage this investment. The “enormous deal” consists of countless smaller deals, such as companies investing in renewable energy projects or announcing major efficiency retrofits on buildings, or individuals around the world improving the efficiency of their homes and changing how they get to work.

The goal of Climate Deal Day is to help highlight and encourage these deals.

The first Climate Deal Day will be held on January 26th during the opening day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The World Economic Forum is a meeting of top business leaders, international political leaders, and intellectuals who come together to discuss the most pressing issues facing the world. During the Climate Deal Day event, representatives from companies will meet and make or announce climate deals. These deals can be in a number of different categories—energy, transportation, forestry, and others—and we encourage companies who are attending the World Economic Forum to take part.

Too many people think of climate change and think of either 1) the disastrous consequences of global warming or 2) the “sacrifice” that they believe is necessary to avoid these consequences. Few think of opportunity or the possibility of a more prosperous, cleaner world. Yet thanks to the innovators and entrepreneurs, the creation of this better world is already underway, and through Climate Deal Day we will help showcase and encourage more climate deals to accelerate the improvement of quality of life for all of us.

If you have a Climate Deal that you would like to announce, you can do so on our website, ClimateDealDay.org, or through contacting us at deals[at]climatedealday.org.

What A Difference a Few Years Makes: GOPers Flee from Greener Past

2011-01-04T11:48:00.000-08:00

Here's an intriguing story to kick off the new year with a little retrospection...

Flash back to 2008, and nearly all of the top GOP contenders for a 2012 presidential run were taking global warming pretty seriously and offering real, if measured, endorsements of Congressional or state action to curb pollution and GHGs.

On the campaign stump, in books, speeches and nationally-televised commercials, aspiring GOP White House candidates such as Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have warned in recent years about the threats from climate change and pledged to limit greenhouse gases. Some have even committed the ultimate sin, endorsing the controversial cap-and-trade concept that was eventually branded “cap and tax.”

Back in 2008, Newt Gingrich took to a couch next to the Right's current-day arch-nemesis, Nancy Pelosi, to endorse Congressional climate action in an ad sponsored by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.

And as Politico notes, even Sarah Palin has flip flopped on the issue:

Just days after McCain picked her as his running mate, Palin told ABC News she believes human activities "certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change" and that "we’ve got to do something about it, and we have to make sure that we’re doing all we can to cut down on pollution."

Politico's Darren Samuelsohn calls it the McCain effect, with John McCain's prominent endorsement of cap and trade legislation making it safe for GOPers to talk about climate.

"I think McCain is moving in a responsible direction," then-House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told E&E News in May 2008. "Clearly the issue of climate change is on the minds of a lot of people. Humans clearly contribute to this. It just really depends on what kind of a cap-and-trade system, what kind of safety valves are in there."

Flash forward just a few years and each of these prominent GOPers are likely running for an excuse, a mea culpa, or another way to distance themselves from green records that are now liabilities with a Republican base strongly influenced by the Tea Party movement.

So what happened? Was it simply the polarizing direction of the cap and trade debate? The shift in the economic winds? The rise of the Tea Party? The inherent politics of a proposal centered on making our current base of energy sources more expensive, rather than making the cleaner alternatives cheaper?

Whatever the constellation of causes, the change is quite stark. Looking ahead to 2011 and beyond, can we build a new and enduring consensus around an innovation-centered approach to energy reform, building a clean economy, and responsibly reducing pollution? And can we make it sustained enough to avoid the factors that turned the endorsements of prominent GOP leaders into liabilities just a few years later?

We welcome thoughts from our readers...

Thermoelectrics: Promise and Barriers of a Potential Breakthrough

2010-12-28T14:41:00.000-08:00

By David Cohen-Tanugi | Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership

The term 'energy efficiency' usually brings to mind better-insulated homes and smart power meters. But emerging thermoelectric technology could give energy efficiency a whole new meaning by tackling the huge energy waste that happens before the watts even reach our homes. Yet, to reach market, thermoelectics will have to overcome a number of technological and policy related barriers.

The Promise

Thermoelectric devices, which enable the conversion of heat into electricity, are still at an early stage in the energy innovation chain, but the principle behind how they work can help to highlight a crucial aspect of energy waste across the world that is often ignored in the policy realm.

You may have heard that homes in developed countries waste 25-35 percent of their energy due to insulation problems and inefficient devices. But the lion's share of energy waste actually comes at the early stages when the electric power is generated in power plants and carried across transmission lines.

Traditional fossil fuel plants create extremely high temperatures by burning or reacting their fuel, which they use in turn to run a steam engine that generates electric power while also rejecting heat at a lower temperature. The low-temperature output typically goes to waste, often tapping precious stream water resources in the process. So not only is the output heat a waste of energy, it also causes more environmental harm by consuming large quantities of water and disturbing neighboring ecosystems. Even cleaner solar panels waste precious energy by releasing heat. Experts estimate that for every 100 kWh of primary energy that are consumed in the United States, as much as 60 kWh goes to waste before ever reaching our factories, our offices or our homes.

Thermoelectrics could become a game-changer in energy efficiency by drastically reducing this energy waste at power plants – but only if we manage to address important scientific and policy barriers first. By tapping the waste heat from power plants, thermoelectric devices could generate additional electricity for the grid while helping to reduce the environmental footprint of water-hogging thermal plants.

The Technical Barriers

Unlike high-performance glass windows and insulation materials for homes, thermoelectrics is not a market-ready technology and is still at an early stage in the laboratory. Because the science behind the devices is so complex, specialists are even debating whether or not thermoelectrics can ever become a viable technology.

Basically, a thermoelectric device works just like an engine: it converts a certain temperature difference (say, a waste heat source at 500 degrees Fahrenheit compared with room temperature at 70 degrees) into an electric potential to generate power (you can find a great review here). For a given temperature output, a very efficient system will generate a high voltage, while a low-efficiency device will only create a modest voltage. In order to achieve real energy savings, the world would need thermoelectric devices with very high efficiency.

At present, this efficiency remains discouragingly low: even state-of-the-art thermoelectric devices can only convert 10 percent of the energy from a waste heat source at 500 degrees. This is why thermoelectrics have only met success for limited ‘niche’ applications, like powering telescopes in space for NASA and marginally increasing the mileage of BMW vehicles – hardly the energy efficiency revolution we have all been awaiting.

Fortunately, this efficiency is only limited by the basic laws of thermodynamics, and there is considerable room for progress. New advances in nanostructured materials, resonant modes, insulating materials and other state-of-the-art physics could help boost thermoelectrics’ contribution to energy efficiency throughout the world.

But technology is only the first step. Suppose now that R&D efforts manage to produce a new thermoelectric technology in a few years that is scalable, economically attractive and that can efficiently tap the waste energy from power plants, what’s next?

The Policy Barriers

In the realm of clean energy, it’s been shown that energy efficiency is the most attractive investment with the shortest payback time. But even with the most proven, market-ready technologies, individuals are still slow to adapt, often at the expense of higher energy bills. How would we get power plants to use thermoelectrics, if such a technology were available?

If past experience is any judge, the wide-scale implementation of a (hypothetical) high-efficiency thermoelectric technology would be a considerable challenge. Unlike private homeowners, electric power utilities are extremely risk-averse and their learning curve is slow. And in contrast with programs such as DOE’s Home Star, there are currently no subsidies or government incentives for utilities to take advantage of their waste heat. Not to mention the fact that even residential energy efficiency has a long way to go, with 20-30 percent energy savings still untapped in the United States. In short, there is a huge energy waste in the power sector and no policy mechanisms to tackle it.

Although it’s difficult to speculate the policy implications of an unproven technology, a few policy themes deserve serious attention. First, industrial plants would think twice about releasing waste heat into the atmosphere and rivers if they could put a price on it. In particular, putting a price on water usage for power plants and factories across the United States would make an enormous difference for the economics of waste heat, as well as for the environment. Second, one could envision a series of requirements for new and existing plants, similar to the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements in the Clean Air Act of 1990, that would be aimed at widening the use of energy-efficiency technology in the power and industrial sectors.

In Conclusion...

At present, the technology behind thermoelectrics isn’t mature enough to play a significant role in economy-wide energy efficiency. Some even argue that this day will never come, and that it would be a waste (no pun intended) of resources to bet on thermoelectrics as a climate change mitigation technology.

It is too early to tell whether thermoelectrics can live up to their full potential, but the basic purpose of thermoelectrics also points to other promising options, such as combined heat and power (also known as a cogeneration plant). As water becomes an increasingly scarce resource, some emerging desalination technologies might also succeed in tapping waste heat from power plants to convert seawater into clean water.

The magnitude of the energy waste problem in colossal: the example of thermoelectrics illustrates how energy efficiency extends far beyond the reaches of our homes. A more mature debate on innovative policy ideas, combined with ambitious technological research, will play a crucial role in bringing about a paradigm shift in the world’s energy landscape.

__

David Cohen-Tanugi is a Policy Fellow in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project. He writes a column on some of the most promising and game-changing clean technologies that are coming out of laboratories in Cambridge and across the United States, providing an in-depth look at the role that innovation policy for clean technologies will play in our energy future.

David is a Ph.D. student at MIT in materials science & engineering. His research there will focus on computational approaches to clean energy technology. Prior to joining MIT, David served as the China-US climate and energy policy liaison for NRDC.

Disclosure: Several members of the author's research group at MIT are working on advanced thermoelectric technology. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of AEL.

Belfer Center: Governments of Emerging Economies Out-Investing US in Energy Research

2010-12-21T13:51:00.001-08:00

By Sara Mansur, originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute

The governments of six developing countries may now be investing more in energy research than the governments of twenty-one of the world's most developed economies, according to a new report by the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The report takes a close look at the federal energy innovation policies of Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico, China and South Africa - we'll call them the 'Big Six' developing nations here.

The Belfer Center researchers conclude that in 2008 the governments of the Big Six nations invested about $13.8 billion (measured in PPP) in energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities (RDD&D). This inches ahead of the roughly $12.7 billion in combined energy technology investments made by the governments of the 21 IEA member countries, each of which is also a member of the OECD bloc of developed nations.

In deconstructing this figure, however, $11.8 billion of the $13.8 billion in RDD&D funds deployed by the Big Six developing nations are investments by the Chinese government. Further, 90% of this total investment originated from state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

A similarity across energy innovation policies in the Big Six countries is that governmental investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency technology support mostly deployment activities, while national investments in nuclear energy, fossil fuels, and transmission, distribution and storage are mostly targeted towards R&D.

Despite this commonality, the researchers find that the structures of individual energy innovation systems differ substantially. In China and Russia, academies are largely responsible for allocating R&D funds to national labs and universities, while SOEs execute deployment projects. In Brazil, Mexico, and India, the opposite holds, with SOEs most heavily involved in coordinating R&D activities and governments chiefly responsible for deployment projects. In South Africa, in turn, the government is solely responsible for funding the RD&D that is conducted by universities and private industry.

As the study notes, the Big Six are increasingly significant players in the global energy domain, comprising 44% of the world's population, 32% of global energy consumption and 35% of the world's energy production. In 2010, China became the single largest energy consumer in the world, while by 2030 China and India alone are expected to comprise 30% of global primary energy demand.

Despite their rising importance in the international energy sphere, there has been little data available to date on national energy innovation investments made by developing countries. This report takes an important first step in measuring these policies and highlighting areas for cooperation between countries, albeit with difficulties noted by the researchers in gathering comprehensive data on innovation spending across countries and establishing a standardized categorization method amidst varying definitions of RDD&D across data sources.

The findings of this research bode well not only for the Big Six countries but for the global clean energy sector as a whole, as the participation of these developing countries is crucial to catalyzing a global clean energy transformation. At the same time, however, growing clean tech prowess in these big developing economies continues the globalization of technological leadership, putting greater competitive pressure on America's traditional 'comparative advantage' in innovation.

Ultimately, the Belfer Center report underscores the emerging global consensus around the importance of investing in energy innovation, and the need for the United States to step up its own clean energy investments or risk losing competitiveness to other emerging economies.

Governments Have Reached a Deal -- Now It's Our Turn

2010-12-16T10:33:00.000-08:00

After two weeks of negotiations in Cancun, governments of the world have reached a global climate deal. More than 190 nations made collective decisions on adaptation, forestry, technology transfer, climate finance, and other issues. And although the "Cancun Agreements" fall far short of what is needed, they provide a road forward. Governments have reached a deal.

Now, it is our turn.

Announcing "Climate Deal Day," a day for businesses and individuals to make deals that fight climate change and improve our lives. Mark your calendar: on January 26th, six weeks after COP16, we will make deals with the goal of eventually reducing pollution by one gigaton of carbon dioxide. (This goal is audacious and probably won't be reached on the first Climate Deal Day, but we prefer to think big.)

The idea for Climate Deal Day was born during COP16, where Hub Culture, the organization I work with, spent the two weeks speaking with business leaders, learning about the opportunities to solve climate change. We spoke to Sir Richard Branson, who is investing a hundred million dollars into new energy sources, hoping to make a profit. We met with members of the Carbon War Room, who explained that there are gigatons of carbon savings that can be achieved at a profit if the right barriers are broken down. We met the leader of the energy and environment team at Phillips Lighting, who told us that his company was pressuring governments around the world to phase out incandescent light bulbs, thus forcing his company to innovate. And we spoke with Lord Nicholas Stern, who explained that we are on the cusp of a new industrial revolution.

What we saw is that many of the solutions to climate change are deals: win-win collaborations between people and organizations. From an even bigger standpoint, solving climate change is an enormous deal -- investing in new technology will pay off several-fold by creating a new economy and avoiding climate change.

All are encouraged to join this event, which is being coordinated by the social network Hub Culture and Christensen Global Strategies. All we ask is that you or your company do a climate deal by January 26th. The deal can be with another person, with an organization, or with yourself. The only rule is that it has to be both good for the planet and good for our standard of living.

Events held in Davos, London, and New Orleans during the World Economic Forum -- all hosted by Hub Culture -- will announce deals reached by businesses. These deals will be posted on the website, where we will also document deals reached by individuals. To share your commitments and agreements, send an email to cdd@hubculture.com or fill out our webform here. (Note that the website is still under construction -- a full update will take place on January 1).

To give you an idea of what we are talking about, the following climate deals were announced during COP16: Muhtar Kent, The Coca-Cola Company's CEO, revealed that the consumer goods forum would achieve no net deforestation by 2020 and begin to phase out HFCs from refrigeration by 2015, reducing pollution and increasing efficiency; The Carbon War Room announced the first ever universal energy index for the shipping industry, allowing companies to more easily choose more efficient boats; and OPIC announced that it will provide at least $300 million in financing for new private equity investment funds that could ultimately invest more than $1 billion in renewable resources projects in emerging markets.

For individuals, deals could include performing an energy retrofit of your house, an action that almost always saves money. It could involve buying a more fuel-efficient car or eating food that is both better for you and lighter on the environment. Be creative -- send us your ideas.

Climate Deal Day is a statement of hope: a belief that we can collaborate and improve our lives as we solve one of the greatest challenges of this century.

What is your deal?

The Importance of Extending the 1603 Treasury Grant Program

2010-12-09T15:07:00.001-08:00

Written by Lon Huber with contributions from Alex Christensen

Anyone working in renewable energy will tell you that when it comes to getting a project off the ground, financing is key. Treasury Grant 1603, found in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was designed to address the front loaded costs to entrepreneurs of installing renewable energy. Otherwise known as the Treasury cash grant, this program has been a lifeline for an industry that has had to depend on a complicated tax code and the likes of Lehmann Brothers and AIG for financing. At midnight on December 31st of this year, the 1603 Treasury Grant Program is set to expire, and unless Congress renews it, the young renewable energy industries will be forced compete in a tax system designed to the advantage of fossil fuels.

Without Treasury Grant 1603 the clean energy industry would not be enjoying the success it is today. To effectively compete against a fossil fuel industry that is heavily subsidized by the federal government, the renewable energy industry has needed federal help to level the playing field.

Unfortunately, the lack of a strong national energy policy has required the renewable energy industry to become cost effective through tax credits. The problem with trying to stimulate an emerging industry with tax credits is that it fails to eliminate two central problems facing small businesses, large up front costs and lower initial profits meaning lower initial tax credits. Many new clean energy businesses did not have enough income to fully utilize these tax credits, forcing them to turn to large financial institutions like Lehmann Brothers for assistance in realizing the advantages of such credits. After the financial meltdown and the resulting lack of finance, it became next to impossible to take advantage of the tax credits in the same way.

The Treasury cash grant program provided a lifeline by transitioning the unfavorable tax credits to upfront payments not tied to a particular company's income. This was huge help to renewable energy developers and did not cost taxpayers any additional money – since it merely shifted the tax credit to an upfront subsidy.

The effect of the Treasury grant program was a rapid growth in clean energy deployment and thus job creation:

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the grant program enabled the construction of 10,000 MW of new wind capacity in 2009 - more than double the 4,000 MW that would have been installed without the program

10,000 new construction jobs and 2,000 new permanent jobs were created in 44 states across the country. The American Wind Energy Association credits the cash grants with saving 40,000 jobs in construction, manufacturing, and research and development.

Solar grew by 37% in 2009 and is projected to grow 100% over that this year or 55% even in the midst of a anemic economy and falling fossil fuel prices.

With great help from the 1603 program, clean energy has started to pick up momentum, gain economies of scale, and attract venture capital. In fact, over the past two years, the price of solar modules have declined by roughly 25% and wind turbines by nearly 15%. As of October 26th, the program leveraged $5.4 billion in federal funds to attract over $12.7 billion of outside investment.

Regrettably, the US is on the verge of taking a step backwards and jeopardizing future gains of this magnitude. On a purely economic basis, the US cannot afford to move renewable energy back to a boutique industry with correspondingly high prices. Even the possibility of Congress failing to renew the 1603 Treasury Grant program has caused a 70% decline in wind installations. Conversely, if the cash grants are extended by just one year, through 2011, the recipient companies in the clean energy industry would create more than 100,000 new jobs, according to a U.S. Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance report written by clean energy specialists at GE and Deutsche Bank. Furthermore, renewing the grant program indefinitely will create over 58,000 additional permanent jobs in the solar industry and the installation of over 1,600 MW of solar electricity by 2016.

Most importantly, the 1603 program allows small businesses and community investors to participate in this emerging industry by lowering the upfront capital required for renewable energy projects. The flexibility of the 1603 program also allows nonprofits to partner with leasing companies to create small, community based wind or solar energy systems, an act prohibited under the tax credit system.

If the US seeks to become a leader in clean energy technology and reduce its consumption of fossil fuels in a cost effective fashion, an extension of the 1603 program is critical. With a properly designed and stable policy framework, the budding renewable energy industry can finally have the opportunity to compete head to head with fossil fuels. After witnessing increases in cost competitiveness and capacity in renewables over the past two years, it is obvious why the fossil fuel industry wants renewable energy to return to fighting with one arm tied behind the back. Creating certainty in the market is necessary for clean energy entrepreneurs, and the extension of the 1603 Treasury Grant program is critical to a vibrant American renewable energy industry.

The current negotiations surrounding the Bush era tax cuts and unemployment benefits provide a unique opportunity for extending the 1603 tax credits, and it looks like there is a major push under way to do so. Today Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Mike Thompson (D-CA), Rush Holt (D-NJ) joined with representatives from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Environment America, and the Blue Green Alliance to announce a letter from 80 members of in support of extending the program. Additionally, the Hill’s Energy and Environment blog is reporting that Senator Ben Nelson is optimistic about the chances for a deal, “I hope that they will be in there and I believe they probably will be based on what I am hearing.” Because of the importance of this issue, we would like to urge everyone to contact their representatives to show support for a program which has an will continue to create jobs, make America more energy independent, and help abate climate change. You can very easily send your representatives an email here by simply typing in your home address and personalizing a pre-prepared letter.

__

Lon Huber is a Policy Fellow in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project and will be a regular contributor to the website. Lon is currently pursuing a master’s degree in business administration at the University of Arizona – where he serves on the President’s Campus Sustainability Advisory Board and as the chair of the UA Green Fund. Lon has worked in Washington D.C. as a congressional solar energy fellow and as a policy advisor for candidates seeking public office in Arizona. After working in energy policy research for two years at the Arizona Research Institute for Solar Energy, Lon became the governmental affairs liaison for Technicians for Sustainability, an Arizona based solar energy integrator. Outside of policy, Lon works in renewable energy finance.

Alex Christensen is a Contributor in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project and his work will be regularly featured on the website. Alex is a senior at Washington University in St. Louis studying economics, political science, and institutional social analysis. He is currently conducting research on comparative energy policy in the Center for New Institutional Social Sciences, focusing on the interaction of government institutions and wind energy in Denmark and Ireland.

A Better Voice for Environmentalism: Sir Richard Branson (VIDEO)

2010-12-07T22:35:00.000-08:00

Cross posted on Hub Culture.

During the World Climate Summit, a conference for businesses leaders during COP16 in Cancún, Sir Richard Branson sat down with me for a four-minute interview.

Branson is one of the world's ultimate success stories. Born with unbounded charisma, he founded his first company at the age of 16 in 1966, selling records out of the back of his car. He grew the business into Virgin Records, a leader in the industry, and then launched Virgin Airlines in 1984 and Virgin Mobil in 1999. He is also famous for his world record attempts: an attempted round-the-world balloon ride, a fastest sail across the Atlantic, and a fastest air-balloon journey across that same ocean. In his autobiography, he wrote "My interest in life comes from setting myself huge, apparently unachievable challenges and trying to rise above them... from the perspective of wanting to live life to the full, I felt that I had to attempt it." Today he is worth four billion dollars.

About seven years ago, Al Gore showed up uninvited at Sir Richard's doorstep. Gore knocked and asked Branson if he could show him a climate presentation. Two hours later, Branson, the world's 212th richest man and chairman of the Virgin Group, was convinced that he should use his wealth and talents to fight climate change.

Branson is clearly committed to solving the challenges of global warming. He has made significant pledges to reduce emissions from his airlines and he has invested all of the profits from Virgin Airlines into fighting climate change, including $100 million into an algae biofuel company. He has offered the "Virgin Earth Challenge Prize," a $25 million prize for anyone who discovers how to take carbon out of the atmosphere. He has founded the Carbon War Room, an organization that is working with businesses to find innovative ways to reduce emissions, and he also helped found the Gigaton Awards. During the interview, Branson struggled to remember everything that he was doing to fight climate change.

Perhaps the swagger and ambition of Branson should be adopted by more environmentalists. Too often solving climate change is framed as sacrifice, as "cutting pollution," implying a lower quality of life. Branson's message is the opposite -- he is one of the world's most successful individuals, and his ventures speak to ambition and economic growth. His brand is that of risk-taking followed by limitless success. We could use more of that inspiration in our fight against climate change.

The Gigaton Awards: A Race to the Top

2010-12-07T22:31:00.000-08:00

Cross posted on Hub Culture.

What if solving climate change were a race to the top?

What if companies were in competition to win the next industrial revolution, with the winners being those who most reduced their greenhouse gas pollution?

That is the idea behind the Gigaton Awards, which were conceived by Sunil Paul and implemented by the Carbon War Room and the Gigaton Throwdown, both projects of Sir Richard Branson. The idea is to award companies that have reduced carbon emissions by the greatest amount. The scale of this challenge is immense, as a "gigaton" of carbon is a billion metric tons: human activity currently adds more than 30 gigatons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere per year through the burning of fossil fuels.

I interviewed Sunil Paul to learn more about the Gigaton Awards. Here is what he had to say:

I attended the awards ceremony, a gala with chicken with asparagus and carrots soaked in red sauce, accompanied by a bottomless glass of wine. The event was hosted by Andrew Winston, the author of Green to Gold, and speakers included Jose Maria Figueres, the former president of Costa Rica, and Sir Richard Branson, the billionaire Chairman of the Virgin group.

Companies were nominated based not only on the total amount by which they reduced their pollution, but also on how much they reduced their emissions relative to their revenue. All the companies that were nominated were, as Sunil said, large corporations. That makes sense, as only large corporations have emissions that are large enough to make a big reduction in emissions. Because it would be unfair for a renewable energy company to compete with a telephone company, for example, several categories were established.

Most of the winners were companies that had aggressively pursued energy efficiency, which makes sense because there are so many opportunities in energy efficiency. But as Sunil said in his interview, this is just the first year, and he hopes that the competition will get tougher as we develop more and more ways to cut our pollution.

Categories and Winners are...

Consumer Discretionary
Winner: Nike for an aggressive energy savings program aimed at reducing its global greenhouse gas emissions.
Runners up: Toyota Motor, Panasonic, Walt Disney Company, Sony Corporation

Consumer Staples
Winner: Reckitt Benckiser Group for demonstrating its leadership in mitigating risk from climate change and sustainable practices.
Runners up: The Coca-Cola Company, Anheuser-Busch InBev, Kimberly Clark, General Mills, Reckitt Benckiser Group

Energy
Winner: Suzlon for its achievement in managing its emissions and overall sustainability milestones.
Runners up: Vestas, GE Wind, Goldwind, Gamesa, Siemens Wind

Industrials
Winner: 3M for its leadership in improving energy efficiency and sustainable practices.
Runners up: MTR Corporation, Alstom, Boeing, Raytheon

Telecommunications
Winner: Vodafone Group for its new business which provides carbon reducing connections.
Runners up: American Tower, Verizon Communications

Utilities
Winner: GDF Suez for its demonstrated leadership by emitting among the lowest CO2 per KWh produced in Europe.
Runners up: Chubu Electric Power (Japan), Snam Rete Gas (Italy), Kansai Electric Power (Japan), Électricité de France (France)

PISA Confirms: U.S. Education in Need of Moonshot

2010-12-07T15:25:00.000-08:00

By Daniel Goldfarb at Americans for Energy Leadership

In conjunction with today's "Innovation for Education: A Digital Town Hall" hosted by ITIF, PBS, and the Aspen Institute, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released findings for 2009's Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). The results are hardly shocking to anyone who has followed the decline of American STEM education or competitiveness policy. Compared to the 65 countries in the study the United States ranks 14th in reading, 17th in science and a below-average 25th in math. The best educated students - those in Korea, Finland, Shanghai-China, and Hong Kon-China - by age 15 are a year ahead of their American counterparts in math and science.

The report's results come at a time of heightened attention to America's competitive posture. Recently Secretary of Energy Ch u and President Obama have warned of a "Sputnik moment", a parallel which was again invoked by Secretary of Education Duncan. Just as Sputnik symbolized the U.S.S.R.'s lead in the space race, the Administration is looking to frame China's economic and education triumphs as calls to action. During the town hall, Secretary Duncan framed the results as such a challenge to America, "We have to see this as a wake-up call," that, "maintaining [the] status quo is effectively losing ground.”

America's STEM education woes could provide an ideal topic for bi-partisan efforts to improve America's competitiveness. In the past education has been a subject of cooperation between the two parties, as was the case with No Child Left Behind, and it seems that both sides are willing to recognize the urgency of PISA's findings. Chester E. Finn Jr., who served in President Ronald Reagan’s Department of Education and has visited schools all across China, said of PISA's result,"'Wow, I’m kind of stunned, I’m thinking Sputnik. I’ve seen how relentless the Chinese are at accomplishing goals, and if they can do this in Shanghai in 2009, they can do it in 10 cities in 2019, and in 50 cities by 2029.'"

It is important that we fully understand the magnitude of the challenge facing the U.S. so we can realize the gravity of the moment. Not only is America's education system as a whole lagging behind its competitors, the most successful U.S. states within the U.S. can't even compete. The New York Times notes:

"If Shanghai is a showcase of Chinese educational progress, America’s showcase would be Massachusetts, which has routinely scored higher than all other states on America’s main federal math test in recent years.

But in a 2007 study that correlated the results of that test with the results of an international math exam, Massachusetts students scored behind Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. Shanghai did not participate in the test."

The imperative is becoming clear, America must reinvest in its STEM education and do it now. Just as we avoided being beat to the moon under Kennedy, today we must avoid being beat to a 21st century economy and work force. President Obama has repeatedly put it best, "The future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizen."

--

See also:

Failing to Educate the Clean Energy Workforce

National Academies Issues New Warning on U.S. Competitiveness

DOE: Strengthening America’s Energy Future through Education and Workforce Development

Energy Innovation 2010: Rethinking Energy Innovation

2010-12-06T21:51:00.000-08:00

Leading think tanks sponsor day-long conference rethinking energy innovation in the United States: getting to scale, making clean energy cheap, securing American leadership.

After two years of often-tumultuous debate in Congress, the national debate over energy and climate change policy has now been altered: cap and trade policy efforts have run aground in Congress, perhaps fatally, and Republicans are ascendant, reshaping the national political landscape. Meanwhile, with economic recovery the top priority for the public and policymakers alike, America’s clean tech competitors are surging ahead, raising the stakes for energy policy.

Against this backdrop, support is growing on both right and left for new national investments in energy innovation that can help address some of the most urgent imperatives of our time – renewing the economy, improving energy security and public health, and overcoming key environmental challenges.

A growing chorus of voices thus counsels a renewed national commitment to develop breakthrough energy technologies – and to the reform of America’s energy innovation system itself.

In recent months, energy experts have advised policymakers to: take a page from the nation’s long history of successful military research and procurement; build on the success of agricultural research stations and the National Institutes of Health by establishing new innovation institutes and clusters nationwide; promote the right mix of both competition and collaboration to spur innovation and productive knowledge spillover; reform energy subsidies to reward innovation; and restructure business taxes to promote investment in the building blocks of an innovation economy.

On December 15th, a group of America’s leading policy think tanks will host a day-long conference in Washington D.C. to rethink energy innovation.

Energy Innovation 2010, held at the National Press Club, will bring together leading experts from government, think tanks, academia, and business to ask hard questions about how energy innovation efforts can be brought to scale, how the innovation system must be restructured and reformed, and how to renew the kind of active partnerships between the public and private sectors that were responsible for so much of America’s prior technological innovation and economic strength.

The free, day-long conference is sponsored by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and the Breakthrough Institute, with the American Enterprise Institute, Third Way, Clean Air Task Force, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Securing America’s Future Energy, and the Brookings Institution. The conference organizers are pleased to welcome TheEnergyCollective.com and Yale Environment 360 as media sponsors for the event.

Registration for Energy Innovation 2010 is free, but required in advance as space is limited, so register now.

Head here to find more information, see the full conference agenda and register today.

Shorting America's Clean Energy Future

2010-12-02T15:59:00.000-08:00

Originally Published at the Breakthrough Institute

Four months ago, we warned that while the stimulus bill had created considerable momentum in the domestic clean energy sector by funding clean energy research, manufacturing, and markets, a looming clean tech funding cliff threatened to send clean energy markets into a deep freeze as stimulus funds expired with no new investments in line to replace them.

Now it looks like that funding cliff is in sight, and Wall Street is threatening to push us over it. As Bloomberg News reports, hedge funds have increased their short selling of U.S. renewable energy stocks--essentially betting on their decline--to an annual high. The investment decisions follow widespread skepticism that the federal government will continue to invest in nascent clean energy industries.

As Daniel Goldfarb of Americans for Energy Leadership writes, in the short term, the move could advantage international competitors in the clean tech space:

In an increasingly globalized world such a flight of capital from U.S. clean energy companies will mean a distinct advantage for American competitors who are moving rapidly to corner the market. By failing to commit to these crucial industries we risk wasting the money already invested in making our clean energy companies competitive.

The impending funding cliff also imperils the thousands of domestic jobs tied to clean energy projects and manufacturing supply chains. If they disappear, there's no guarantee they'll return as other nations forge ahead with concerted efforts to build competitive clean energy industries and supply the growing global market.

Ultimately, the news from Wall Street exemplifies the precarious nature of a clean energy industry that still requires major public subsidies to survive, particularly in a time of budgetary constraint. Over the long-term, the only way to catalyze a global clean energy revolution and reclaim American leadership in the global clean tech industry is a national commitment to an energy technology innovation strategy that can make clean energy cheap.

Just this week the President's top science advisors called for such a strategy. Congress should listen before it's too late.

China Builds on Lead in 4th Quarter

2010-12-01T14:21:00.001-08:00

By Daniel Goldfarb

Originally Published at Americans for Energy Leadership

Just days after Secretary Chu's declaration that America is facing a "Sputnik moment", more proof continues to surface of China's widening lead in the clean energy race. Ernst and Young's quarterly "country attractiveness" index has confirmed that not only is China still the most attractive destination for clean tech investment, as we reported it became for the first time last quarter, its lead is growing.

The warnings of Secretary Chu and the recommendations of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) take on new urgency in light of the report's findings,"A new world is emerging in the clean energy sector with China now the clear leader in the global renewables market". At the same time the LA Times is reporting that clean tech investment in the U.S. fell 45% in the fourth quarter.

It is increasingly becoming clear that what is at stake is jobs. Ernst and Young recognize an increasing disparity in the job creation in those countries that are "in the fast lane" and those that are "hesitant". The focus in China and other emerging countries on their clean energy industries is already bearing fruit, "One striking feature of the post-credit-crunch world is the difference between the pedestrian pace of recovery in the West and the rapid turnaround in the new BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China)".

The wind industry provides a shocking example of China's ascendence. In only two year China has leapfrogged Denmark, Germany, Spain, and the United States to become the world's largest manufacturer of wind turbines, and it doesn't appear to be slowing down:

"China's record spending on its wind industry this quarter represented nearly half of all funds invested in new wind projects around the world," the report states. "Figures released for the second quarter of 2010 showed that China invested around $10 billion in wind out of a global total of $20.5 billion."

It is becoming increasingly clear that we have reached a historic moment, we must decide to invest in America's ability to compete on clean tech, or cede our energy independence and crucial economic growth opportunities. As made clear by PCAST and Secretary Chu, now reiterated by Ernst and Young, to compete for first or even maintain second place we will have to innovate, "Manufacturers in the West need to be particularly innovative if they are to preserve their share of the market."

Clean Energy Financing: First Steps Towards Post-Partisan Effort

2010-12-01T11:55:00.000-08:00

Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership.

Energy reform is headed quickly towards a hyper-partisan stalemate. As the Republican party takes control of the U.S. House, some advocates of a progressive energy agenda are calling for Congressional Democrats to regroup and “conduct guerrilla warfare” against the status quo. A consortium of climate scientists has recently rallied together to “to challenge disinformation and misinformation deployed in the policy wars over global warming.” All signs point to an intensifying battle between “climate hawks” and “climate zombies,” but little progress will be made if advocates continue to reinforce this hyper-partisan environment. Despite rampant cynicism, opportunities for bipartisanship exist, and the greatest potential for aisle-crossing probably lies in financing mechanisms for clean technology innovation.

Public funding and financing for technology-focused clean energy projects present unique political opportunities that other government efforts lack. Unlike pollution regulations and top-down industrial mandates, financing for business has long enjoyed broad support from both ends of the political spectrum. Various policy tools aimed at ramping up federal dollar flow towards clean energy projects include feed-in tariffs, loan guarantees, credit enhancement, direct grants and tax credits. Many of these policies carry the potential for bipartisan support in Congress.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) installed probably the greatest federal support for clean technology investment in history. However, as stimulus projects expire, clean technology innovation is approaching a funding cliff that will need to be replenished if Congress is serious about decarbonization. Hypothetical broad-based subsidies and renewable electricity standards will be insufficient in targeting the specific projects required for technological innovation. Vestigial targeting elements of the 2009 stimulus bill have received support from both sides of the aisle. Sec. 1603 of ARRA, for instance, has provided grants for specific clean energy projects in lieu of tax credits. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) recently co-sponsored a bill (S. 3935) that would extend the tax code calibrations established by the stimulus act. The grants established by this legislation are diverse, but not broad; instead of blanketing industry with blank-check subsidies, they target projects in storage, solar, wind, fuel cell, and other clean energy technologies.

New programs based on tax credits and incentives could also attract Republican co-signers. Sander Levins, the Chairman of House Ways and Means, introduced alternative legislation to cap-and-trade that includes roughly $6.5 billion in tax credits for manufacturing of clean technologies, in addition to extending credits for other alternative fuels. Like S. 3935, Levin’s Domestic Manufacturing and Energy Jobs Act of 2010 would include extensions of stimulus programs, in this case Sec. 48C, another tax credit provision of ARRA. As Daniel J. Weiss reported recently, “the 48C programs is also included in S. 2857, co-sponsored by Bingaman, Hatch, Lugar, and Debbie Stabenow”--two Democrats and two Republicans. Unlike past efforts by Democrats such as health care, in which they crafted legislation and then courted Republicans, programs like S. 3935 and S. 2857 can trace bipartisan support to their original authorship.

These initiatives are certainly smaller-scale than the original and subsequent drafts of the American Power Act, this summer’s climate/energy effort spearheaded by Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman. Despite its “tri-partisan” coalition of authors, APA was a stark demonstration of the political intractability of cap-and-trade. Even with a high-profile Republican working on the bill for six months and concessions by Democrats on nuclear and clean coal technology, conservatives in the Senate dropped the bill before picking it up. Instead of pursuing an agenda built around cap-and-trade with ornaments for conservatives, advocates must encourage their lawmakers to draft innovation-focused legislation from the ground up, with across-the-board political support for various traditionally conservative and progressive financing mechanisms.

Americans for Energy Leadership has already publicized an op-ed in Politico by Senators Stabenow (D-MI), Hagan (D-NH), and Udall (D-CO) calling for a new strategy on energy reform. Citing a report by Third Way, they note that “energy innovation is not a partisan issue--it’s an American imperative.” The path to a decarbonized economy cannot find success if either party adopts energy reform as a partisan agenda, used to re-elect their own members and wedge the ranks of the opposing party. Economic growth, energy security and the protection of our soliders are not partisan issues--they are core American goals.

U.S. Must Triple Investment in Energy Technology: President's Science Advisors

2010-12-01T10:46:00.000-08:00

Originally Published at the Breakthrough Institute

he United States should more than triple federal investments in the development of cutting edge new energy technologies to accelerate the transition to a low carbon energy system, according to President Obama's top science and technology advisors.

Joining an increasingly broad and consistent set of voices, from academia, policy organizations, business leaders and researchers, the President's science and technology advisors forcefully argue that accelerated energy innovation is critical to the nation's future prosperity for economic competitiveness, environmental, and national security reasons alike.

The report, "Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy," was written by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and released Monday.

The PCAST report recommends a series of measures to strengthen the federal energy innovation system, including: a major increase in federal funding for energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment; a strategic energy plan to assess and evaluate energy innovation policy and priorities every four years; and new programs to train and inspire the next generation of energy scientists and engineers to tackle the nation's energy and climate challenges.

Funding should be increased to $16 billion annually, according to the report, with the majority--75 percent--of funds dedicated to research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects early in the technology life cycle.

In order to avoid adding to the federal deficit, PCAST recommends using new revenue sources to fund roughly $10 billion of the new investments while limiting negative impacts on consumers. The report notes that a gas tax increase of just two pennies per gallon of motor fuel sold would raise $4 billion annually for key investments in energy innovation, while a one-tenth of one cent per kilowatt hour surcharge on all electricity sales would raise an equivalent amount.

Beyond additional funding, PCAST also calls for better coordination of federal energy innovation strategies, recommending that the Obama Administration establish a Quadrennial Energy Review (QER), akin to the current Quadrennial Defense Review, to provide a multi-year roadmap for federal energy policy and energy technology objectives. A thorough review of federal energy subsidies is also advised, although the report does not delve into great specificity about which programs should be cut and which strengthened.

To train a new generation of scientists and engineers, PCAST recommends that the Department of Energy fund training grant programs and curriculum at universities around the country, aimed at undergraduates, graduates students, and post-docs. They also envision a new multidisciplinary social science research program geared towards understanding the energy innovation ecosystem and how new technologies succeed in the market place.

The Growing Energy Technology Consensus

The report is a high-profile endorsement of a technology-led clean energy innovation strategy, and adds to the momentum that has gathered over the past two years for major federal investment in energy R&D. Last year, 34 Nobel Prize recipients called on the President to commit $15 billion annually for energy R&D. This summer, private business leaders like Bill Gates and Norman Augustine, along with other members of the American Energy Innovation Council, advocated a similar scale of investment.

And most recently, the Breakthrough Institute, Brookings Institution, and the American Enterprise Institute released "Post-Partisan Power," a $25 billion a year, technology-led innovation strategy to secure America's clean energy future. That report called for reforming energy subsidies to drive innovation, ramping up investment in energy and science education, and paying for additional investment in energy research and procurement through small but broad revenue streams like electricity surcharges or fees on imported oil--all very consonant with PCAST's recommendations.

Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu spoke in stark terms about the imperative to invest in energy innovation, warning of a "Sputnik moment" as China threatens to eclipse the United States in clean energy technology:

"Innovation is the key to prosperity and progress...you're making an expenditure because, in the long run, it's the future economic health of the country. That's not 20 years in the future; we're talking one, two, three years. We've got to make these investments."