Breakthrough: Research, Develop, Deploy and Repeat

By Adam Zemel, Breakthrough Generation Fellow

Andy Revkin has blogged today on a debate he is engaged in on the threads of Joe Romm's climateprogress.org. It's almost unclear what they are debating over before I remember that Joe Romm categorically rejects any calls for public investment in energy technology R&D as the machinations of climate deniers/delayers -- or at least as "misguided" efforts.

Romm is probably right that this is the Debate of the Decade as it concerns the best way to transition to a clean energy system. Revkin posits that we need public investment in R&D in order to make scalable and bring down the price of clean energy. Romm himself admits that he has called for R&D for the past twenty years, but claims that the time when this research would have helped has passed. It is now time to focus primarily (if not entirely) on deploying the technologies currently on hand.

I can't say that I disagree with Romm's calls to begin deploying existing technologies as soon as possible -- the last time we debated Romm, we made it clear that many breakthrough's in clean energy technology price and performance will depend on learning by doing.

However, any push to transition to a clean energy economy/society/infrastructure must put money across the board into R, D, D and D -- Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment.

I recently read an article about GM's push to create the Chevy Volt, a plug in hybrid that "will be like no hybrid on the road today. Existing hybrids are gasoline-powered cars, with an electric assist to improve the gas mileage. The Volt will be an electric-powered car, with a gasoline assist to increase the battery's range." GM is taking a huge risk by attempting to create a car that could redefine the ecological impact of automobiles; one that they are all too aware may lead to the biggest setback in the company's 100 years. There is no reason the government should not be providing tax-credits, or helping with health-care and other "legacy" benefits, or in some way stepping in to help GM become the company that mobilizes a clean, American made fleet. This would be government dollars well spent.

The honest truth of the matter is that renewable and cleaner energy sources are currently expensive to the point of being politically infeasible to implement at the scales we need them in this country. The call for cheap energy will always be louder than the call for clean energy, and for good reason--our food, transportation, clothing, clean water, health and housing are all so accessible because energy is so inexpensive.

And, setting aside the political reality of America, the developing world continues to develop at an astounding and admirable rate, creating lives of security and opportunity for many more people on the globe. And this growth is all being achieved using cheap energy from coal, which countries like India and China have already said they will not give up if it means halting or even slowing down economic growth. With this in mind, it becomes apparent that even if we could significantly increase the price of dirty energy in America and create a clean energy economy here, unless we bring the real price of clean energy down, these technologies will not be adopted across world -- and the climate crisis will continue unabated.

In the end, what is politically feasible is inextricably linked to what is realistically achievable when it comes to cutting carbon emissions. A dark-ages-lifestyle and hopeless future seems to be a political loser on all fronts, and with the global population and per capita energy demands both on the rise, it seems to me that cheap, abundant clean energy, achieved through a serious and rigorous RDD&D process, is the best and most politically viable way to go.

Post a comment