Instead of raising the price of fossil fuels, Gates argues that the time has come to shift our attention to raising the revenues necessary to fuel innovation and make clean energy cheap.
In a new interview with Technology Review, Bill Gates nails the global energy and climate challenge and discusses the need for dramatic increases in energy innovation funding to make clean energy cheap.
In a climate discourse dominated by emissions targets and carbon caps, Gates has provided a refreshing and clear-eyed look at the first-order importance of direct public investment to develop clean, affordable technologies to replace fossil fuels on a global scale.
In this new interview, Gates discusses why dismissing the difficulty of the challenge is counter-productive, and argues that carbon pricing can never drive the dramatic innovation required to transform the global energy system. Instead of raising the price of fossil fuels, Gates argues that the time has come to shift our attention to raising the revenues necessary to fuel innovation and make clean energy cheap.
Below the fold, you can find excerpts from Gates' interview, which can be read in full here.
For more, the NYTimesAndy Revkin and TIME magazine's Bryan Walsh each spotlight the interview here and here, respectively.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has funded breakthrough innovation and new growth industries that are driving down the cost of clean energy and building the foundation for competitive 21st century U.S. industries, according to a new White House reportreleased today on the impacts of the U.S. stimulus bill.
Yet while the White House report highlights the considerable clean energy momentum established by the Recovery Act, it also inadvertently raises the specter of an impending clean tech funding cliff which risks sending U.S. clean energy industries into deep freeze as stimulus funds begin to expire over the coming months.
There's been some change over at WhiteHouse.gov's energy and environment page, but probably not the kind we had in mind when we heard President Obama's oft-repeated campaign slogan, "Change You Can Believe In."
A number of (as yet unfulfilled) energy and environmental policy pledges have been removed from the WhiteHouse.gov page in recent weeks.
Chief among them: President Obama's pledge to "invest $150 billion over ten years in energy research and development to transition to a clean energy economy," once a central plank in Obama's energy and environment platform, and a feature of his first national budget proposal (in FY2009).
With support from short-term federal stimulus funds, state and local governments aren't waiting for the academic and political debate over whether the U.S. should pursue an industrial policy to spur a clean energy economy. Instead, they are implementing targeted investments, tax breaks, and loans to help expand home grown clean tech companies and entice foreign firms to expand U.S. operations.
A vigorous debate about whether the U.S. government should invest in and help manage clean energy industries to spur economic growth is unfolding among academics, policy makers and business leaders. Curiously, a handful of federal, state, and local government officials are forging ahead in spite of the national discussion and formulating targeted industrial policies to create vibrant clean energy innovation ecosystems that include manufacturing, material suppliers, customers, and R&D. Cases like Rioglass Solar, a Spanish glass manufacturer expanding operations in Arizona, as well as the considerable growth of the wind industry across the US show how the public and private sector can collaborate and, more importantly, how effective industrial policy can create well-paying, long-term jobs.
This past week Rioglass Solar, which provides curved glass sheets used in solar panels, decided to build a $50 million headquarters and a 130,000 square foot manufacturing plant in Surprise, Arizona. The project will create 100 new jobs at the headquarters alone and many more in the manufacturing plant - a welcome economic boost for the town.
The chief incentive for the American operations expansion? Local, state, and federal officials provided almost $12 million in tax credits and fee reductions to (successfully) lure Rioglass to the area.
Meet the $35 dollar laptop, the result of the Indian government's direct investment in information technology research. If manufactured successfully, the laptop will both revolutionize education in the developing world and serve as a testament to the power of government investment to trigger rapid technological progress.
Last week, the Indian government showcased a prototype of a low-cost laptop that could trigger an education revolution in India and elsewhere in the developing world. If successful, the newly announced computer will serve as a prime example of how direct government investments can reduce the price of technology quickly and effectively.
Funded by the Ministry of Human Resources Development and designed by students from India's top universities, the laptop is slated to enter the market in 2011.
According to a recent IEA report, the U.S. is not alone in facing the possibility of a clean technology R&D funding cliff. The report documents an uptick in global clean energy R&D investment in 2009 as a result of country-level stimulus packages, but the author of the report cautions that investment on this level must be built upon, not allowed to drop off.
According to the [IEA] report, "Global Gaps in Clean Energy RD&D," the recent burst of spending on research as part of various countries' efforts to stimulate their fragile economies has helped provide a substantial boost after decades of diminishing investment on the frontiers of energy inquiry. But the report's author, Thomas Kerr, warned that this was a transitory pulse when sustained growth was needed, particularly given signs that no global price on carbon dioxide emissions was likely any time soon. In essence, the report says, the $24 billion in such spending in 2009 needs to be the new floor for such investments, not a temporary peak.
The report describes how India, despite its poverty, has moved ahead with an initiative for raising money for energy research that the United States -- thanks to a lack of leadership, congressional polarization and fear of anything remotely resembling a tax -- has so far been unable to do: India has created a National Clean Energy Fund for research and innovation financed by a levy of $1.10 (U.S.) per metric ton of mined or imported coal. It's a very modest fee that has created hundreds of millions of dollars to stimulate Indian research and testing of promising technologies.
Click here for more on India's National Clean Energy Fund.
In a recent Guardian op-ed, Breakthrough Senior Fellow Ulrich Beck argues that the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe should be inspiring far more than just a pointless blame game. Instead, he points out, "we need the celebrated innovative power of capital and the utopian enthusiasm of engineers," to revolutionize the way we use energy and make use of the most abundant sources of energy, such as solar power.
Beck writes:
Postwar prosperity in the west laid the foundation for environmental awareness. Now environmental awareness must provide the basis for prosperity in developing countries. These countries will adopt sustainable policies to the extent that the affluent countries invest in their development and adopt a new vision of prosperity and growth. China, India, Brazil and African countries will not agree to any approach that tries to limit their efforts to achieve economic parity - and rightly so.
But does the future lie with a global environmental policy based on carbon trading, which amounts to the global sale of indulgences for CO2 sins? Or will we have the courage to invent and realise a new age of solar energy in which prosperity is not an environmental sin, and when everything from cows to electric toothbrushes is blamed for contributing to CO2 emissions? "It is time to introduce clean forms of energy," Obama has said. If he can ring in an era that is truly Beyond Petroleum, Big Oil's Bastille will be doomed.
A recent collection of nuclear news over at the Energy Collective suggests that Japan and South Korea are taking major steps to sign lucrative nuclear deals - with relatively little competition from Westinghouse or Areva. And China is planning to increase nuclear capacity nearly eight-fold by 2020 by building reactors locally using Westinghouse AP1000 technology.
The twenty-year effort to create a single global pollution framework to reduce carbon emissions is in a state of collapse. Meanwhile, a new climate policy consensus is emerging, one which prioritizes direct investment in technology innovation to make clean energy cheap. The new framework begins from the understanding that the root cause of the failure of the pollution paradigm was the technology and price gap between fossil fuels and their alternatives. But hard and important questions are being asked of the new investment-and-innovation paradigm. How is it different from just increasing subsidies for clean energy? How can we be sure it will reduce emissions? What role should carbon pricing play? Here Breakthrough Institute answers frequently asked questions of the climate technology paradigm and responds to challenges raised by Alex Evans on the left and Robert Michaels on the right, among others, who have taken aim at Breakthrough's and Bill Gates' proposals, respectively.
Update (Jul 16, 2010): Expanding on a Washington Post op-ed, Vinod Khosla delineates his argument "about the deficiencies of an isolated cap-and-trade or carbon-pricing bill," and joins the climate technology consensus. Khosla writes, "If we want to make a significant difference, we need to get on the path to reducing carbon worldwide by 80 percent now by focusing on what I call "carbon reduction capacity building" -- in other words, we need to develop radical carbon-reduction technologies. A utility cap (or a carbon price) won't build capacity -- it will just increase our utility costs and decrease our manufacturing competitiveness without any increase in our technological competitiveness. On the other hand, although a policy that promotes capacity building will increase research investments in the short term, it will likely decrease overall electricity costs in the medium to long run (through the magic of competition, technology and regulatory certainty), while simultaneously reducing carbon. Disruptive technologies require investment; they don't come from the status quo."
Update (Jul 14, 2010): Other observers have reached similar conclusions about the faltering pollution paradigm. Walter Russell Mead and Clive Crook weigh in on "The Big Green Lie" but can't agree on what it is. Mead argues that it is "that the green movement is a source of coherent or responsible counsel about what to do" while Crook argues that "it's the diminished credibility of the claim that we have a problem in the first place." But both agree that cap and trade and the effort to establish a global carbon pollution regime are dead. Meanwhile, Newsweek's Stefan Theil observes that "the whole concept of radical, top-down global targets is coming under scrutiny" and suggests that the "new climate realism" will "look at other options beyond the current set of targets" and "include a broader mix of policies" including "a shift of subsidies into research and development" and "greater efforts to adapt society to a warmer climate."
Update (Jul 10, 2010): See Andrew Pendleton and Matthew Lockwood of the UK-based IPPR think tank response to Alex Evans' contention that real action on climate will only occur after a major global warming disaster. "There is simply no reason to believe that a climate shock big enough to bring about major changes in thinking will come along before we reach a tipping point (how would we know?)" they write. "Climate change is by its nature long-term and insidious, more like a frog in a warming pot than a sudden Anschluss."
By Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger
The twenty-year effort to create a single global pollution framework to reduce carbon emissions is in a state of collapse. Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has not reduced emissions and is quickly fading as the central effort to decarbonize European economies. The UN process is becoming a forum for nations to compare and coordinate national policies and measures, not create or enforce a binding global treaty. And it is now clear that, if energy legislation passes the U.S. Senate, it will not create an economy-wide cap-and-trade system, nor will it increase the deployment of clean energy.
Meanwhile, a new climate policy consensus is emerging, one which prioritizes direct investment in technology innovation. This consensus begins with the recognition that the root cause of the failure of the pollution paradigm was the technology and price gap between fossil fuels and their alternatives. No nation -- not even the wealthiest in Europe -- is willing to price carbon enough to cover the difference. Until the technology gap is closed, little will be done to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Arising out of the debates surrounding clean technology and the economic recession, is the nagging question: can the U.S. continue to lead in high tech innovation without domestic manufacturing? Increasingly, it seems, the answer is "NO" -- a response that carries serious implications for clean tech innovation and economic growth in the U.S.
Political confusion surrounding "green" jobs, clean tech, and outsourced manufacturing (largely to Asia) has caused those looking to clean energy as the next U.S. growth sector and those seeking to raise the U.S. out of a growth-numbing recession to lose sight of what has fueled U.S. technological and economic leadership in the past - public support for innovation and large scale high tech manufacturing. Recently, Alexis Madrigal posed the critical question arising from this confusion to the readers of the Atlantic: "Can the US Innovate Without Manufacturing?"
As Breakthrough and numerous high tech leaders argue, the answer is "NO."
In a new IEA report intended to inform and guide climate and energy policy decision makers, the Energy Technology Perspective 2010 (Exec. Summary; full report purchase required) demonstrates that the clean technology revolution will require an additional $46 trillion investment (beyond energy infrastructure investment expected in BAU scenarios) if we intend to halve carbon emissions by 2050 (from 2005 levels). And, the IEA adds, a carbon price alone will not be sufficient to drive that level of investment.
The long holiday weekend will undoubtedly bring the usual calls for energy independence. With a hole in the bottom of the ocean continuing to spew tens of thousands of gallons of oil daily into the Gulf and hundreds of thousands of American troops stationed around the world endeavoring, among other things, to ensure the free flow of oil upon which our economy depends, it is worth remembering why it has been so difficult to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, even though the costs of that dependence have been high.
China is planning to bring on two new reactors at the Ling Ao nuclear power plant complex, adding about 1.7 GW of average capacity (assuming a capacity factor of .87) at the complex. According to Bloomberg, China plans to bring the first new reactor online in October and the second in 2011 as part of its effort to replace some of its coal fired generation with nuclear energy.
Just to put the size of these reactors in perspective, (according to Breakthrough analysis) it would take nearly ten offshore wind farms the size of Cape Wind or about four solar PV projects the size of California's $3 billion Million Solar Roofs initiative to supply the amount of energy that these additional reactors will provide for China.
A new policy brief by the Breakthrough Institute and Americans for Energy Leadership, "The Power to Compete?", provides the first independent analysis of how the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act would impact U.S. competitiveness in the global clean energy industry.
A new policy brief released today by the Breakthrough Institute and Americans for Energy Leadership provides the first independent analysis of how the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act would impact U.S. competitiveness in the global clean energy industry, benchmarking its provisions against key policy components for technological innovation and industrial development in the low-carbon power and transportation sectors.
Federal energy policy has become a primary U.S. national priority in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and amidst the ongoing Senate debate over comprehensive climate and energy reform. The May 2010 release of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act (APA) currently represents the flagship proposal for comprehensive reform in the Senate, and its future within the context of broader energy legislation will be determined in the weeks ahead.
The renewed urgency for energy reform arrives among growing national concern that the United States is falling behind its competitors in the growing clean energy industry. Thus, in addition to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, one of the core objectives of the Kerry-Lieberman proposal is to enhance U.S. competitiveness in clean energy technology markets. As Senator Kerry declared in the opening of the APA release press conference, "The bill that we are introducing today and revealing today, the American Power Act, will restore America's economy and reassert our position as a global leader in clean energy technology."
By re-thinking how the federal government can foster innovation and competitiveness in clean energy, from education and research to commercialization and production, the United States can once again become a global leader in clean energy technology.
By Jesse Jenkins, Mark Muro, and Rob Atkinson, originally at the New Republic
Having passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 28th, the America COMPETES Act, America's flagship competitiveness legislation, will soon be debated in the U.S. Senate. The Act was originally passed in 2007 in response to mounting concern that the United States was failing to effectively compete economically with other nations, imperiling the nation's future prosperity.
Now, a new outbreak of anxiety has engulfed the nation's competitive standing particularly as regards the nation's fledgling clean energy industry. Presently, the United States lacks an effective strategy to compete in this high-growth industry, which is expected to surpass $600 billion globally by 2020. Fortunately, the America COMPETES reauthorization offers a key opportunity for Congress to strengthen U.S. clean energy competitiveness.
In a new policy report, the Breakthrough Institute, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program call on Congress to strengthen clean energy competitiveness through the America COMPETES reauthorization.
Congress first passed this flagship competitiveness legislation in 2007 in response to concerns that the United States was losing its ability to compete economically with other nations. On May 28, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the COMPETES reauthorization by a vote of 262-150 and the bill is set to be debated in the Senate. The reauthorization comes at a time when the United States seeks new sources of growth in a fiscally constrained environment. The clean energy market is one such growth industry--expected to surpass $600 billion by 2020--but the U.S. faces unprecedented global competition.
In "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," an authoritative report on international clean energy competitiveness, the Breakthrough Institute and ITIF recently demonstrated how U.S. leadership on a number of clean energy competitiveness metrics has declined in the last decade. The United States' historic lead in energy innovation is slipping as other countries implement national innovation strategies. America now lags economic competitors in Asia and Europe in the manufacture of virtually all clean energy technologies. And the U.S. lags its economic rivals in preparing its future workforce with critical science, technology, engineering and math education (STEM).
The new report argues that to regain leadership in the global clean energy market, the United States must prioritize major investments in clean energy technology and embrace bold new paradigms in clean energy education, innovation, and production and manufacturing policy.
"Meeting the aggressive challenges to U.S. clean energy leadership will require both increased funding for critical education and technology programs as well as new ideas for how the federal government can foster innovation in the clean energy industry, from basic research to full-scale commercialization," said Mark Muro, Director of Policy at the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Project.
The Brookings Institution is out with a new policy brief today building on their prior calls for energy discovery innovation institutes (e-DIIs). These regionally-based, collaborative research centers are designed to "serve as the hubs of a distributed research network linking the nation's best scientists, engineers, and facilities." The newest report assesses the potential for e-DII's in the Great Lakes region.
Through such a network, the nation could at once increase its current inadequate energy R&D effort and complement existing resources with a new research paradigm that would join the unique capabilities of America's research universities to those of corporate R&D and federal laboratories.
Brookings' vision for creating an energy innovation network is consonant with a similar concept put forward by the Breakthrough Institute and Third Way in "Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy" which called for a national commitment to energy innovation modeled on the National Institutes of Health.
A new report by WWF confirms that the potential economic gains associated with clean energy exports are huge, but falls short in advancing an effective strategy for the U.S. to compete. More than pricing carbon and subsidizing clean energy in perpetuity, U.S. competitiveness in clean energy requires a comprehensive federal investment strategy in clean energy innovation and deployment to make clean energy cheap in real, unsubsidized terms.
A new report by the World Wildlife Fund outlines the enormous potential economic gains associated with clean energy export market share. The report, however, misses a critical opportunity to advance the most effective solution to declining U.S. clean energy competitiveness -- major public investment in clean technology innovation and deployment to make clean energy cheap.
Three-quarters of additional energy demand between now and 2050 is expected to occur in developing countries, according to the new report, suggesting that any national strategy to capitalize on the economic benefits of the growing clean energy industry must also focus on boosting clean energy exports.
"If US businesses capture 14% market share (which reflects current US exports in environmental goods and services in developing countries) in just a subset of this new clean technology market, it would result in up to 850,000 new American jobs"
But the policies that WWF recommends--putting a rising price on carbon and subsidizing clean energy in the developing world--will fail on their own to deliver on the promise of securing U.S. market share both domestically and abroad.
Despite the Deepwater Horizon calamity, if the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill gets passed then concessions on offshore drilling are likely to be part of the deal. But Brookings' Mark Muro points out that this outcome could provide a "teachable moment and tie further fossil fuel use once and for all to energy system transformation," citing a post by Breakthrough's Jesse Jenkins and I, in which we argued that a 2009 GOP plan to dedicate the new oil and gas royalties to a clean energy fund would be an appropriate compromise if drilling is inevitable.
Before a Senate Finance Subcommittee, ITIF President and "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" co-author Rob Atkinson testified in support of incentives for US clean energy manufacturing as part of a comprehensive strategy for clean energy competitiveness.
Testifying before the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources and Infrastructure, ITIF President and "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" co-author Rob Atkinson spoke in support of incentives for US clean energy manufacturing as part of a comprehensive strategy for clean energy competitiveness. Building on Breakthrough's work with him on "Rising Tigers," Atkinson warned that a carbon price, and other demand side policies, are not enough to spur the kind of innovation necessary to ensure clean energy competitiveness.
Below are some highlights from his testimony. You can read the full testimony here.
Yesterday's column in the NYT by Thomas Friedman illustrates why efforts to put a price on carbon are not going to do much at all to stimulate energy technology innovation. Friedman writes:
After months of heroic negotiations, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman had forged a bipartisan climate/energy/jobs bill that, while far from perfect, would have, for the first time, put a long-term fixed price on carbon -- precisely the kind of price signal U.S. industry and consumers need to start really shifting the economy to clean-power innovations. . .
Without that price signal, you will never get sustained consumer demand for, or sustained private investment in, clean-power technologies. All you will get are hobbies. . .
I'd love to see the president come out, guns blazing with this message: "Yes, if we pass this energy legislation, a small price on carbon will likely show up on your gasoline or electricity bill. I'm not going to lie. But it is an investment that will pay off in so many ways. It will spur innovation in energy efficiency that will actually lower the total amount you pay for driving, heating or cooling. It will reduce carbon pollution in the air we breathe and make us healthier as a country. It will reduce the money we are sending to nations that crush democracy and promote intolerance. It will strengthen the dollar. It will make us more energy secure, environmentally secure and strategically secure. . . "
It is not clear what that "price on carbon" is in the legislation or how widely it would be applied, but for the purposes of discussion, let's just say that it starts at $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide and is applied economy-wide.
In spite of endless NIMBY opposition Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has handed a big win to Cape Wind. The triumph of this level-headed decision over continued efforts to block the project in the name of the "natural" or "sacred" provides a humbling lesson for opponents of Cape Wind and future clean energy projects.
Defining Sacred Compare for yourself the destruction of the sacred rainforest by oil drilling to the modest development of this region (right) by wind turbines.
After almost a decade of NIMBY opposition Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has handed a big win to Cape Wind -- what will become the country's first offshore wind farm -- and the future of offshore wind in the U.S.
Yet, environmentalists are bitterly divided over support for Cape Wind -- a 130 turbine, 430 megawatt clean energy project that is scheduled for siting about six miles offshore and could meet up to 75% of Cape Cod's power needs. The conflict between those who see Cape Wind as a step towards a clean energy future and those who consider it a "corporate giveaway to private industrial energy developers" says much about the scale of the challenges to clean energy adoption in the U.S.
The Breakthrough Institute has advocated for the project since 2005, when Robert Kennedy Jr. led a public fight to block the wind farm. Breakthrough's Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger published an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle and organized an open letter with other global warming writers, including Bill McKibben, Ross Gelbspan, and Jon Isham, calling on Kennedy to support the project. Over 150 other global warming writers and activists signed the letter. Nordhaus and Shellenberger continued their critique in a chapter of their 2007 book, Break Through, writing about Cape Wind as a cautionary tale against green NIMBYism.
Out of the scramble over the thrice-delayed Kerry/Graham/Lieberman climate bill, various policy alternatives have emerged. Grassroots greens are arguing for cap and dividend but high tech leaders including Bill Gates are calling for an explicit energy technology innovation agenda that - if backed by a direct, large-scale plan for investment - could leave carbon pricing alternatives by the wayside.
Out of the scramble over the thrice-delayed Kerry/Graham/Lieberman (KGL or "keggles") climate bill have emerged various alternatives, with grassroots greens arguing for cap and dividend and high tech leaders including Bill Gates calling for an explicit technology innovation agenda.
Earlier this month, Bill McKibben advocated in The New Republic for the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act, claiming it would solve the political problem of raising energy costs because it would rebate some of the pollution allowances to consumers -- "three-quarters will come out ahead," McKibben claims, "with only real energy hogs hurting .
It is simply not true that the government should not or cannot pick technological winners and losers. That was ITIF President Rob Atkinson's message in a piece today at Huffington Post. Indeed, as Atkinson writes, the government has always picked winners and in the process, has developed entire new industries, like IT, that have formed the foundation of economic prosperity and the basis of our modern way of life. What would our lives be like if we had left everything to the "free market"?
From Huffington Post:
"But the free market opponents will say how can Washington outsmart the market? Is this the same market that through its infinite wisdom invested hundreds of billions of subprime mortgages? In fact, the government has a pretty good track record of picking winners. Just look at the technologies that the government had a key role in developing: the Internet, the web browser, the search engine, computer graphics, semiconductors, and a host of others. There are many other examples of success stories made possible not because government anointed a particular young entrepreneur but because the government made a conscious choice to open new pathways into which young innovators could embark."
A few weeks ago, at an event on the same subject, Atkinson and former-Reaganite Clyde Prestowitz took the neoliberal free market ideologues including former Clintonite, Robert Lawrence (ironic?) to task for their ahistorical views. Amidst all the anti-government fervor lies the true but unconventional wisdom: the government can and should pick technological winners. Our economic prosperity depends on it.
Update: As Alexis Madrigal points out at WIRED, it's great to see the list of "heavy hitters" on the American Energy Innovation Council embrace a technology innovation agenda like the one Breakthrough has been working to advance. Let's hope this welcome show of support will be followed up by a serious commitment of financial resources.
An op-ed from Microsoft's Bill Gates and DuPont's Chad Holliday gives voice to the private sector's support for public investment in clean energy because energy, as Breakthrough has long argued, "requires a public commitment."
Gates and Holliday lay out three reasons why the private sector can't make this investment on its own:
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.
The Copenhagen climate talks may have been a symbolic success according to some, but the Accord won't mitigate climate change and the forthcoming Kerry/Graham/Lieberman climate bill will not lead to technology innovation. These failures, notes Michael Lind in a new white paper, show the collapse of the climate paradigm and the need to redefine our approach to climate change in terms of technology
The climate negotiations in Copenhagen resulted in a 193-nation agreement that included 154 policy commitments -- "the highest number of new government initiatives ever recorded . . . in a four-month period," according to Deutsche Bank -- but do they really matter?
In the months since the frenetic, and at times, apoplectic UNFCCC meeting, two conflicting views have emerged.
A report released earlier this month by Deutsche Bank (DB) presented analysis like those from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Center for American Progress (CAP) showing the talks were "no failure."
Two new posts for Earth Day argue that we need to move from nature protection to tech innovation. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are in Slate and Mother Jones arguing that the focus on technology transfer as part of a global climate agreement is a distraction: clean tech IP has already been rapidly transferred to China -- soon it will be transferred back here.
Politicians talking about clean energy jobs like to claim "they can't be shipped overseas." From President Obama's State of the Union to Rep. Ed Markey stumping for the climate bill he co-authored with Rep. Henry Waxman, the promise of new "green jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced" is an all too common refrain.
The only problem with it is that it's wrong on its face.
America is already exporting clean energy jobs -- or seeing them created abroad in the first place. After pioneering wind and solar power, electric cars, and nuclear plants, America turned its back on the public investments in cutting edge technology that catalyzed these innovations, forfeiting cleantech industries to foreign countries who did not make the same mistakes. The cap and trade program at the heart of the climate bill authored by Rep. Markey may help create more clean energy jobs overseas, but it won't bring those jobs back to America. Conventional responses to today's competitiveness challenge won't cut it. Here's what will...
During a panel hosted by Waxman-Markey proponent, Center for American Progress, ITIF president Rob Atkinson argued that cap and trade was not sufficient to catalyze a clean energy future, proposing instead, policy focused on public investment in innovation to make clean energy cheap and abundant.
Speaking at a panel on building a clean energy economy, ITIF President and "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" co-author Rob Atkinson declared that current technologies are not enough to create a competitive domestic clean energy industry and that major investments in energy innovation are necessary to make clean energy cheap and abundant.
Nuclear power might just be energy's version of the phoenix -- rising from the metaphoric ashes to play a key role in the solution to climate change.
That's the gist of a Wall Street Journal feature that points out that as climate concerns rise a number of environmentalists are rethinking their position on the viability of nuclear power, including Gaia Theorist James Lovelock and Whole Earth Catalogue pioneer, Stewart Brand. Quoting Breakthrough co-founder and Chairman, Ted Nordhaus, WSJ explains why it's becoming increasingly hard for environmentalists to be anti-nuclear power:
"If you're an environmentalist and you're arguing that catastrophic climate change is a serious problem that we have to deal with, it's increasingly hard to say that we're worried about nuclear power because of what's going to happen to nuclear waste buried inside of a mountain for 10,000 years," says Ted Nordhaus, chairman of the Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland, Calif., think tank...
"I'm much more optimistic about these next-generation designs," Mr. Nordhaus says. "If we're going to get serious about a new nuclear strategy, it's going to be with these smaller nuclear designs."
The increased competition for GE from local companies in China is due in part to a massive push by the Chinese government to promote clean energy and R&D. In recent years, it has rolled out a range of renewable energy targets and financial incentives, including significant tax breaks for companies that invest in research related to energy...
The GE research center has also been key for the development of wind-power technology, including power electronics hardware and software that allow wind turbines to keep operating after lightning strikes and other events cause sudden drops in voltage on the power grid. The center has now produced 20 patents in this general area, says Yunfeng Liu, the manager of GE's power conversion lab in Shanghai. Such technology can also make the grid more stable than it would be without the presence of wind turbines, by helping to maintain the necessary voltages and frequencies on transmission lines.
"Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy," a policy memo co-authored by the Breakthrough Institute's Director of Climate and Energy Policy, Jesse Jenkins, and Third Way's Joshua Freed and Avi Zevin, is a joint effort by both think tanks to jumpstart American energy research and development.
The memo calls for a national commitment to energy innovation that includes direct support for the research and development of new and existing clean technologies and creates a structure for energy research, modeled on the National Institutes of Health, capable of coordinating large scale R&D efforts.
The memo acknowledges that the U.S. faces a "defining challenge" in its effort to transition to clean energy. Based on historical evidence of national commitments made to confront significant challenges, the authors suggest two key components of a national effort to address the clean energy challenge in the United States.
1) Increase federal investment in energy R&D by $15 billion per year: In line with President Obama's 2009 budget request, the scale of investment for comparable national priorities, and the recommendations of innovation experts, the authors propose a sustained $15 billion per year increase in federal clean energy R&D to approximately $20 billion per year. This level of funding is necessary to both create new breakthrough technologies and drive improvements to existing technology, enabling the production of clean energy at significantly higher efficiencies and lower costs.
2) Create a National Institutes of Energy: Modeled on the National Institutes of Health, a new National Institutes of Energy (NIE) would effectively apply R&D funding to the development of new, low-cost commercial clean energy technologies. The NIE would function as a nationwide network of regionally based, commercially focused, and coordinated innovation institutes. Alongside other effective federal energy R&D agencies, an NIE would critically strengthen the U.S. clean energy innovation system.
Over at the Energy Tribune, Robert Bryce brings up a long neglected point about electricity use for information technology, inspired by the latest Apple must-have - the iPad:
Like it or not, much of that electricity will be generated by burning coal because that's the cheapest, most available fuel, particularly in developing countries like China, India, South Africa, and others. And as those countries continue their development, a key element of their growth will depend on their uptake of computers, mobile phones, and Internet-based technologies. Thus, to paraphrase Huber and Mills' 1999 article: The iPad is coming. It's time to dig more coal.
Last week I discussed Paul Krugman's views of climate policy (here and here). I argued that he deemphasized the need for technological innovation, which I argue must be at the core of any successful approach to decarbonization of the economy. A few commenters argued rather strenuously that I got things wrong -- Krugman in fact prioritizes technological innovation.
First, power generation has to be "decarbonized": solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, and maybe some fossil fuels with carbon capture have to replace coal-fired plants. This is within the reach of current technologies.
Yes, you read that right. Krugman says that replacing coal-fired power is within the reach of current technologies. Krugman is absolutely correct in a mathematical sense. We could indeed replace all current coal fired generation in the United States with about 325 new nuclear power plants (1 GW) or about 300,000 new wind turbines (the big ones, 2.5 MW, setting aside minor issues like storage or grid integration). (Data from The Climate Fix) However, Krugman is completely wrong from anything resembling a practical sense.
Highlighting China's rapidly developing economy and even more rapidly developing energy sector, John Fleck at the Albuquerque Journal highlighted Senator Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) reflections on the clean energy race after his recent trip to China:
But this is about more than just meeting China's internal needs, according to Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. China sees green energy -- wind, solar and the like -- as the global growth industry of the 21st century. And it aims to dominate this new global market.
"The Chinese government has determined that this is an area of substantial opportunity for them," said Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, in an interview last week after returning from a week-long fact-finding trip to learn more about what the Chinese are up to.
If the United States does not respond, we risk losing out on a major global economic growth opportunity, Bingaman said.
Fleck expands on China's clean tech progress, citing our report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" and quoting Breakthrough's Director of Climate and Energy Policy, Jesse Jenkins:
Some 200 green energy firms are now located [in Baoding, one Chinese clean energy cluster], according to Jesse Jenkins, an energy policy analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, a California think tank. Jenkins and his colleagues published a report last fall arguing that China and other Asian economic powers are "set to dominate the clean-energy race by out-investing the United States.
With the U.S. looking to make good on long-promised high-speed rail, China is first in line to offer up its technology, engineering know-how, and finances. They're even willing to accommodate our "Buy American" fantasies, allowing "at least 80 percent of the components of any locomotives and system control gear to come from American suppliers, and labor-intensive final assembly would be done in the United States for the American market."
The Chinese government has signed cooperation agreements with the State of California and General Electric to help build such lines. The agreements, both of which are preliminary, show China's desire to become a big exporter and licensor of bullet trains traveling 215 miles an hour, an environmentally friendly technology in which China has raced past the United States in the last few years.
"We are the most advanced in many fields, and we are willing to share with the United States," Zheng Jian, the chief planner and director of high-speed rail at China's railway ministry, said.
I have been having an interesting debate with a few economists in a previous thread about Paul Krugman's views of climate policy. I read his latest piece as emphasizing energy conservation and de-emphasizing technology. A few economists write in the comments that my reading is "absurd." This matters of course because anyone who thinks that we can stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations at a low level via conservation while de-emphasizing technology just doesn't have a good grasp of the problem.
So I Googled around a bit to see what Krugman has said in the past. And guess what? He advocates energy conservation and de-emphasizes technology! Here are some of his earlier statements that are unambiguous on these matters and consistent with how I interpret his latest piece.
Breakthrough Project Director Devon Swezey discusses the growing clean tech investment gap between the United States and China and what it means for U.S. competitiveness in the global clean energy sector.
Devon Swezey, Project Director at Breakthrough Institute, appeared on KPFA radio's Morning Show today to discuss the growing clean tech investment gap between China and the United States, and what the United States needs to do to regain some leadership in the burgeoning clean tech industry.
The segment with Morning Show host Brian Edwards-Tiekert begins at the 22 minute mark. You can listen below or click here to download an MP3 of the segment.
The Jews' exodus from Egypt isn't the only one garnering some attention this week. BusinessWeekreports that BP is going the way of other solar panel producers (Evergreen Solar announced its moving plans earlier last week) and packing up its domestic manufacturing and moving to China - where public investments in clean tech lead to cost reductions that have not been matched domestically despite stimulus dollars.
In Asia, "not only do you get cheaper labor but you also get major tax breaks just not happening here," Bencik said. "They're not getting the same incentives here in the states as elsewhere, and that's pushing these positions overseas."
Originally posted at Breakthrough Senior Fellow David Douglas's blog, Near Walden.
Bloom Energy's recent announcement of their fuel cell-based "energy server" drew lots of attention from the press, and for good reason. It set some nice marks for performance, and, if successful, will likely be the first of a new market category of energy products.
At Sun we looked at this technology a couple of years back. The use case was as the backup for a datacenter, and to switch to it as primary power when grid power was more expensive (e.g. mid-day in the summer during peak AC time). In this example the technology would enable us to change our view of backup power, from something we only use in emergencies to an energy insurance plan against rising costs. If I recall the only issue was the number of the units that would be required to support a MW or higher datacenter, but improvements in their technology have likely reduced this problem in the meantime.
Beyond work applications, I can't wait to see the home version of this technology, providing electricity and hot water from a single process. Hopefully the folks at Bloom or one of their competitors is working on a version for that!
But putting my nerdish desires aside, its useful to use this milestone to look at the environment in which the Bloom technology came into being. In this case there are two interesting aspects.
Fortunately for the U.S., China is ready and willing to share as it speeds ahead in its development of domestic high-speed rail. Even though China still imports HSR technology to manufacture trains, it has developed its own model that it has yet to commercialize. And now, ABC reports that China is not only planning to build out 16,000 miles of high speed track by 2020, it is aiming to bid for a piece of the $8 billion U.S. HSR pie.
"China is willing to share its mature and advanced technology with other countries to promote development of the world's high-speed railways," Wang [Zhigou] said."
IBM's announcement that it will invest $40 million in an energy R&D center in China is further evidence that without a national strategy for clean tech competitiveness that includes public investment in both innovation and manufacturing, America's once dominant lead in energy innovation could quickly disappear.
A recent announcement that IBM will invest $40 million in an"energy and utilities solutions lab" is further evidence that China's large-scale investments in clean tech are attracting private investment in R&D, not just manufacturing.
This latest news from IBM will be difficult for pundits like Thomas Friedman and Brad Plumer to ignore. Friedman and Plumer have argued that the U.S. will be able to maintain its competitive edge in innovation even as clean tech manufacturing relocates overseas.
IBM is not the first, nor is it likely to be the last to set-up a clean-tech R&D center in China. Dow Chemical opened one last June and a few months later Applied Materials follow suit, opening an advanced solar R&D center in Xi'an.
Breakthrough President Michael Shellenberger is quoted in today's Wall Street Journal on the problem facing many governments today, of how to spark and continue along the path towards a clean energy economy. The reality, Shellenberger says, is that you'll never induce the birth of a new energy economy by taxing the old into obsolescence:
Breakthrough President Michael Shellenberger is quoted in today's Wall Street Journal on the problem facing many governments today, of how to spark and continue along the path towards a clean energy economy. The reality, Shellenberger says, is that you'll never induce the birth of a new energy economy by taxing the old into obsolescence:
"I think the reality is that we are not going to get beyond a fossil-fuel economy, and I don't think we are going to impose big costs on the fossil-fuel economy either in the U.S. or in foreign developing countries like China, until the alternatives become a lot cheaper. I think while it is conceivable to have a carbon tax in the U.S., it will never be high enough to make fossil fuels as expensive as clean energy technologies are today."
Nordhaus in the Albuquerque Journal
John Fleck, of the Albuquerque Journal, profiled Breakthrough Institute Chairmen Ted Nordhaus in a column entitled, "A Third View on Climate Change." He describes Nordhaus as "the liberal environmentalist that some liberal environmentalists love to hate," alluding to the criticism Nordhaus, along with Breakthrough President Michael Shellenberger, leveled on the efficacy of the environmental movement first in their landmark essay, "The Death of Environmentalism," and then in their book, "Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility."
Fleck writes:
But he [Nordhaus] thinks the core strategy offered by conventional environmentalism -- emissions caps, putting a higher price on carbon-based energy like coal and gasoline to raise the cost of its use and spur a switch to alternatives -- is a failed approach and a distraction from the actions needed to deal with the problem.
The notion that governments will voluntarily jack up energy prices today to benefit future generations seems like a nonstarter to Nordhaus. The fact that the public, faced with government imposition of rising energy costs, will suddenly find reasons to question the underlying science of climate change is exactly what the 44-year-old pollster and political activist says we should expect...
Discourse over climate change and energy in this country has devolved into a ritualized political argument unmoored from the underlying issues, Nordhaus argues.
Greens, he said, think they are battling anti-science Neanderthals and fossil fuel-funded climate change skeptics. Skeptics, he said, think they are fighting a hoax being perpetrated in the name of black helicopter-driven government control.
It is identity politics. "They're really fighting over their identities," he said. "They're not fighting about actually doing anything."
The pair, as Fleck notes, have sought to override that debate by advocating a solution to climate change that has proven to be publicly popular:
Chief among their ideas is that the best way to deal with climate change is government investment in clean energy technology. While polls show waning public support in the United States for action on climate change, Nordhaus noted that clean energy remains tremendously popular.
The key, he said, is to make clean energy economically viable, so there is no need to negotiate the political minefield associated with using taxes or caps to raise the cost of dirty energy. "We're not really going to tackle any of these issues until this stuff is cheaper than coal," Nordhaus said."
Learn More
Shellenberger and Nordhaus have made this case in a number of publications. "The End of Magical Climate Thinking", which originally appeared in the journal Foreign Policy, explores the demise of the (perhaps slightly misappropriated) hope that many progressives vested in the figure of Barack Obama's coming to the White House, the belief that the transition to a new carbon economy, and thereby a new era, was already underway and its arrival was all but guaranteed to be swift and painless.
Also check out the formative white-paper: "Fast, Clean & Cheap: Cutting Global Warming's Gordian Knot, first published in Harvard Law & Policy Review (Jan 2008), which explores the idea that societies will never rid themselves of incumbent energy sources so long as the alternatives are less reliable and more expensive.
The clean tech sector has been booming in recent years, but can that rate of rapid growth sustain itself? In their most recent critical analysis, given as a keynote speech at the Cleantech Group's Feb 2010 Conference in San Francisco, Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that it cannot. "Storm Clouds on the Clean Tech Horizon?" continues to press the point that subsidies will not solve the crisis alone. For clean tech to really take off and gain a majority of the market share, radical innovation is the key.
The introduction of "Buy American" legislation in the Senate in response to reports that more than three quarters of funds from a clean energy stimulus program went to foreign companies might be good politics. Unfortunately it will do nothing to solve the root of the problem, which is that for 30 years Congress has done little to support the development of domestic clean energy industries.
The introduction of "Buy American" legislation in the Senate in response to a report that more than three quarters of funds from a clean energy stimulus program went to foreign companies is understandable and probably good politics. Unfortunately it will do nothing to solve the root of the problem, which is that for 30 years Congress has done little to support the development of domestic clean energy industries. Given the decades-long absence of a national clean energy strategy in the United States, the fact that foreign companies are benefiting most from the stimulus grant program should come as no surprise.
The U.S. has always lacked a proactive, consistent clean energy technology strategy that provided support for clean tech companies through each stage of the technology value chain, from R&D and innovation, to manufacturing and commercial deployment at scale.
Instead, U.S. clean energy policy has historically been characterized by a disjointed collection of loosely associated, often inconsistent incentives. One example is the wind energy production tax credit (PTC), a demand incentive that has routinely been at perpetual risk of expiration, and actually lapsed on three separate occasions over the last decade. With the real possibility that the policy-driven demand for wind turbines would dry up in any given year, companies were understandably wary of investing in large manufacturing facilities in the United States.
While the United States was once a pioneer in developing and commercializing clean energy technologies, from solar cells to nuclear power, we now lag behind our competitors in Asia and Europe in the production of virtually all clean technologies.
This week, U.S. clean tech news is almost as dramatic as the buzz surrounding the 2010 Academy Awards. And while the outcome of intensifying competition has more serious implications in the clean tech sector, like any motion picture worthy of a nomination, there's a very distinct underlying theme to the clean tech drama unfolding: the U.S. needs a national strategy for clean tech competitiveness.
As Joan Fitzgerald suggested in a lengthy American Prospect piece in December, "America's failure to have a coherent, national industrial policy," has dire consequences for long-term economic competitiveness.
That's part of the reason the Department of Energy (DOE) held its inaugural ARPA-E Innovation Summit in Washington D.C. earlier this week, which amassed about 1,700 scientists, engineers, policymakers, investors, and entrepreneurs to discuss the details of a national competitiveness strategy.
Clean tech has been booming, with 25, 30, even 40 percent growth in recent years. Can it last? It cannot. A new Breakthrough analysis and PowerPoint presentation shows storm clouds on the horizon. More subsidies for solar and wind won't do the trick. Radical innovation is the key. The goal? Radical cost reductions so clean energy is as cheap -- or cheaper than -- coal.
The double digit growth of clean tech industries like solar and wind can't last, and climate legislation in Congress won't continue the momentum, according to a new Breakthrough Institute analysis made for a keynote speech at the Cleantech Group's February 2010 conference in San Francisco.
The rapid growth of renewable energy over the last few years will be difficult to maintain politically as solar and wind achieve a larger share of the energy market. If the U.S. were to maintain its production tax credit (PTC) subsidy for wind power to become 20 percent of America's energy generation, the cost would be $20 billion per year. Moreover, existing transmission is rapidly meeting capacity, which will push wind and solar into sites with higher load management, storage, and transmission costs.
Climate legislation currently being considered in Congress would do little to help the clean tech industry. Cap and trade legislation that passed the House would provide a .8 - 1.5 cent/kwh subsidy to renewables in contrast to the current 2.1 cent/kwh subsidy from the PTC, the 2 - 4 cents/kwh subsidy the Chinese government provides to wind, the 36 - 51 cents/kwh the Germans provide to solar, and the 11 - 17 cents/kwh the Chinese provide to solar.
Despite the philanthropic focus of his foundation, Bill Gates confided to a rapt audience at the TED conference last week that if he could have one wish granted he wouldn't ask for "vaccines or seeds," he'd ask for clean, cheap energy, and fast.
Update: You can view Bill Gates' TED speech below or by clicking here.
Bill Gates wants clean, cheap energy more than he wants to pick the next 50 years worth of presidents, even more than he wants a miracle vaccine. At least that's how he ranked his number one wish while describing climate change as the world's greatest challenge to a rapt audience at the TED conference last week.
Just weeks after lending his voice to a growing "innovation consensus" by writing on his blog, Gates Notes, that innovation, not just insulation, must be the focus if we are serious about "getting to zero," Gates' TED speech expanded on what we need to get there:
"We need energy miracles. The microprocessor and internet are miracles. This is a case where we have to drive and get the miracle in a short timeline."
Gates emphasized the need for an energy miracle portfolio that includes carbon capture and storage and nuclear as well as wind and solar. According to CNN's coverage of the conference (the video is not posted yet), Gates showed particular interest in the potential for nuclear waste reprocessing as a source of clean, cheap energy.
Two months ago, hundreds of world leaders and tens of thousands of activists gathered in Copenhagen to craft a new global treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. Green groups put on a spectacle - yes, Greenpeace even docked two of its famous boats nearby to "help in pushing the delegates" - and some observers declared it a make or break event in global climate history.
Today, there is strikingly little to show for the whole affair, momentum has slowed to a crawl and hardly anyone is discussing the aftermath. For good reason: the Copenhagen Accord is basically a voluntary agreement with obscure objectives, and its impact will be negligible. Michael Cutajar, the former chairman of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiation group, said that "Beyond the lack of clarity in its drafting, its main weakness is the lack of ambition and identifying responsibilities... Who should do what, and when, in order to limit warming to two degrees?"
What went wrong at Copenhagen? As I recently argued on BBC World View, the outcome was primarily the result of a flawed UNFCCC process and policy framework. The first and most obvious problem was imagining that 192 countries - some of which represent thousands of times more people than others - could produce a meaningful climate mitigation treaty. The UNFCCC process is kind of like the U.S. Senate (today one of the most dysfunctional national legislative bodies in the world) but at least four times as complicated.
A largely-symbolic freeze on domestic spending is the wrong route to trim the deficit. Along with real entitlement reform and winding down the wars, smart government investments in broad-based economic growth must be the keystone of a three-part strategy to truly balance the federal budget. Take energy as a case in point, where investments now to catalyze competitive clean energy technologies and industries will pay big economic dividends down the line.
With rising anxiety about mounting federal deficits, President Obama declared a freeze on all non-defense discretionary spending in his latest budget proposal. Heavy on symbolism and light on impact, the Administration's proposal attacks all of the areas of the government least responsible for the inexorable increase in federal deficits, while potentially starving key parts of the discretionary budget critical to America's economic prosperity.
Let's be clear: ballooning deficits do pose a real long-term threat to the United States' economic security. Under current forecasts, the accumulated deficit could total $20 trillion by 2020. That could hobble Uncle Sam with interest payments on the federal debt nearly as large as the projected total for all domestic discretionary spending. Efforts clearly must be taken to avoid such an unsustainable - and risky - financial future.
That said, curbing domestic spending is the wrong route to trim the deficit. The President's spending freeze applies to only a small fraction of the federal budget, while exempting both the mounting costs of two wars and the ever-rising bill for the nation's entitlement programs - Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
China is leading the global race to make clean energy, yet some observers are denying that there is a race at all. They are wrong. Neglecting to acknowledge the economic stakes in the clean energy race and failing to develop a strategy to compete are the reasons why the United States finds itself behind today.
Over at Green Chip Stocks, clean tech market analyst Nick Hodges asks, "Who's Winning the Clean Tech Arms Race?" The answer shouldn't surprise you. Nick cites the deficiencies in U.S. clean energy policy in relative to China's policies as a major reason that "the global clean tech game will be dominated by Chinese players for the foreseeable future."
With Chinese manufacturers poised to dominate emerging clean tech markets, where are all those green jobs that the Democrats have promised? Many of them are going to China, writes SUNY history professor Judith Stein in a recent op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Stein writes that green job rhetoric won't create green jobs without a plan to invest in clean energy manufacturing here in the United States:
"Green jobs are surely needed. But green Democrats simply echo the Atari Democrats of the 1980s, who concluded that traditional manufacturing was disposable and high technology was the wave of the future. During this era, the young Barack Obama attempted - and failed - to find jobs for displaced steelworkers in Chicago."
Stein also writes that China's manufacturing prowess has implications for clean tech innovation as well, as I argue below: "Meanwhile, the Chinese government offers huge subsidies to encourage green-technology manufacturers in the United States to move their production to China. And when manufacturing leaves, research and development operations follow. That's how China attracted battery and fuel-cell research formerly conducted in America."
By Devon Swezey
In his State of the Union Speech, President Obama issued what is now a familiar refrain: "the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy." If there were still doubts about which nation has the edge they were put to rest days later by a bluntly titled front-page article in the New York Times, "China is Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy."
Though the story is not new, the article is the latest indication of the alacrity with which China has emerged as a clean energy powerhouse in the span of just a few years. China now manufactures more solar cells than any nation in the world, and recently surpassed the United States as the largest market for wind turbines in 2009. According to "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a recent study by the Breakthrough Institute, China is also a world leader in advanced transportation technologies and batteries, is increasingly localizing the production of nuclear power plants, and has developed some of the world's most advanced CCS technology.
Despite the mounting evidence, many have dismissed the idea that the United States is competing in a "clean energy race" with China, or that it matters.
Some critics assert that characterizing the intense competition as a "race" obscures the climate benefits of greater clean energy deployment throughout the world and the "win-win" nature of a global clean energy economy. The New Republic's Brad Plumer embodies this "it's all good" line of reasoning, writing:
If China zooms ahead and figures out how to make really cheap wind turbines, that doesn't hurt anyone--it just makes the enormous task of cutting global carbon emissions that much easier.
Plumer's casual attitude towards the economic consequences of ceding clean tech manufacturing leadership to China is a slap in the face to U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The pair has been working hard to secure the new clean energy manufacturing jobs that can help revitalize the industrial heartland.
At Yale e360, environmental journalist Christina Larson similarly suggests that the United States has little to lose if China dominates emerging clean tech industries:
The United States will still gain many new green-collar jobs in installation and maintenance, which can only be locally based, as well as sales teams, conference planners, and other positions already arising to support the growing green-tech field.
Forget about the export-oriented, high-value added, high-wage clean energy manufacturing jobs of the future that Democrats have promised will jumpstart the ailing American economy; the clean energy conference organizing industry is now open for business.
The New America Foundation's Reihan Salam mocks the idea of a "clean technology race," arguing erroneously that the barriers to entry in clean energy are low and that any established competitive advantage will be "ephemeral."
He compares China's clean tech policies to Japan's policies of the 1980s, as if the Japanese government did not succeed in supporting the development of what are still world leading high technology industries in automobiles, electronics, and high value steel manufacturing. While Japan was investing in high-tech industries the United States was simultaneously accelerating the financialization of its economy, creating trillions of dollars of paper wealth that has largely vanished over the last two years.
Indeed, Salam admits that federal investment in technology has spawned entire new industries like aerospace and electronics, but takes pains to paint similar investments that can catalyze the development of new clean technologies as "disastrous."
Apparently our surging clean tech competitors in Asia and the EU didn't get the message.
A three-part series in the San Jose Mercury News highlights the enormous economic opportunity in the clean-tech sector and warns that the U.S. is quickly falling behind.
A special three-part series inlast week's San Jose Mercury News, entitled "The Cleantech Revolution,"highlighted the enormous economic opportunity in the clean-tech sector and warned that the U.S. is quickly falling behind while Asia seeks to gain global market dominance.
In its analysis of the clean technology market, the Mercury's rhetoric is grand and its data convincing. The first part of the series begins:
"Cleantech is poised to be the valley's third great wave of innovation -- not just the next big thing, but perhaps the biggest thing ever. Confronting the peril of greenhouse gases and climate change happens to be a multi-trillion-dollar business opportunity."
The numbers provided support this claim: U.S. yearly utility bills exceed $1 trillion annually and the global energy and transportation market is estimated at $7 trillion. The wind and solar industries -- valued at $80 billion in 2008 -- are projected to triple in 10 years and employ 2.6 million people. Smart-grid technology, according to Morgan Stanley, will grow to $100 billion by 2030 and Cisco Systems believes smart-grid communications infrastructure could be worth $20 billion in the next 5 years.
Jesse Jenkins joined ABC's Diane Sawyer on "The Conversation" via Skype today, to discuss clean technology competitiveness in the United States. In the interview, Jenkins emphasized the findings of the Breakthrough Institute/ITIF report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," explaining to Ms. Sawyer that a national strategy for clean tech competitiveness -- something China, Japan, and South Korea all have -- is the primary limiting factor for the U.S. in its effort to keep pace with rising clean tech tigers, as well as the E.U.
Making clean energy cheaper than coal through investments in game-changing innovation is the critical path to a low-carbon energy future, according to Bill Weihl, Google's "Green Energy Czar" and a Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow. In today's New York Times Green Inc blog, Weihl answers a few questions about what it's like to be on the frontlines of the push for clean energy.
As a consumer of large quantities of energy -- used to run its ever growing data centers -- Google has a personal stake in the business of energy politics. It also has vast sums of revenue from its sponsored ad business, and the kind of creative culture that urges its engineers to think beyond the short-term, profit-centric model that too-often paralyzes large corporations.
Q: Google is obviously best-known as an Internet company. Why is Google involved with alternative energy in the first place?
A: I'd say there are two reasons. One is that we use a moderate amount of energy ourselves: we have a lot of servers, and we have 22,000 employees around the world with office buildings that consume a lot of energy. So we use energy and we care about the cost of that, we care about the environmental impact of it, and we care about the reliability of it. The other reason is that, starting with the founders and filtering down to many of our employees, people care about environmental issues.
Forget 80% by 2050 and 450ppm. Stop fixating on emissions reduction targets and timetables. As UN climate negotiations begin today in Copenhagen, there is only one number that deserves the world's attention: $10.5 trillion. That is the scale of shared investment that the International Energy Agency says is necessary over the next two decades to bring about a clean energy revolution and enable the global community to meet its climate goals. For years, climate activists and government leaders have continued to obsess about emissions reduction targets, while paying short shrift to the critical clean technology investments that we will need to get us there. If Copenhagen doesn't get us closer to closing the massive clean technology investment gap, it will have failed the global community.
Forget 80% by 2050 and 450ppm. Stop fixating on emissions reduction targets and timetables. As UN climate talks kick off in Copenhagen, Denmark, if you want a number to focus the world's attention on, try this one: $10.5 trillion.
That's the scale of additional investment required between now and 2030 to put the world's energy system on a lower-carbon path, according to the world energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency.
Without measurable progress that dramatically increases global investments in clean energy, we can forget stabilizing global temperatures or atmospheric carbon dioxide at any level. And as the IEA makes clear, the world's governments must lead the way in making massive public investments to rapidly develop and deploy an array of clean energy technologies capable of sustainably and affordably powering the planet.
So for those following the progress in Copenhagen, keep that sense of scale -- $10.5 trillion -- and just one phrase on your mind: Show me the money!
Enough With the Targets and Timetables
In the days leading up to the UN climate summit beginning today in Copenhagen, the focus has been on pronouncements from world leaders establishing various national targets to reduce or curb the growth of the carbon dioxide emissions principally driving global warming.
In July of this year, the world's 17 largest economies declared support for "an aspirational global goal" to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050. Then, the world watched in recent weeks as first the United States, then China and most recently Brazil and India put their emissions pledges on the table. Each would cut their emissions some amount by some date, with the developed countries outlining targets for absolute cuts to CO2 emissions and most developing countries, including China and India, announcing reductions in the carbon intensity of their economies (aka CO2 per GDP).
A recent Nature article by Breakthrough Senior Fellow Christopher Green and co-author Isabel Galiana explains why a technology-led policy is the best way to achieve climate stabilization and transition to a future fueled by clean energy technology.
"The fixation on near-term targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions at the climate meeting in Copenhagen has resulted in insufficient attention towards the technological means of achieving them."
So begins "Let the Global Technology Race Begin," an article in Nature by Breakthrough Senior Fellow Christopher Green and co-author Isabel Galiana explaining the need for a technology-led approach to mitigating climate change instead of the emissions reductions target approach that is the hallmark of conventional climate policy.
The authors' focus on a technology builds on the findings of a 2008 Nature article entitled, "Dangerous Assumptions," co-authored by Green, Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke, Jr., and Tom Wigley. They found that the IPCC had significantly underestimated the emissions reductions necessary to achieve climate stabilization and thus, had seriously underestimated the scale of the technology challenge, concluding:
"enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at levels that are currently considered acceptable... In the end, there is no question whether technological innovation is necessary -- it is. The question is, to what degree should policy focus explicitly on motivating such innovation?"
Here, Green and Galiana answer this question. Their analysis shows:
"cumulative emissions consistent with minimizing the rise in global temperature (climate stabilization) can be achieved by investing US$100 billion a year for the rest of the century in global energy R&D, testing, demonstration, and infrastructure."
The two experts offer three suggestions for how a technology-led approach to policy would work to catalyze the research, development, and deployment of a steady stream of clean energy technologies:
1) Instead of emissions targets, governments would agree to "credible long-term global commitments to invest in energy R&D," technology and infrastructure financed by "a low carbon price of $5 per tonne of emitted carbon dioxide, which would raise almost $150 billion per year globally and $30 billion in the United States alone."
2) The carbon price would "send a forward pricing signal to deploy new or improved low-carbon technologies" by rising gradually over time "doubling, say, every 10 years."
"These would span the technology spectrum: basic R&D in breakthrough technologies, 'enabling' R&D that allows scale-up of existing technologies (such as utility-scale storage for intermittent solar and wind energy); testing and demonstration projects; end energy-related infrastructure, such as 'smart grid' that help to manage intermittent energy sources."
3) Dedicated trust funds should be created to isolate R&D monies from "political interference." These funds would be overseen "by independent committees drawn from the public and private sectors." Countries that do not engage in R&D could use their portion of the funds "to purchase successfully developed technologies from those that do participate [in R&D]."
Galiana and Green explain how a technology-led policy "inverts the usual relationship between carbon pricing and technology, whereby carbon pricing is naively expected to induce fundamental technological innovation."
European and Asian high-speed rail manufacturers are courting U.S. government officials in hopes of securing contracts for some of the $8 billion dollars of federal stimulus funds ear-marked for domestic high-speed rail (HSR) projects. Notably absent from the list of companies vying for the cash are American companies. Without the development of a domestic high-speed rail manufacturing base, much of the HSR technology and expertise will continue to come from overseas, with many of the new jobs being created overseas as well.
European and Asian high-speed rail manufacturers are courting U.S. government officials in hopes of securing contracts for some of the $8 billion dollars of federal stimulus funds ear-marked for domestic high-speed rail (HSR) projects.
According to Greenwire, foreign manufacturers are hosting country visits for federal and state government officials to see their high-speed train technologies, as well as dropping not-so-subtle hints that they will build new domestic manufacturing facilities, or expand existing ones, if they are awarded contracts.
States are also feverishly competing for federal funds. According to NPR, forty states and the District of Columbia have already filed applications requesting more than $100 billion for high-speed rail projects. The most ambitious project is a proposed $40 billion, 800-mile HSR network in California spanning from Sacramento to San Diego. Although the Federal Railroad Administration has yet to award any of the $8 billion in government funds to any state or project, companies from Germany, France, Canada, Japan, and China are hoping that early efforts to charm government officials will pay off down the road.
Notably absent from those promoting their HSR technologies are American companies. That's because the United States ceded international leadership in the transportation technology in the 1960s, when Japan became the first nation to construct a national high-speed rail network.
"Attaining the 2 degree goal in the United States with existing technology will likely be very expensive. Doing so in the developing world with existing expensive technology is likely to be impossible. ...
While an emissions price is an absolute requirement for an efficient regulatory framework, it is likely not the sole requirement. Due to some imperfections in any market economy, price signals may be dampened or be short circuited. This is particularly true in the market for research and development, where it is well known that firms have incentives to under-invest in research and development (R&D) due to the fact they cannot capture all the returns to R&D--some of those returns spill over to others in the market that did not invest as much. In this case, the emissions price cannot fully motivate the R&D market and therefore a well-designed regulatory program will contain a role for government funding of R&D. ...
In addition to the economic rational for government support of R&D, there is a political case to be made. Spurring R&D and demonstration and deployment of financially risky technology investments may require an emissions price that is not politically viable (that is, it is too high to be politically acceptable). In this case, absent the market imperfections above, the price is simply too low to generate the needed investments and government must step in to support the required levels of from R&D and demonstration and deployment."
-Ray Kopp, Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, in testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dec. 2, 2009.
Benchmarking clean-tech competitiveness: A new report by the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology & Innovation Foundation provides the first comprehensive analysis of competitive positions among the U.S. and key Asian challengers in the global clean energy race.
The report examines the competitive position of each nation in core clean energy technologies, including solar, wind, and nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, advanced vehicles and batteries, and high-speed rail, as well as the government strategies each nation hopes will strengthen its position in the global clean technology sector. The report also offers recommendations for U.S. federal policymakers for regaining U.S. competitiveness.
A new report by the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," is the first to thoroughly benchmark clean energy competitiveness in four nations: China, Japan, South Korea and the United States. Join Breakthrough and ITIF principal staff in DC on Wed, November 18th @ 10:30AM for the release of this new report and a discussion of the reports findings.
A new report by the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," is the first to thoroughly benchmark clean energy competitiveness in four nations: China, Japan, South Korea and the United States.
Developing better and cheaper clean energy technologies will be central to addressing climate change, securing U.S. energy independence, and creating new clean energy jobs. Increasingly, nations are seeking to gain competitive advantage in this rapidly growing, high-technology sector and the stakes for the United States are significant: will the United States largely be an importer of these clean technologies and lose the jobs related to them, or can America emerge as a global leader, driving exports and high-wage jobs?
The report analyzes clean energy investments and public policy support for research and innovation, manufacturing, and domestic demand, with a particular focus on six key technologies: wind, solar, nuclear, carbon capture and storage, hybrid and electric vehicles and advanced batteries, and high-speed rail.
Please join the Breakthrough Institute and ITIF for a discussion of the report's findings at a briefing hosted by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on November 18th, 2009.
EVENT DETAILS
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Time: 10:30 AM - 11:30 AM
Location: Washington, D.C. - Senate Energy Committee Room, Dirksen Senate Office Building (SD-366)
Moderator and Presenter
Robert Atkinson (bio)
President, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
I've also included the boost in FY2009 Department of Energy (DOE) R&D budgets provided by the economic stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As Google's Dan Reicher warned the Senate on Wednesday: when these temporary stimulus funds dry up, the U.S. could fall of a "funding cliff" unless significantly larger allocations are made for clean energy R&D in Congressional legislation.
Senator Warner, a rare Republican champion of climate action, found common ground with Breakthrough's Jesse Jenkins on the need for much greater investment in clean energy technology in final Congressional climate legislation. Is this the sign of a possible bipartisan consensus on clean energy R&D funding?
Breakthrough's Jesse Jenkins joined former Senator John Warner of Virginia on the KPFA Morning Show today to discuss Senate climate and energy legislation, the focus of hearings this week in the the Environment and Public Works Committee. (listen to the full interview below)
Senator Warner, a rare Republican champion of climate action, was the co-sponsor of the 2007 Lieberman-Warner "Climate Security Act." He retired in 2008 after thirty years in the Senate but remains an active advocate of Congressional climate legislation, and is working to convince his reluctant Republican former colleagues to embrace the climate and energy legislation authored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
Jenkins was honored to join the discussion with Senator Warner (who's spent more time in the Senate than Jenkins has on this warming planet). He was also pleased to find consensus with the veteran Republican on the need for final Senate climate legislation to include much greater investments to ensure U.S. innovators, entrepreneurs and businesses invent and commercialize clean energy technologies here in America.
Agreeing with the strong consensus of energy innovation experts, the former Senator said that the current Kerry-Boxer bill invested too little in clean energy R&D and did not provide enough proactive support for American firms commercializing, manufacturing and installing clean energy technologies, but he noted that final legislation is still taking shape. Hopefully his common-sense attitude on clean energy innovation and technology investment will prevail on Senate Republicans, who so far have resorted to threatening to boycott hearings on the Kerry-Boxer bill, rather than work constructively to ensure the bill includes more funding for American innovators and clean energy firms.
Senator Warner, the long-time Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former Secretary of the Navy, also highlighted the need to avert climate change in order to mitigate future conflicts and humanitarian crises that would sap the resources of the U.S. military. For more on the Senator's views on climate legislation, you can read his testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee on earlier this week here.
Listen to the full interview here or using the player below. The segment starts at 1:08:00 into the Morning Show.
$15 billion. That is the figure at the heart of a growing consensus of energy innovation experts, all calling for dramatically larger U.S. investment in clean energy research and development. Writing at theEnergyCollective.com, Breakthrough's Jesse Jenkins highlights mounting calls to address what Google Director of Climate Change and Energy Dan Reicher called "a serious energy R&D short-fall" in the current House and Senate climate bills. As Congress debates energy and climate change legislation, a chorus of voices including policy think tanks such as the Brookings Institution, Third Way and the Breakthrough Institute, as well as a collection of both the nation's top research universities and dozens of Nobel-prize winning scientists have joined leading businesses like Google to converge on a $15 billion increase in annual U.S. energy R&D budgets as a critical component of any final legislation.
Like its House sibling, the Senate's Kerry-Boxer climate bill allocates the vast majority (64%) of the tens of billions annually in emissions allowances created by the bill's cap and trade program to shield energy consumers and industry from the impacts of carbon prices. Just 13% of the value of allowances in the "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" are invested in clean energy technologies.
Late Friday night, Senator Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee released a new draft of the Kerry-Boxer "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" (S.1733), the first version of the legislation to detail how emissions allowances created by the bill will be divvied up. These allowances, which give polluters the right to emit greenhouse gases under the bill's cap and trade program, will be worth nearly a trillion dollars over the first ten years of the program alone.
Breakthrough Institute staff worked over the weekend to dig through the new legislation and get an accurate picture of the allowance allocation pie [see summary tables and graphics below and click here to download a comprehensive spreadsheet(*also in xls format) of allowance allocations in both Kerry-Boxer and the House Waxman-Markey/ACES bill. Note: updated after initial posting to convert EPA forecasts to 2009 constant dollars. Hat tip to Jason at 1Sky for catch].
Depending on the value of emissions allowances under the cap and trade program, an average of roughly $70 billion to $126 billion in emissions allowances will be created and distributed on each year under the first ten years of the bill's cap and trade program, 2012-2021.
Of that value, by far the largest share, roughly 64% of the total allowances, will be distributed for free to shield energy consumers and industry from the higher energy prices driven by the establishment of a price on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under a cap and trade system. This includes both direct rebates to end consumers and low-income energy assistance, as well as free allocations to electric and natural gas utilities (aka "distribution companies"), which they are directed to use "on behalf of" their customers. It also includes direct transfers of billions of dollars in free allowances to various industries, ranging from the relatively defensible (11.3% of allowances to heavy industries vulnerable to international competition), to the pretty indefensible, (e.g. a windfall-profit generating allocation of over 3% of the allowances -- worth at least $2 billion annually -- to the "merchant" operators of conventional coal plants).
By contrast, only about 13% of the value of allowances will be invested in various clean energy technologies, including incentives for the deployment of carbon capture and storage technology (aka CCS, given 2.2% of permits on average each year), federal, state and local government funds to incentivize renewable energy and energy efficiency (6.4%), and investments in advanced clean vehicle technologies (1.7%).
Just 1.9% of the allowances are dedicated to critical clean energy research and development (R&D) efforts, which amounts to an investment of just about $1.4 billion annually under EPA-projected allowance prices (in 2009 constant dollars).
Overall, the "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act's" investments in clean energy technologies will total under $9.5 billion per year under allowance prices projected by the EPA.
In summary: CO2 price from cap and trade = effective clean energy subsidy of $8-15/MWh. Current PTC is worth $20/MWh. Solar incentives typically top $400-500/MWh. Stimulus bill driving big investments with cash grant worth 30% of clean energy project costs. How again is the House-passed cap and trade program going to spur a clean energy revolution?
As President Obama challenges the U.S. to lead in the global clean energy race today, here's a quick comparison of methods that can drive clean energy deployment. Which do you think will be more effective...
Average CO2 prices under the cap and trade system that would be implemented by the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill are expected to be roughly $15 per ton average through 2020.
Ignoring for a moment free allocations that could undermine these permits, that will raise the price of coal-fired power plants and natural gas fired power plants against which clean energy must compete by roughly $15 per MWh and $8 per MWh respectively. A typical coal plant emits roughly 1 ton CO2 per MWh and a natural gas plant emits about 40% less.
The production tax credit that has driven the rapid expansion of the wind industry (when it isn't expiring every other year...) drives down the cost of wind power by roughly $20 per MWh.
Feed-in tariffs responsible for rapid growth of the solar industry in Germany lower the net cost of solar power by over 50 cents per kilowatt-hour,or $500 per MWh. In the U.S., an investment tax credit nocks off a full 30% of the cost of solar projects and state-level incentives offer even greater support in big solar states like California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The value of solar renewable energy credits (SRECs) supplied to solar energy generators in New Jersey has averaged well above $400 per MWh over the last few years.
This year and next, new wind, solar and other renewable energy projects can enjoy a cash grant in lieu of these tax credits worth 30% of the total cost of the projects, funded through the stimulus bill. That incentive is expected to drive up to $10 billion in grants supporting over $33 billion in clean energy projects.
In summary: CO2 price from cap and trade = effective clean energy subsidy of $8-15/MWh. Current PTC is worth $20/MWh. Solar incentives typically top $400-500/MWh. Stimulus bill driving big investments with cash grant worth 30% of clean energy project costs. How again is the House-passed cap and trade program going to spur a clean energy revolution?
Click to enlarge
*All figures in this post are approximate and meant for comparison purposes only.
While biomedical research receives nearly $60 billion in private investment and $30 billion in public investment through the National Institutes of Health, investment in energy R&D leaves a huge innovation gap. Private sector spending is less than $3 billion annually with the government contributing just $5 billion per year more. A National Institutes of Energy and massive increase in federal clean energy spending is needed to fill the energy innovation gap and jumpstart a clean energy revolution.
Friday factoids time: The U.S. biomedical and pharmaceutical industry invests between 10-20 percent of revenues in R&D and new product development, spending $58.8b on R&D in 2007. The U.S. government adds an additional $30 billion per year investment in biomedical R&D through the National Institutes of Health.
In contrast, the U.S. energy sector invests well below $3 billion annually in R&D in an industry with well over a trillion dollars in annual revenue. The energy sector's R&D spending as a percent of revenues - call that figure the industry's innovation intensity - is just 0.23%. That compares to a national average innovation intensity across all industries of 2.6%, or ten-times greater than the energy-sector's innovation intensity. And it pale sin comparison with the innovation intensity of leading technology and innovation-intensive sectors including biomedical technology (10-20%), information technology (10-15%), and semiconductors (16%).
This downright paltry private-sector energy innovation spending leaves a massive energy innovation gap that the U.S. government barely begins to fill, investing only about $5 billion annually in energy R&D. That's barely more than half the levels spent on public research to pursue clean and affordable energy alternatives during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The scale and urgency of our national energy challenges have clearly grown since then, yet the national commitment to energy innovation has moved in the wrong direction. Public R&D spending on health care ($30b) and defense ($80b) signal the scale of true national innovation priorities and begs the question: when will the U.S. get serious about investments in clean energy innovation? When we do, a new National Institutes of Energy and a major increase in federal energy R&D investments are needed to fill the energy innovation gap and spur a clean energy revolution.
With just weeks to go until climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger weigh-in on the Washington Post's Planet Panel to explain why technology policy, not timetables and targets, will lead to a global agreement in Copenhagen
"Copenhagen climate talks are in trouble," say Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger in their new piece for the Washington Post's "Planet Panel", and the solution is to desert "unenforceable emissions targets and timetables," in favor of a new framework built on "technology investment, innovation, and deployment."
You can read an excerpt from the piece below or access the full article here.
Here's the problem in a nutshell. The world will roughly double its consumption of energy by 2050. Reducing emissions by half of today's levels before then will require inventing and deploying low-carbon sources of power that are far cheaper than today's alternatives. That's because no nation will implement pollution controls that raise the price of fossil fuel energy by very much -- certainly not enough for clean power sources to become cost-competitive.
Just as no government will make fossil fuels as expensive as today's low-carbon power sources, no private investors will make the large (multi-billion) investments needed to accelerate energy technology innovation. Only governments can do this. Happily, they have a long track record supporting private sector innovation through R&D and procurement. Examples include agricultural crops, radios, jet airplanes, microchips, computers, the Internet, solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear plants and pharmaceutical drugs.
A new treaty focused on technology investment, innovation, and deployment should include rather than exclude China and other large developing nations. China is already poised to massively out-spend -- and out-compete -- the U.S. in investments in everything from solar panels to nuclear reactors to electric cars.
No treaty can work that is against the economic self-interest of nations. Economic development through new technology has the potential to bring them together. After World War II, the European Coal and Steel Partnership did just that. Through coal and steel the continent was rebuilt, in part with U.S. investments. That partnership was so successful that it is today simply known as the European Union.
It is the creation of the EU -- not national air pollution laws -- that should be the basis for a new agreement in Copenhagen.
Clean energy technology hubs seem to be sprouting up all over the globe - except in the United States - and business leaders are pointing to massive public investment as the missing link preventing the U.S. from leading the clean energy race
Clean energy technology hubs are rapidly developing all over the world, except in the United States. Business leaders who met at the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit acknowledged that massive government investment has created vibrant clean energy markets in countries around the world, but unfortunately the U.S. has not taken part in this trend. As The Business Insider reports, Google Green Energy Czar, Bill Weihl noted:
"Other countries, China being one of the major examples, are investing very heavily in this space across the whole innovation pipeline...from shower to power, from the idea in the shower to generating the power (in a) commercial scale enterprise."
Just yesterday, the China Greentech Initiative released a report describing how large-scale government investment is driving a clean energy market that could be worth upwards of US$1 trillion annually.
While China is home to some of the fastest growing clean energy centers, particular in the solar industry, Denmark, Japan, South Korea, India, North Africa, Singapore, and Abu Dhabi are all directly investing in creating domestic clean energy hubs.
On September 17, Breakthrough Institute, Third Way, and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) will hold an event where they will discuss the findings of a new BTI/Third Way paper calling for an increase in investment in clean energy R&D and the creation of a new National Institutes of Energy in order to create a clean and prosperous energy economy.
The Breakthrough Institute and Third Way have prepared a new report detailing how the United States can jumpstart a clean energy revolution through investing in research and development and creating a National Institutes of Energy (akin to the NIH) to spur the development of innovative clean energy technologies.
Breakthrough Institute, Third Way, and U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) will be holding a forum detailing the findings of Third Way and the Breakthrough Institute's new paper and describing how a focused program of innovation will help make promising clean energy technologies a reality and create a clean and prosperous energy economy.
Please see the event details below. We hope you can join us for this exciting event!
Event:
A National Institutes of Energy: The Clean Energy Revolution Needs R&D
Date:
Thursday, September 17th
Time:
10:00 - 11:00 am
Coffee will be served
Location:
Dirksen Senate Office Building
SD-G-11
Washington, DC 20002
Please RSVP to rsvp@thirdway.org and indicate this event or reply to this email If you have any questions, please contact Jen Pengelly at 202-775-3768 ext. 214 or jpengelly@thirdway.org.
ABOUT THIRD WAY: Third Way is the leading think tank of the moderate wing of the progressive movement. We work with elected officials, candidates, and advocates to develop and advance the next generation of moderate policy ideas. For more information about Third Way please visit www.thirdway.org.
ABOUT THE BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE: The Breakthrough Institute is one of America's leading think tanks developing climate and energy policy solutions. Since 2002 Breakthrough has been a pioneering advocate of an innovation-centered approach to the nation's energy and climate challenges, calling for major federal investments to make clean and low-carbon energy technologies cheap and abundant, strengthen America's economic competitiveness and energy security, and slow global warming. For more information, please visit www.thebreakthrough.org
A recent report, released by geo-engineering experts at the UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineering, highlights the viability of geo-engineered technologies, such as algae coated buildings, as a stop-gap solution for rising carbon emissions and imminent climate change
No - this is not an obscure Ghostbusters reference. According to the Financial Times, geo-engineering experts at the UK-based Institution of Mechanical Engineering (IME) have deemed "slime-covered buildings", along with artificial trees and reflective buildings, viable options for removing carbon from the atmosphere.
Although "slime" is a slightly hyperbolic reference to strips of carbon-consuming algae, a recent report by IME says the substance can be installed via bio-reactors on building walls to absorb carbon from the air. Before it decomposes (and really gets slimy) the algae is collected and either decarbonized or reprocessed as fuel. While "slime" carbon capture is still in the planning stages, it is an extremely attractive geo-engineering option because its waste could be used as a biofuel and it would require no additional land to deploy.
The report, entitled "Geo-engineering: Giving us Time to Act," is intended to advance acceptance of geo-engineering as a potential climate change mitigator and proposes a 75-100 year roadmap for countering climate that includes geo-engineering as part, not all, of the solution. According to the IME:
Geo-engineering is not an encompassing solution to global warming. It is however, another potential component in our approach to climate change that could prove the world with extra time to decarbonise the global economy, a task which has yet to begin in earnest.
Much of the resistance to geo-engineering innovations - such as faux-trees that capture carbon more effectively than the real thing - is based on the fear that these technologies will replace clean energy technology as the preferred solution to reducing carbon intensity. The report emphasizes, however, that geo-engineering is not the so-called silver bullet solution, it's a stop-gap measure that will help manage the world's carbon overstock while clean energy is being developed and deployed.
Thanks to US stimulus funding to nurture strong domestic clean energy markets, European wind giant Vestas is bringing money and jobs into the US as it opens more factories within American borders. But the US must follow the stimulus with sustained, substantial investments in clean tech development and deployment in order to avoid losing future foreign investments--and manufacturing jobs--to China.
It's strange to hear of "insourcing"--the transfer of manufacturing jobs into the United States instead of out--but that's exactly what's happening with Denmark's wind giant Vestas, according to a New York Times article yesterday.
According to the report, a combination of global recession and domestic stimulus spending on clean energy is adding up to a boon for the American clean energy manufacturing industry.
In Europe, Vestas has seen several nations slow down their rates of added wind capacity, and flagging government support combined with financial difficulties has impeded the construction of new projects. By contrast, the United States built 8,500 megawatts of wind capacity in 2008 to Britain's 500, and demand for turbine technology is high. So for opportunities in a more robust wind market, Vestas has begun to look across the Atlantic.
India's progress on building a domestic clean energy economy through investment represents a strategy that could also serve as a new approach to international climate policy. Unfortunately, Western nations that stall climate negotiations with their insistence on setting carbon caps continue to miss the world's best chance at forging a global agreement.
In New Delhi today, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that India must invest in both new and existing clean energy technologies in order to develop sustainably over the coming decades. This comes as the latest indication of India's progress on building a domestic clean energy economy through investment--a strategy that could also serve as a new approach to international climate policy. Unfortunately, Western nations that stall climate negotiations with their insistence on setting carbon caps continue to miss the world's best chance at forging a global agreement.
US and EU climate negotiators keep pushing for an international treaty based on hard emissions caps, yet developing nations like China and India keep refusing to adopt them. A report by the Center for Clean Air Policy says it's time for a new framework: achieving direct decarbonization by setting targets for the deployment of clean energy technologies.
Here's the current climate stalemate: While US and EU negotiators keep pushing for an international treaty based on cutting emissions, developing nations like China and India keep refusing to adopt hard emissions caps. But according to a new report by the Center for Clean Air Policy, those emission caps are too hard to measure and monitor in developing nations, anyway. Instead, the report concludes, developing countries should adopt a new approach to increase efficiency in their most energy-intensive industries by setting measurable clean energy technology targets.
Dan Klein of CCAP, a co-author of the report, explained:
"To be able to say we're going to improve our emissions intensity by 5 percent, that's a nice concept. But to be able to actually do that means ... you have the ability to measure industrywide what you're doing now and what you're doing after."
On the other hand, "It's not such a difficult thing to count the number of plants that have a certain technology," Klein said.
A fair share of the global climate investments called for the UNFCC Secretariat would imply a commitment of $75-99 billion annually from the United States. The Waxman-Markey climate bill leaves us far short of that mark. Will that picture change before the Copenhagen climate negotiations this December?
The global community should be investing $300 billion annually to combat global warming, according to UN climate chief Yvo de Boer (pictured). De Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change, says the world needs to be spending $100 billion annually to help vulnerable communities adapt to the impacts of climate change, and another $200 billion each year to shift the global energy mix away from fossil fuels.
"The world will need a phenomenal amount of money to change its energy supply from fossil fuels to cleaner sources and to adapt to climate change," de Boer said Friday.
Recently, Senator Sherrod Brown refused to accept a climate bill that would simply send both emissions and U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas - inaccurately earning him a label as a "threat" to the passage of federal energy and climate legislation. This week, the Ohio Democrat formally introduced legislation to strengthen America's efforts to both cut emissions and build a prosperous clean energy economy: the Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology (IMPACT) Act of 2009.
"We can revive American manufacturing through investments in clean energy," Brown said. "This bill will help our manufacturers retool, put our auto suppliers back to work, and produce clean energy technologies."
The bill would create a two-year, $30 billion revolving loan fund to help small and medium-sized American manufacturers to improve the manufacturing process and increase their production of clean energy parts and systems. The IMPACT Act would also directly invest $1.5 billion over five years to help guide manufacturers into clean energy markets and streamline their implementation of new manufacturing technologies and methods through the Manufacturing Extension Program, a division of the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology.
In a recent speech at Harvard, energy secretary Steven Chu again supported an agenda to make the US a leading clean energy innovator. But Congress continues to reject strategic policies that would make this a reality.
In a speech yesterday at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, energy secretary Steven Chu again repeated his declaration that nothing less than a technological "revolution" is necessary to meet America's energy challenge and to ensure the US position as a leading global economic power.
Speaking alongside Congressman Ed Markey, Chu told his audience that future US prosperity depends upon widely deploying renewable energy, developing carbon capture and storage capabilities, and increasing energy efficiency--but most importantly, it depends upon becoming a leading innovator in clean energy technologies.
Chu minced no words when he described this critical juncture for the US in the
global clean energy industry:
"We're faced with the following choices: We can become the leader of a new industrial revolution and lay the foundation of our future economic prosperity ... or we can hope the price of oil will go back to $30 a barrel, deny climate change is happening and let other countries take the lead in energy innovation."
Two new studies published last month -- one by the Office of Tony Blair and the Climate Group, the other by the Global Climate Network and Center for American Progress (CAP) -- strongly advocate a climate policy strategy based on direct government investment in energy technology development and deployment.
The studies independently reach conclusions similar to the Breakthrough Institute's and are yet another indication of "The Emerging Climate Consensus," which recognizes the limits of carbon pricing and advocates major increases in federal funding to deploy low-carbon energy technologies and drive down their costs through direct public investment in RD&D (research, development, and demonstration), deployment, and supporting infrastructure.
"Governments should adopt a strategic top-down approach to ensure that critical technologies arrive on time and provide investment in disruptive options to allow radical transformation in the future... The reality is that carbon pricing does not address many other market failures along the innovation chain."
The study argues that direct public support is crucial to develop and deploy new technologies: "Market failures along the innovation chain require public spending to drive technologies down their cost curve to a point where the carbon price can take over and accelerate their deployment." Echoing the Breakthrough Institute, International Energy Agency, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu (and defying critics like Joseph Romm), the report once again concludes that energy technologies must undergo major developments to meet emission reduction targets:
"Although we have the technologies we need through to 2020, new technologies -- many available but not yet commercially proven -- will be needed to meet the more challenging long-term goals. Therefore, at the same time as we deploy existing solutions, we must invest in future options."
Despite President Obama's call for an energy revolution, it is up to Congress to provide funding. The Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-e) made a recent call for research proposals into "high-risk, high-payoff transformational energy-related R&D," for projects that "(1) translate scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations and (2) accelerate transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of high technical or financial risk."
Over 3,500 research teams submitted proposals for a slice of the available $150 million. As a result, over 98% of applicants we "discouraged" from submitting a full application.
Sure, some of the applications were "undoubtedly unrealistic, fundamentally flawed, written in crayon, or the like," as Andrew Revkin aptly noted at Dot Earth. But with 98% of all proposals rejected, there's got to be another explanation for the high rejection rate as well. Surely at least 5%, 10%, maybe even one third of these proposals are worth further consideration. Remember: this round of project proposals was simply to get into the next round of consideration where ARPA-e program managers would being the real project grant selection process. No, the reason so many proposals were rejected has more to do with the fact that there is simply not nearly enough money to fund all the good, potentially game-changing clean energy ideas out there.
This problem is not unique to this ARPA-e or this round of research proposals. It is a chronic symptom of this country's (under)commitment to clean energy.
President Obama has repeatedly promised America $150 billion in clean energy spending over ten years--but, if and when that money materializes, what precisely has it been promised for?
In a post
today on DotEarth, Andy Revkin raises an excellent question: President Obama
has repeatedly promised America $150 billion in clean energy spending over ten
years--but, if and when that money materializes, what precisely has it been
promised for?
As Breakthrough has observed,
the language of Obama's promise has varied over time. During the campaign,
he pledged $150 billion to help "build a clean energy future." At that point,
Obama suggested the money would go toward a variety of green improvements
ranging from development and deployment to new grid and infrastructure.
But as Revkin notes, the White House web site
now states more narrowly that the Obama administration will: "Invest $150 billion over 10 years in energy research
and development to transition to a clean
energy economy."
Breakthrough Institute believes the clean energy race demands a vigorous federal investment of at least $30-50 billion per year in clean energy. In contrast, Romm ardently supports weaker legislation that would invest just $10 billion per year, less than one quarter of China's planned investments. That may be acceptable to Joe Romm -- but it is no way to win the clean energy race.
Romm asserted that our op-ed "attacks" President Obama and Democratic leaders, when in fact it calls on Congress to support Obama's RE-ENERGYSE energy education program
and urges greater public investment in clean energy to compete with
Asian challengers. Yet Romm never mentioned the central focus of the
op-ed -- RE-ENERGYSE and our efforts to rally support behind it,
including a recent sign-on letter with over 100 organizations
-- and instead criticized us for what he called "willfully misleading
nonsense" about Asian countries' planned investments in clean energy.
Romm also criticized us for asserting that Congress must strengthen
the Waxman-Markey bill with greater investments in clean energy to
compete with Asian challengers and accelerate our transition to a clean
energy economy. Why? Because Romm apparently believes the Waxman-Markey
proposal -- which would invest only $10 billion per year in clean
energy and energy efficiency, less than 0.1% of U.S GDP -- is sufficient to win the clean energy
race. It is not.
"Waxman-Markey would complete America's transition to a clean energy economy, which started with the stimulus bill," reads the title of a prominently featured post
on Romm's website, a claim he has repeated multiple times.
"Waxman-Markey would generate more clean energy action than any piece
of legislation passed by any country in the history of the world!" exclaimed Romm in another recent post as part of his consistent and ongoing cheer-leading for the legislation.
With China, South Korea and Japan all moving aggressively to corner the burgeoning global clean energy market, Asian competitors may dominate the clean energy sector if Congress doesn't act now to strengthen the Waxman-Markey bill with much larger investments in our own clean energy economy and fully support President Obama's energy education initiative, Norris and Jenkins argue.
Monday's op-ed comes one year after Breakthrough proposed a similar National Energy Education Act, calling for an effort on par with the original National Defense Education Act of 1958, which invested billions each year to train and empower the young generation that won the space race and invented the technologies that catapulted the U.S. and the world into the Information Age.
Breakthrough Institute is planning to release a full report on the USA-Asia clean energy race within the next few weeks, so stay tuned.
As President Obama put it in his Congressional address in February:
"We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient... New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea. Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders -- and I know you don't either. It is time for America to lead again."
President Obama is right. However, as Norris and Jenkins warn in today's op ed:
"If America does not take immediate action to bridge its energy education gap - and if we fail to make substantially larger investments in our own clean-energy economy - we will effectively cede the clean-energy race to Asia. A decade from now, we may still find the burgeoning clean-energy economy promised by Obama and Democratic leaders. It will simply be headquartered in China."
You can read the extended version of the op ed below...
A recent study at NYU's Stern School of Business analyzes the returns on government energy R&D investments and comes to the conclusion that geothermal and wind power could, for a relatively low price, become cheaper than fossil fuel electricity in a matter of years.
The study used a well-known method of analyzing technology cycles that predicts learning curves for emerging technologies. This "S-curve" heuristic guesses that the performance of new technologies, plotted against effort (i.e. total money invested) is shaped like an S.
Early in the life of the technology, improvements are gradual as the basic properties are worked out and an effective design is formed. Next comes a period of rapid growth as the now-stable technology captures "process innovations" and economies of scale. Finally, the rate of improvement slows as the technology becomes mature and improvements become hampered by the dominant structure of the technology and its industry - until the potential emergence of a new competing technology with its own S-curve.
Although such an analysis makes some major simplifications, these S-curve cycles are well-documented throughout history in technologies as diverse as disk drives, steam engines, semiconductors, and automobiles (to name a few).
With the S-curve model in hand, the authors of the report sought to determine the curves of some major alternative energy technologies in order to project how much investment is necessary to reduce the their marginal costs.
RE-ENERGYSE, a program aimed at 'REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge', was given $7 million by the House appropriations bill and $0 by the Senate Appropriations Committee, embarrassingly shy of $115 million requested in the President's FY2010 budget. The proposal was sent back to the DOE with a request to distinguish between current and potential future programmatic efforts (according to ScienceInsider). In other words, it was rejected.
Revkin asked the White House about the funding cut and Kenneth Baer at the Office of Management and Budget sent him this reply:
"The appropriations process is ongoing, and we look forward to working with Congress to make sure there is the needed funding to prepare our students for the jobs of the growing clean energy sector."
The sign-on letter will hopefully boost the Administration's efforts, as it summarizes the clear need for new energy education funding and demonstrates a broad constituency in supportive of such a program.
The Japanese government is embarking on a national mission to make solar energy as cheap as conventional sources of energy in real, unsubsidized terms.
Motivated in part by its loss of dominance in the solar energy
industry, Japan has recently announced a new national project for the
widespread deployment of solar PV technologies in order to drive the
price of solar energy
