SPUTNIK MOMENT: China is rapidly outdistancing the U.S. in clean energy technology development, a new "Sputnik moment," according to U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.
Image: Courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
In the 1970s, refrigerators were growing in size—and energy consumption. In one of the more successful government-supported programs for energy-efficient technology, research and development of better compressors now have provided refrigerators that are larger still—but use roughly the same amount of energy as the smaller iceboxes of the past.
Similar examples of the federal government at work range from the creation of an industry for producing natural gas from coal seams to the ongoing Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), a small-scale funding agency with outsized ambitions. As the U.S. faces what Secretary of Energy Steven Chu calls a "Sputnik moment" on energy—falling behind China and others in the race to develop clean energy technologies worth trillions of dollars—the question is: can the U.S. compete? And how?
"America still has the opportunity to lead in a world that will need a new industrial revolution to give us the energy we want inexpensively but also carbon-free. It's a way to secure our future prosperity," Chu said at a press event at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on November 29. But "I think time is running out."
Creating a coordinated review
A new report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology released on November 29 looks at how best to accelerate the pace of change in energy technologies. The report's primary recommendation calls for setting up a quadrennial energy review—analogous to the quadrennial defense review from the Department of Defense that coordinates national security policy. Such a review would holistically coordinate the multiplicity of ways various elements of the government address energy: legislation, executive actions, research and development funding, demonstration projects, subsidies, incentives, standards, regulations, purchasing agreements, even tax policy.
"We've had technology du jour events quite regularly. We've had tax incentives that are stops and starts," says physicist Ernest Moniz of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, co-chair of the report, which recommends the DOE start the energy review process with an interim report by June 2011. "We just have to get something that is more stable."
The report also calls for a major investment in energy research and development as well as demonstration projects—jumping to $16 billion per year from roughly $5 billion now. As it stands, the U.S. spends roughly 0.14 percent of the federal budget on energy-related research. Including the comparatively small amount spent by the private sector, the total amount spent on research amounts to roughly 0.03 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product—a number three times smaller than the amount spent by Japan and far behind other nations as well.
One way to boost funds is new fees on the production and use of electricity and transportation fuels. Moniz notes that just 0.1 cent per kilowatt-hour of electricity and 2 cents per gallon of transportation fuels would yield about $8 billion per year, although such surcharges would need to be developed "with collaboration from industry and consumers. It's clearly easy to block something."
Game-changing targets
Ultimately, the idea is to fund innovation, broadly construed, with the aim of cost reduction for various clean energy technologies, ranging from better batteries for electric cars to carbon capture and storage at coal-fired power plants. "We are not interested in funding incremental work, we are interested in funding game-changing work," Chu said in his talk, noting the potential for the zinc-air batteries currently used in hearing aids to be scaled up into better batteries for electric vehicles. "There is the distinct possibility of giving [electric] cars that have a 100-mile range, a 500-mile range at one-third the cost."
Otherwise, the U.S. risks falling further behind in the race to dominate the clean energy technology markets of the future—becoming a customer, rather than a supplier. Other countries have specifically targeted this area. "We will accelerate the development of a low-carbon economy and green economy so as to gain an advantageous position in the international industrial competition," Chinese premier Wen Jiabao told the World Economic Forum in September 2009. "We will make China a country of innovation."
China has now become, among other things, the world leader in high-efficiency coal-fired power plants. "It's now competitive in terms of power per unit of investment, but you get a lot more power per unit coal," Chu noted. And the world's largest producer of photovoltaic cells—Suntech—imports raw materials from U.S. suppliers and manufactures its high-technology product in China.
At the same time, unlike the Sputnik space race with the Soviets, significant opportunity exists for the U.S. to collaborate with other countries. In coming years, China will be constructing buildings, cities, roads and transmission lines equivalent to the entire infrastructure of the U.S.—both a market opportunity for U.S. companies and a chance to determine the most effective technologies. "If we collaborate with China and India, we both come out better for it," Chu said.
Ultimately, getting energy policy right translates into environmental and national security improvements as well as economic development. "Energy is important because the economy is important, the environment is important, national security is important," says physicist John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "Energy is intimately intertwined with all three."
In fact, U.S. wealth creation over the last century has largely been driven by cheap energy and innovation, whether that be the invention of the airplane or integrated circuits. "Innovation is the key to prosperity and progress," Chu said, noting the key role government funding played in making the U.S. aerospace industry a world-leading enterprise. "You're making an expenditure because, in the long run, it's the future economic health of the country. That's not 20 years in the future; we're talking one, two, three years. We've got to make these investments."
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentWhoever wins this economic production game, we will all lose, since new production of even highly efficient products requires far more energy than maintaining older, less efficient products until they can no longer function.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, economic development and prosperity requires the massive consumption of energy. Moreover, since much of China's new production, for example, is intended to provide new infrastructure, not only is the energy used in production incremental consumption but the ongoing operational energy consumption is also incremental. They are building new cars, for example, to replace bicycles. Regardless of any improvement in energy efficiency, total energy use will be dramatically increasing.
They've just got to package these new products as 'green' in order to move them in the marketplace. That's how it works.
THe US spends less than $250M on nuclear fission research an energy form which currently receives almost no subsidies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis compares to the same $1B for ludicrous clean coal schemes and $2.5B for not so renewables - mostly well understood and already receiving hundreds of billions in subsidies world wide?
By any standard the LiquidFlourideThoriumReactor or its variations promises to be the answer to all the world's energy needs. Virtually nobody in the industry disputes this.
It is getting bupkis for research funding.
The LFTR prototype the MoltenSaltReactor was operated from 1965 to 1969. Worked perfectly. It was shut down by corrupt scheming politicians.
For more Google wired thorium
The ultra simple version - really just a big sealed tube - DenaturedMSR (DMSR) could likely be built for 20% the cost of current reactors. It is utterly safe shutting down when it heats up, produces no nuclear waste, burns nuclear waste, runs high efficiency gas turbines and burns up all its uranium. Current reactors burn less than 2%.
With a $billion or two in research, the DMSR version is so simple, it could start coming out of factories mass produced in 5 years.
As Asia blooms with nuclear power, the current $1.2B/Gw China paid for US Generation 3 AP-1000 pressurized water reactors is reducing with mass production to $1B/Gw and 1 cent a kwh with 3 year builds. The tiny in size ultra simple DMSR requiring no pumps, cooling towers or containment buildings, promises to come in at $200M/Gw and a fifth of a cent a kwh - really too cheap to meter.
For more Google dmsr thorium phoenix
The annual $800B we paid Big Oil/Coal for their deadly product, would in six months cover the conversion of all of the United States from fossil fuel to these reactors.
Drop them on site at coal and gas plants as a like for like replacement with a one time national environmental/ operating permit under a national power authority like Bonneville or TVA - no attorneys, corrupt politicians or Wall Street pirates required.
NG electricity and heating applications would immediately convert to nuclear electricity. The freed up gas would be available to make CNG, methanol, DME (propane), and synfuel transportion fuels as we transition to nuclear produced synfuels and electric vehicles.
Scientists tell us we are maybe less than ten years away from a civilization ending peak oil and climate crisis. With nuclear power particularly the DMSR, there is a way out.
I agree with Chu; if you do not invest in the future, you are not going to have a future. We need to take these incentives away from fossil fuels and wars of all kind; coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear and put it into clean technology and start mass producing clean technology like: Geothermal, hydro power, wave generators, solar...and you don't really want wind power on land - substitute that with wave generator power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf solar is advanced enough where Canada can use it in their dark days, it is advanced enough where we can use it. A mega Geothermal power plant, cost at about 5 million each, built in each state, and two in states close to a state that is not geothermal friendly, can produce 2,000 times the electricity America would use in a year. Geothermal is safe, clean, and inexpensive to build and they will pump out free electricity for the rest of our time and its footprint is about 1.5% compared to coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas at 80% and 90% foot print. Once solar panels are installed on a house, it will pump out enough free electricity to get you through whatever comes your way, and if you have a mega charge battery at your house, you will have power during the blackest of nights.
We already have this technology and all the government needs to do is make it cheap enough where people can afford to install solar panels and mega charge batteries...and for people who cannot afford it, the government should provide it a no charge. With the $450 billion dollars President Bush handed out to the banks, you can probably supply every house in America with solar panels and a mega charge battery.
I cant imagine getting all worked up for one of these silly races to something or other that might not even be there. We dont have to first to everything, especially things that are ephemeral in the first place. Let them do all the research they want and get as far "ahead" of us as they can. I think it's unlikely they will make any breakthroughs but if they do we can copy or buy it later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's what happens when you deny the science because it is politically inconvenient. When you live with your head in the sand, don't be surprised when the world moves on without you. You can thank the republican party for this lost opportunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsual Big Oil produced denier spew from Davis here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no solar power production of any significance in Canada.
Mass large scale gigawatt level geothermal energy requires drilling deep into the earth injecting water and pumping with not yet invented 400 deg C pumps supercritical steam to the surface driving generators but also causing earthquakes.
Your car will be powered by a Mr. Fusion device long before large scale geothermal becomes viable.
@JamesDavis, geothermal also has the tendency to bring to the surface many toxins such as hydrogen sulfide, radon, lead, cadmium and arsenic. Have a look at Thorium Fluoride reactors. They look too good to be true but I haven't found a problem with them yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, right. Copy the Spanish whom Obama praised. Here's the rest of the story:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpain voted billions in subsides for wind and solar power subsidies. The increased taxes and energy costs sent businesses packing to other countries, costing 2.2 jobs for each "green" job created. The kicker is that 90% of the green jobs were temporary. Now Spain needs a bailout.
There is no race. If other countries want to get ahead of us on wasting their money and resources stroking the egos of their left wing then more power to them. Let them get as far "ahead" as they want. Way to try to make folks think we are behind on something though SA. I'll bet you figured that would appeal to people not too well-informed, act like there is a race going on and we're losing. That'll fire 'em up!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd heck yes dieselpop1, thank you for pointing out the example of Spain. A year ago that's one of the countries that was "ahead" of us because of all that money they were spending on solar and all the jobs it would bring in. obama kept harping about Spain and how great what they were doing was. Look at how well that worked out. Gee I wonder why he doesn't mention them anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear IS the clean fuel and produces electricity far
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismore cheaply than does solar.
Solar and wind are ok but clearly the little kids on the block. The serious solution is nuclear, either closed-cycle or thorium floride systems. These latter are safe, clean, and pruduce energy at a low $/kw-hr rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has the further big advantage of curtailing our dependence of imported oil. However, this causes the gearing up of opposition from big oil,coal,freight,and corn. All the money they will spend to bribe--slap my face!-- donate to the campaign of politicians forms a formidable obstacle.
If we are to produce more elictricity, say enough to power large numbers of electric cars, we need to revamp
our electric infrastructure load carrying capacity. This will be a large undertaking, also opposed by the usual suspects.
Without a doubt, cheap energy is the strongest hinderance to changing worldwide attitudes aspiring to obtain for themselves the fruits of a tradition started by our great grandparents in America and which has lasted for so long. Long gone are the days when one profession and education will last a lifetime. Mr. Chu is not with his head in the sand. National security depends on the public supporting public policy that is open and scientifically rational. Let's appreciate the energy density of aircraft fuel and use it only where alternative energy seems last in line to replace it also. Exciting times ahead, if we could only moderate our consumption of resources that do not renew themselves in equal measure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe solution is not just clean energy, but more conservation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRide a bicycle, walk, or take transit.
Employ technology that automatically turns off (or turns down) electric lights when you leave the room or there is ample daylight. Or turn off the light.
Stop running escalators when they are empty.
Benjamin Franklin said "A penny saved is a penny earned." The same applies to energy.
Unfortunately, conservation cannot accommodate the increasing global population plus the developing nations' extension of energy to new population groups or the increasing depletion of natural resources, including oil and gas, potable water, arable land, food crops, sea food, etc., etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO, if no voluntary method of significantly reducing the global population with minimal suffering can be implemented, these environmental consequences of overpopulation will produce involuntary population reductions with no regard to human suffering.
I appreciate it when leftwingers are honest. Best solution to implement their worldview: Get rid of the people, of course! lol @ "voluntary method of significantly reducing global population". How does that work exactly? Give us an example of a voluntary method of reducing population. Let's see, people could just decide on their own to stop having children so as to produce less carbon. Good luck with that. Any other "voluntary" methods you can think up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut most people are not going to replace a product until it no longer functions. So designing more efficient products makes sense!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're doing a very common causality falacy: Spain invested in Renewables + Spain (almost) needs bailout, then Renewables + bailout.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuite wrong, in all truth. When going through the RE development plan they also had a disproportionate amount of their growth based on the cunstruction industry: huge civil works companies, huge ammounts of architecture studios, etc. When the shit hit the fan in the US, their housing prices came tumbling down, taking quite a few banks on the way, who in the end needed a bailout.
So really nothing to do with Renewable Energies.
The point of the article is that the US only stands a chance to remain as the worlds economic super-power if it can stay in front of essential technology for the years to come. If investment in research stops, technological advances will reward other countries, and the US will slowly but surely slip down the "ranking".
Oil and will not sustain the US for the next generation.
Why has the US DOE not funded such geoengineering technologies as Hydrocarbon Pyrolysis, leaving R&D groups such as eprida, (www.eprida.com), to rely on private donations these last eight years? Pyrolysis is at present the only feasable geoengineering and sustainable energy technology available. But will it be industrialised in time to inverse climate change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe USA will never lead the world on environmental issues because it is ham-strung by a regressive republican party that sabotages the efforts of any realists who try to point out to the American people that they have followed the wrong economic policies for decades. The future for the american people are the grapes of wrath when they realise they have been hood-winked for so long and led into an ecological dead-end.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this