FLASH OF FUNDING: The Recovery Act, signed into law last February, made available the largest investment in renewable energy development in history.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/SKODONNELL
More In This Article
-
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 »
Can wind turbines help to get the U.S. economy spinning again? The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) is banking on the notion that they will at least help. With the $36.7 billion it received from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act last February, the agency is making historic investments in the energy industry.
Not all of the money is going into building better turbines, of course. The agency is also putting big green toward a host of other emission-lowering projects, including better batteries ($2 billion), geothermal technologies ($400 million) and carbon capture and storage ($3.4 billion).
Whereas the largest chunk of change ($16.8 billion) is going to renewable energy and energy conservation, one of the smallest cuts of the DoE stimulus payout ($1.6 billion) is going toward scientific research. In a congressional hearing on the DoE's 2011 budget earlier this month, Energy Secretary Steven Chu noted that science, however, was a crucial part of future development: "With every initiative the department undertakes, sound science must be at the core."
Regardless of where the contracts, grants and loan guarantees are heading, though, little of the economic juice has gotten out to jump-start the energy field—or job market. Like many federal agencies, the DoE has yet to spend more than a small fraction (about $2.1 billion, or 6 percent) of its total allocation.
"Everywhere down the food chain we want this money out as fast as possible because it's fundamentally jobs—as well as saving money faster," Chu noted in the hearing with the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. "Many of these organizations aren't used to dealing with that magnitude of money or dealing with some of the federal rules," he said of the local agencies charged with doling out much of the money, after expressing disappointment with the rate of disbursement.
"The public sector must invest in research and innovation not only because the private sector is sometimes reluctant to take large risks, but because the rewards will be broadly shared across the economy," Chu noted in his formal testimony (pdf). In the year since the stimulus was passed, what has the DoE been doing to fulfill these charges?
We spoke with Matt Rogers, the Energy Department's senior advisor for Recovery Act implementation about the agency's stimulus boost.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
How significant was the amount of stimulus money for energy?
The Recovery Act provided, overall across the federal government, about $80 billion. It's a very significant commitment to energy—and in particular to clean energy and R&D in terms of how we can accelerate commercial deployment. For example, we have $3.2 billion for new battery factories in the U.S. Historically the deployment part has not been well funded.
In terms of renewable energy and energy conservation, what are you funding now, as opposed to a year ago, before the stimulus was signed?
What we're excited about is we've been able to fund a portfolio of technologies that hold the potential to change the equation of energy technology. We have really innovative proposals that we can take a relatively early technology and get out a 10-fold efficiency increase. Today a battery costs roughly $1,000 a kilowatt-hour. When the new battery factories open in 2012, we will be able to produce them for $500 a kilowatt-hour, with the eventual goal of reducing that to $100 a kilowatt-hour. We're doing the same thing in carbon capture and storage, and the same thing in some of the renewable areas—with some really innovative approaches to solar and some fascinating approaches to wind in terms of finding ways to make them smaller and more effective. It's being able to fund that portfolio that put us on a path to having renewables be cost-competitive with the grid.
By far the biggest chunk of stimulus funds is going to energy efficiency and renewable energy, and the smallest is going to advanced research. How was this distribution decided?
The big-bucket breakdowns were decided by Congress as part of the guidance given to DoE, so the $2.3 billion for electric batteries and electric transportation, all of that was really part of the design of the Recovery Act. In the DoE we took those big buckets and turned them into 144 specific projects that we are going to fund and track. Moving through the selection and evaluation process was a massive peer review project over the summer.
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentWe are so fortunate that our Dear Leader and his band of central planners have the wisdom to know which technologies and projects will be successful. We just need to believe with all our heart that they are more capable of picking winners and losers than those who would invest their own capital in these ventures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe were equally fortunate in the 1970's when the Energy Department had the wisdom to invest in the energy source of the future - coal gasification - and made huge investments in this technology. Without these investments, I hate to think where we would be today.
Sdad, I owe you respect in replying to your ideas and should not respond in a juvenile biting way. Hopefully that social phase will soon be behind us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have invested everything I have on Pluvinergy. I had one and a half million dollars more to invest but lost it in RE. It is a concept that could replace our energy concept like mineral oil (petroleum) replaced whale oil at one time.
It is very difficult to understand. We believe it is valid, and if so it is the next step in energy, and fresh water production. It is also more than environmentally benign, in that it actually repairs CO2 damage, as it rebuilds the deserts humanity has created as it operates.
I recently sold about 150,000 of a retirement account for 35,000 so that we can continue research. I think it is money well spent.
In light of these things, and allowing me that my concept were valid, don't you see how a small investment from society would be of great benefit to all?
I believe that is the argument from the other side.
Methinks sdad has taken a few too many balls to the head...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "long-term incentives in the marketplace" means money taken away from the rest of us for as long as he can get away with it. If Matt Rogers thinks "renewables" are so important, why doesn't he invest his own money in it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, no I don't see how a "small investment from society" will be of great benefit to all. Petroleum replaced whale oil, not because people were worried about the effects of consuming whale oil on the planet and the government began researching new ideas in energy, but because it's cost was no longer competitive with the new-fangled petroleum product. Shortage leads to higher prices which leads to innovation and eventual substitution. Switching to higher cost sources of energy when lower cost sources are available will not work in practice. You may have an oasis where it seems to work for a while (see Spain and their massively subsidized solar experiment), but in the end a country which opts for higher cost energy over lower cost energy will become uncompetitive and much worse off in the long run. Spain is now suffering that fate, where studies have shown a loss of 2 jobs for every "green" job created. Their unemployment rate is nearly 20% and they are a proud member of the PIGS countries, which are feared to be on the verge of government default.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently candide believes that Jimmy Carter's big bet on coal gasification was wise. Either that or he believes things will be different this time around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSdad, it really is too bad that Ronald Reagan took down the solar panels on the White House, and gutted the environmental efforts that Carter initiated. Had he taken seriously the long-term challenge of scarce fossil fuels, we might have avoided being held hostage by middle eastern and Venezuelan dictators.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like to see much more Federal investment in algae oil research, thorium reactors, fuel cell technology and other promising technologies.
Does that mean all of them will pay off? No. But in the same way that investors own a portfolio of stocks and other assets, expecting that the winners will pay for the losers, I think a broad Federal investment in new energy technologies will lead to more prosperity for our country than "burying my money in a mattress."
What that poor fool soccer dad cannot appreciate is that the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries get large subsidies themselves. $36 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Do your research before you talk about picking winners and losers. The minerals service give them land rights for almost nothing you hack. Do you understand the concept of accelerated depreciation, or the fact that we have been subsidizing nuclear for years to support our weapons programs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen we allow quite a few of them to corrupt foreign governments and then back up their bad decision-making with our foreign policy and american lives. Not to mention the billions in international law suits for environmental damages currently in play. Please don't talk about issues that you don't understand. The market barely plays into the american economic landscape, and less so when we discuss energy issues.
What that poor fool soccer dad cannot appreciate is that the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries get large subsidies themselves. $36 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Do your research before you talk about picking winners and losers. The minerals service give them land rights for almost nothing you hack. Do you understand the concept of accelerated depreciation, or the fact that we have been subsidizing nuclear for years to support our weapons programs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen we allow quite a few of them to corrupt foreign governments and then back up their bad decision-making with our foreign policy and american lives. Not to mention the billions in international law suits for environmental damages currently in play. Please don't talk about issues that you don't understand. The market barely plays into the american economic landscape, and less so when we discuss energy issues.
Soccerdad, I believe Italy is not just suffering from its subsidized solar experiment but the general malaise in the economies of the world. They may however been premature in creating their system before its efficiency was increased through research. Also the production technology techniques could have changed making it less expensive to produce. There is no doubt that some of the monies have wound up in the coffers of the wealthy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing competitive also means having taken the steps to ensure that when cheep petroleum and coal reserves are depleted one has as an energy source that can step up to the plate.
Because countries like USA and Canada have vast lands and commuting is the norm... I don't see a shift to mass transit to help lower our consumption of oil. I do see a huge amount of transport trucks on the road though. It's really a waste... cont:
cont:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince cities are the hubs of a consumer based economy then what commodities do they need? Build smaller high tech manufacturing plants that cater to their basic needs in a remote location but still close to centers and where its ecological impact is the least. This creates an immediate benefit to the local workforce… make these co-operatively owned buy the city whose profits can be used to offset the burgeoning taxes imposed on its citizens. Ban the use of automobiles between business hours in congested cities and build in advanced transportation means to move the populace freeing up time and wasted resources… As this manufacturing and food processing centers are close in proximity to the city a networking system for delivery of goods, via monorails on ultra efficient smaller transport vehicles. Directing them to various depots through out the city, where these commodities can be redistributed by a network of smaller environmentally friendly trucks. These trucks unobstructed by traffic would be even more economical.
This would have a much lesser impact on the environment as fewer big trucks on the roads and fewer commuters.
What I might suggest is taking a closer look at ourselves… how we set ourselves up to be stuck in traffic jams so we can look good in our automobiles. We are being bombarded by media, billboards everywhere, and whether you like to hear it or not it causes stress buy overloading your senses not by a single distraction but in totality. We run about our business not concerned about the environmental impact. Why not a transit system that is more individualized where smaller single passenger pods could whisk you to a terminal nearest your destination using fast lanes between hubs terminals and slower networks to final destinations but can it be done… hello we can sort the mail and shipping container people use robots to move containers to and from ships, stack and unstuck in a selective manner all preprogrammed. This is complex but very manageable. As for greater distances this is more costly and might warrant waiting for technology improvements but similar people and produce movers could link cities
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant to conserve electricity: There are countless buildings across NA that have lights that run full time without people in them… motion sensing could save plenty… for those that leave the lights on for security reasons might look into LED technology a cheaper more efficient lighting source.
Ghandhi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with everything you said.
Soccerdad is a use it all now and worry about it later type person. Now is the time to plan ahead for the future.
We have to spend time and money to learn what can work to plan ahead. That's good for us and with luck... for the earth too. We can work this out before it's too late.
Petroleum is not cheep when you factor the total cost!
Have you seen the pictures of the pipeline in Alaska...It's gross. How could Good people do that and say cheep.
Cost of wars for gas rights, loss of life, related health care, air pollution, oil spills, wild life and ocean clean up, the list goes on and on. Where do people see Cheep...NOT...cheep!
Wars fought for solar and wind...don't think so.
It's clean...you can even compare the cost... unless your NUTS! The way some people justify their needs is foolish.
The total cost...is not cheep.
Ghandhi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with everything you said.
Soccerdad is a use it all now and worry about it later type person. Now is the time to plan ahead for the future.
We have to spend time and money to learn what can work to plan ahead. That's good for us and with luck... for the earth too. We can work this out before it's too late.
Petroleum is not cheep when you factor the total cost!
Have you seen the pictures of the pipeline in Alaska...It's gross. How could Good people do that and say cheep.
Cost of wars for gas rights, loss of life, related health care, air pollution, oil spills, wild life and ocean clean up, the list goes on and on. Where do people see Cheep...NOT...cheep!
Wars fought for solar and wind...don't think so.
It's clean...you can even compare the cost... unless your NUTS! The way some people justify their needs is foolish.
The total cost...is not cheep.
Stelios,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank for your reply, I didn't really think about these other factors. I knew about the land issues. Your right... all this goes way deeper. They are hidden by all the political noise.
Energy mislaid by windows alone can comment for 10 percent to twenty-five percent of a households heating bill, according to a U.S. Department of Energy. People are attracted to 'big' solutions such as energy conservation technologies and projects rather than the existing because at their core they feel the 'big' solution may or may not happen and, in a way, may not ever have to change. But have we ever thought that if every home installed compact fluorescents, increased attic insulation, installed clear heat control window film, and increase the t-stat 1 degree we would reduce CONSUMPTION far more (and far more quickly) than building new generating capacity. "Green" oriented sites such as www.TintBuyer.com are also doing their share in helping others in pursuing green living by providing relevant informations about tints. They discuss how window tints can be labeled as one of the most effective ways to conserve energy consumption, in our home, office or car.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStimulus bills are fair enough, but they generally pump money into domains that have already been explored by private capital. What is required is some original projects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a lot of money being pumped into carbon capture and storage, (CCS). CCS captures carbon from flue gases and pumps it far overland to underground storage sites.
Now what I would like to see is money put into decarbonation technology, which removes carbon from crude oil or natural gas BEFORE it is burnt. This leaves Hydrogen as a pollution free energy source, eliminating the cost of traditional CCS. Decarbonisation technology exists in laboratories where it has been submitted to tests of proof of concept, but so far has not been developped by energy companies, as it eliminates carbon combustion and as such reduces the energy output to some extent.
The extracted carbon can safely be put into landfill sites cheaply at local sites which improves the economic result.
It is such radical solutions which require economic stimuli, not the same old red herrings...
It is fine to start stimulus to sectors to improve technologies... but this is similar to breeding fast race horses... it takes time. What should be happening is real time planning? Take for example a raw resource that is being exploited but has little community base. Develop a community that can act as a test bed for implementing the aforementioned city hub and transportation system... also the manufacturing site. This test bed community would be comprised of the folks who are developing new strategies for lowering dependencies on electricity and coal/oil. There is nothing like first hand experimenting. As this site is a new city, built from the ground up, would reduce costs as planners can develop ergonomically... great place to send the extra engineers... develop a university in this local geared to advancing communities and energy technologies...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese grads will become the implementers to retrofit existing cities into greener more efficient ones.
But seriously our populous in general is still not catching on, to busy trying to exist, caught in their own worlds, waiting for someone else to be inspired and solve this pending crisis. Who in governments today makes long term development a priority? Its not in their best interest as they are short term interims. But mandates can be. Why arent they? You can be rich and powerful if your priorities are focused on the existing system where the rich influence policy and much of investment goes to paying for debts of monies unwisely spent.
I agree that current renewable technologies and efficiency are all very important to a better energy future, but it is necessary not to forget that future innovation is crucial. The United States cannot focus only on the most immediate solution, but should focus on future innovations simultaneously while addressing issues that are most cost effective in the short term.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout investment in new or better technologies, the U.S. may not be able to find a solution to truly reduce dependence on foreign energy sources. Research and science based development is important to creating the best assumptions for good projections and better outcomes.
-Maria
http://marialeonardi.wordpress.com/
I agree that current renewables and efficiency are all very important to a better energy future, but it is necessary not to forget that future innovation is crucial. The United States cannot focus only on the most immediate solution, but should focus on future innovations simultaneously while addressing issues that are most cost effective in the short term.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout investment in new or better technologies, the U.S. may not be able to find a solution to truly reduce dependence on foreign energy sources. Research and science based development is important in creating the best assumptions for good projections and better outcomes.
Most of those commenting are "slamming" soccerdad, but he is at least mostly correct about the economics of the situation. I believe both sides to this discussion have missed a couple of key points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably most importantly- "Define your goal". If your goal is to "get the United States to be energy self sufficient", it will drive you to different actions than will a goal of "not putting carbon into the atmosphere"
Once the goal has been defined, the investment decisions by governments become easier and less wasteful. As an example of prior investment decisions made by government; look at the development of the transcontinental railroads. These would not have been built without the government's "investments", and the long term benefit to the nation was considered worth that cost. The same concept is valid as related to electricity production. It may well make sense for the government to invest in building "clean" electrical power generation facilities, and then to sell them or lease them to private enterprise to operate. The government would lose money on the sale, but would realize a long term benefit of the capital asset and the immediate benefit to the economy of the jobs during construction.
I would very much like people here to discuss/debate what our goal should be relative to energy production. how about a goal of "get the United States to be energy self sufficient within 15 years in a manner that disturbs our environment to as small a degree as economically possible."
The proper subject for investment is macroeconomics. As far as I can see, nobody really knows how it works! (If they did we surely would not be in our present mess.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we could ensure that it was working in a way that allows everybody a fair and just part of the opportunuities for living offered to some, then all the other problems would cease. In other words the subject should be NUMBER ONE research subject followed by better government applying the principles that come out of the research.
Macro--LOL at your response
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a person with a doctorate in economics, I would thoroughly enjoy the discussion, but think it is overly theoretical and will have no practical purpose. I am interested in what we need to do in the next 5 to 10 years, and we are not going to change or unite the earth's population under a single economic system.
So I come back to my basic question. What should be the goal of the United States for the immediate future. I suggest:
"Get the United States to be energy self sufficient within 15 years in a manner that disturbs our environment to as small a degree as economically possible."
I request others to comment or to suggest an alternate or better goal that can really be implemented. "It is a lot more likely that you will get to where you want to go if you establish the goal you are trying to reach."
sisko...my two cents(maybe a penny;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinvest in factories to produce windmills....place one or two on the 3500 oil rigs sitting in the gulf.
invest in factories to produce solar panels...carve out several hundred/thousand square miles of desert and put them there(hell even here in florida)...i know the eco's will freek at that but they already are...
ps i'm not anti nuclear at all...so build them too;-)
We need to get self sufficient....
oh...and i forgot an important one....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinvest in factories to produce batteries...metal hydride/lithium...every house should have a one or two week "stand by"....
Wayne--I generally agree with you, but how would you describe the overall goal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes- "get the United States to be energy self sufficient within 15 years in a manner that disturbs our environment to as small a degree as economically possible." work for you?
Sisko...short answer is yes...long answer is time lines are dictated by what ever is deemed the most pressing issue for the current administration...changes all the time(every 4 or 8 years, etc)...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy main point was build factories to employ people now...additional people are then needed to actually install the products...and additional people are needed to maintain them....and yes it should disturb the environment as little as possible...and/or make it better;-)
Invest in Biomass Pyrolysis now. The technology is moreover commercially viable and will go on growing rapidly over the coming years. For details see : www.eprida.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat energy independence goal should be preparing for peak oil, so that the now *inevitable* Greater Depression does not last 3 or 4 decades, but only 1 or 2 because the world left it too late to prepare for geological peak oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and if you meet any global warming Denialists please pass on to them that we have to prepare for peak coal as well!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal
Don't think running out, think running down. In other words, the price crisis hits at the *half way mark*, and we are a lot closer to peak coal than people think. Check the wiki, especially the study by the University of Newcastle that suggest 2010 to 2048 sometime... (a little vague because the data sets are a bit inaccurate).
Basically, we've all got to do whatever it takes to get as many Gen3 nuclear plants, electric fast-rail, electric cars, and whatever renewables create the cheapest electricity we can...
OH, before I forget, ecosteve mentions BIOCHAR which also produces *some* gas which can be used for fuel by your farming community... so prioritising liquid fuels and gaseous fuels to the most important sectors of the economy is essential.
Other than that... I don't know what is going to happen. If peak oil is about now, as I believe it is, it's not looking real pretty.