Massive Rebuilding Is What's Needed on Energy
AltEnergyStocks is calling for a Marshall Plan, not a Manhattan Project, for energy. I found this provocative post because the author, Tom Konrad, used as one of the underpinnings of his argument my recent blog post illustrating how deeply divided members of Congress and the administration are on how to spend energy research money.
There are plenty of folks out there calling for a federal commitment on energy similar to the effort that led to the development of the atomic bomb or, more peacefully, man's journey to the moon. Most notable among them are the authors Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute, who call for a $30 billion annual clean-energy investment. James Pethokoukis, my editor and U.S. News Capital Commerce blogger, has predicted that both parties' presidential candidates will launch an Apollo Project platform for energy, although keep in mind he also forecast $60-a-barrel oil this year in that same post. (So far, he's been right about the monster flick Cloverfield, however.)
But Konrad at AltEnergyStocks is in the camp that believes that instead of (or, some say, in addition to) devoting more money to the energy problem in hopes of a breakthrough, there is plenty we can and should do now: "Much more than new scientific resources, we need to leverage our financial and organizational resources to get the needed projects on the ground today," he says. See also this post from Joe Romm at Climate Progress on how "accelerating the deployment of boring old technology" may be more important than space-age-style research.
Tags: energy policy | research | energy
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (2)
Reader Comments
Massive Rebuilding Needed
I agree with the need to massively invest in the US and world energy conversion infrastructure, but deeply question the value of throwing public dollars at energy related research for the reasons that follow.
The electric industry converts only 33% of the raw energy they burn into delivered electricity and achieved this low efficiency while Dwight Eisenhower still lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The combination of monopoly protection and a deeply flawed Clean Air Act have effectively blocked deployment of more efficient energy conversion technology since 1960. While I welcome technological improvements in energy conversion, I fear the advances will have no better chance of being deployed than the exising technology.
This goes beyond electricity to thermal energy inefficiency. The absolute best way to produce thermal energy for most requirements is to capture and recycle the byproduct heat of electric generation. Together heat and power account for 69% of US fossil CO2 emissions, yet are produced with separate fires. Combining heat and power generation, using the same technologies that remote central electric generation employs, could reduce US fossil fuel use by 50% and save $70 billion per year. But the barriers are in the way.
The first problem to solve is how to remove the many legal barriers to efficiency. These rules have created vast vested interests in preserving inefficient production of heat and power. The fossil fuel producers spend an interesting, albiet tiny percentage of their profits to stall any attempt to improve efficiency and to obfuscate any science that suggests burning fossil fuel is bad for planetary health. Their omni-presence in every election contest makes it tough for legislators to do the right thing, especially if the public who is paying to warm the planet, is not aware of the alternative.
Our experience from developing 250 projects with total capital costs of $2.0 billion that displace 50 million tons of CO2 per year highlights the real problem. We have seldom been able to capture more than half of the value these projects created. With only half of the value capture, energy efficiency projects are hard to pencil. We can fix this.
Tom Casten
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our comment guidelines.advertisement
Thanks
"Provocative" Thanks, that's a great complement. I hope your readers find it thought provoking, too. Muddled thinking on energy policy is a luxury we can no longer afford.
Mar 12, 2008 15:03:07 PM [permalink] [report comment]