On Saturday, President Obama posted his weekly national address, this time focused on rising oil prices and long-term solutions.  He made a strong call for federal investment in clean energy technology as the most important long-term solution and criticized recent budget proposals that would slash these investments [read transcript]:

Instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow’s. We need to invest in clean, renewable energy. In the long term, that’s the answer. That’s the key to helping families at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We can see that promise already. Thanks to an historic agreement we secured with all the major auto companies, we’re raising the fuel economy of cars and trucks in America, using hybrid technology and other advances. As a result, if you buy a new car in the next few years, the better gas mileage is going to save you about $3,000 at the pump.

But we need to do more. We need to harness the potential I’ve seen at promising start-ups and innovative clean energy companies across America. And that’s at the heart of a debate we’re having right now in Washington about the budget.

Both Democrats and Republicans believe we need to reduce the deficit. That’s where we agree. The question we’re debating is how we do it. I’ve proposed a balanced approach that cuts spending while still investing in things like education and clean energy that are so critical to creating jobs and opportunities for the middle class. It’s a simple idea: we need to live within our means while at the same time investing in our future.

That’s why I disagree so strongly with a proposal in Congress that cuts our investments in clean energy by 70 percent. Yes, we have to get rid of wasteful spending – and make no mistake, we’re going through every line of the budget scouring for savings. But we can do that without sacrificing our future. We can do that while still investing in the technologies that will create jobs and allow the United States to lead the world in new industries. That’s how we’ll not only reduce the deficit, but also lower our dependence on foreign oil, grow the economy, and leave for our children a safer planet. And that’s what our mission has to be.

Tagged with:
 

Representative Paul Ryan’s budget proposal [PDF] would cut approximately 85% of federal investments in energy technology research and deployment within three years, from around $7 billion in 2010 to $1 billion in 2014, while retaining billions in subsidies for the oil and gas industry.  As the New York Times reports:

Under the Republican plan, overall discretionary funding for energy programs would fall to about $1 billion per year. President Obama’s 2012 budget, meanwhile, would provide about $8 billion to support clean energy research and deployment.

…Cuts proposed in a short-term spending bill provide further clues as to which specific energy programs are likely to face calls for long-term elimination. The House-passed bill reduces research and development financing for electric car battery technology and charging infrastructure and eliminates loan guarantees meant to encourage clean energy manufacturing.

Production and investment tax credits for wind and solar power, which will lapse in several years, are also probable targets for elimination.

Other energy incentives may go unchallenged, however. Questioned on Fox News on Sunday by Chris Wallace on whether multibillion-dollar subsidies for oil and gas companies would also be eliminated, Mr. Ryan did not give a direct answer.

Tagged with:
 

As the House GOP leadership proposes a plan to curtail long-term federal investment in strategic research, technology, and innovation, China’s new Five-Year Plan intends to increase the nation’s R&D investment as a percentage of GDP from 1.8% to 2.2% by 2015, an increase of over 22%, while raising its commitment to clean energy technology deployment and manufacturing.

According to Joshua Freed, director of the energy program at the centrist think tank Third Way, the new House budget proposal “protects existing regulated markets and guts innovation — particularly applied research and development that are parts of the valley of death for too many companies — while pulling the rug out from under clean energy deployment”

A new BusinessWeek article, “China Buries Obama’s ‘Sputnik’ Goal for Clean-Energy Use,” notes the following:

“They intend to leapfrog the U.S. in these technologies,” Will Coleman, a partner at Menlo Park, California-based Mohr Davidow Ventures, told the Senate Energy Committee on March 17. “If we don’t move forward urgently, I’m concerned that we will not only cede the current opportunity, but we’ll lose the knowledge and the experience necessary to compete.”

…After the Soviet Union in 1957 launched the beach ball- sized Sputnik, the first man-made satellite, President Dwight Eisenhower set up the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to energize the space program and take the lead from the Soviets. President John F. Kennedy set the goal of landing a man on the moon, and by 1965 NASA’s annual budget reached the equivalent of $37 billion in 2011 dollars.

China will invest about twice that in clean-energy projects each year for a decade in a 5 trillion-yuan program aimed at steering the economy away from fossil fuels, under a five-year plan announced last month. CDB loans are expanding the manufacturing base, driving down the cost of the renewable- energy equipment it exports.

Tagged with:
 

Last week, President Obama delivered a major speech on energy policy at Georgetown University and announced the release of the White House’s new “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.”

In terms of promoting clean energy innovation through research and development (R&D), the contents of the White House report are included below.  President Obama defended these investments in his speech by noting:

So a clean energy standard will help drive private investment in innovation. But I want to make this point: Government funding will still be critical. Over the past two years, the historic investments my administration has made in clean and renewable energy research and technology have helped private sector companies grow and hire hundreds of thousands of new workers.

I’ve visited gleaming new solar arrays that are among the largest in the world. I’ve tested an electric vehicle fresh off the assembly line. I mean, I didn’t really test it — I was able to drive like five feet before Secret Service said to stop. (Laughter.) I’ve toured factories that used to be shuttered, where they’re now building advanced wind blades that are as long as 747s, and they’re building the towers that support them. And I’ve seen the scientists that are searching for the next big breakthrough in energy. None of this would have happened without government support.

I understand we’ve got a tight fiscal situation, so it’s fair to ask how do we pay for government’s investment in energy. And as we debate our national priorities and our budget in Congress, we’re going to have to make some tough choices. We’re going to have to cut what we don’t need to invest in what we do need.

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

State of U.S. Solar PV Industry

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently released its “Solar Photovoltaic Cell/Module Manufacturing Activities 2009” report, and the results demonstrate the rapidly evolving landscape of the U.S. solar PV manufacturing industry. In 2009, the industry reached a record high 1.3 peak gigawatts of shipments, the sixth-consecutive year of growth and a 30% increase from 2008. According to EIA, an influx of stimulus spending and a decrease in manufacturing costs largely contributed to this increase.

Domestic shipments increased 15% over the course of 2009 to 601,133 peak kilowatts, 47% of which went to commercial electricity generation. Installers, at 36% of the domestic market share, were the largest customer type, followed by wholesale distributors at 23%. The solar photovoltaic module/cell market made shipments to all 50 states, with California and New Jersey combining for 55% of all domestic shipments.

At 57%, imports accounted for more than half of total shipments for the third time in four years. The importation of 743,414 peak kilowatts, 95% of which were crystalline silicon cells and modules, represented a 27% increase from 2008. China (31.75%), Philippines (28.68%), and Mexico (17.83%) were the top importers. Japan had the furthest decline in U.S. imports, falling from 24.85% of total imports in 2008 to 11.32% in 2009.

Although import shipments constituted greater than half of total shipments in 2009, export numbers actually increased 47% from 2008. Buoyed by crystalline silicon cells and modules, exports surpassed domestic shipments for the first time since 2004. Germany dominated the U.S. solar industry export market in 2009 with 45.37% of total exports, followed by Italy (15.88%) and France (6.94%).

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

Critical Materials: Insights from the MIT Energy Conference

lithium ingots photo

Lithium - a critical element for energy? (Courtesy of Treehugger.com)

At the MIT Energy Conference last week, the energy was palpable – literally. The event, which annually attracts hundreds of energy professionals and students (including a number of AEL fellows and authors this year), brought to the table a refreshing mix of hard-nosed analysis, technical insight and unbridled enthusiasm about the challenges and opportunities for the world’s collective energy future.

One of these future challenges lies in the question of strategic materials for energy, which a panel of experts tackled on the second day of the conference. In the process of co-organizing this panel – along with two fellow teammates from the MIT Energy Club - I have grown increasingly aware of the issue of strategic materials and the important role they play in clean energy technologies.

The highlight of the panel was an introduction by MIT professor Robert L. Jaffe to the policy report on Critical Elements for Energy that was recently released jointly by the American Physical Society and the Materials Research Society. As the report describes, rare earth minerals, such as helium and lithium, are becoming increasingly relevant for energy solutions in the 21st century:

“A number of chemical elements that were once laboratory curiosities now figure prominently in new technologies like wind turbines, solar energy collectors, and electric cars. If widely deployed, such inventions have the capacity to transform the way we produce, transmit, store, or conserve energy.”

However, these materials are extremely scarce, unevenly distributed around the globe, and they rarely benefit from stable supply chains:

“The production complexities of elements primarily obtained as by-products create a difficult environment for planning and investment in these elements, as well as in the new technologies that require the unique attributes of the elements themselves. Large fluctuations in price can occur after joint-production options are saturated and before new supplies hit the market.”

The serious economic, environmental, and security-related challenges of these critical elements have yet to be met. In addition to stronger coordination within the US federal government and better information dissemination under the auspices of the US Geological Survey, Dr. Jaffe also advocated for a greater role for R&D:

“A focused federal research and development (R&D) program would enable the United States to both expand the availability of and reduce its dependence on ECEs [energy critical elements]. This federal R&D would be particularly critical to the competitiveness of small U.S. companies that are unable to engage in their own ECE basic research programs.”

Dr. Jaffe’s insights came alongside comments from Diana Bauer, who described the policy role of the US federal government from the perspective of the Department of Energy, as well as Terence Stewart, a trade law specialist who addressed the role of the WTO and international trade in managing critical elements. Finally, Alastair Neill, an executive from the private-sector firm Dacha Strategic Metals, explored the importance of rare earth elements and stressed the role of the private sector in addressing these issues in the long run.

As Bauer, Stewart and Neill shared their own perspectives on the topic, the utter complexity of the critical materials issue came into full view. In particular, the speakers reached a curious disagreement about China’s recent restrictions on rare earth exports, with Neill suggesting that China may actually have done the world a favor while Stewart criticized Beijing for going against its WTO obligations. And as Bauer described the conclusions from a recent DOE report on critical energy materials that she was recently involved in, it became clear that the proper role of the US government in tackling critical materials will turn out to be equally complex in the long run.

The panel at the MIT Energy Conference came as a stark reminder that the US cannot meet the emerging challenge of critical elements for energy without sustained involvement from the private sector, international organizations and the federal government. Much is at stake: our high-performance gas turbines, our hybrid cars, our wind turbines and our energy R&D laboratories all depend crucially on critical elements. This is not an issue we can afford to take lightly.

For more about the MIT Energy Conference, readers can also check out the AEL coverage by my colleague Daniel Goldfarb as well as the post by Tom Zeller on NYT’s DotEarth blog.

__

David Cohen-Tanugi is a Policy Fellow in AEL’s New Energy Leaders Project.

Unburdening Our Soldiers With Energy Innovation

Providing soldiers with the newest, most advanced military systems has historically been a bipartisan issue, and provides an opportunity for cooperation on energy innovation funding in the near future. The Army’s recent report on how investments in energy innovation are making our soldiers more mobile and combat ready, only bolsters the argument:

“In a typical 72-hour mission in Afghanistan, U.S. Soldiers carry seven types of batteries, or 70 individual batteries in all adding almost 20 pounds that U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) scientists say can be reduced with advancements in battery technology research.”

The Army Research Laboratory’s scientists have been making progress on developing cheaper and lighter batteries to lower soldiers’ weight burden, a goal that could have significant impacts on the private sector as well. In February, ARL hosted a Battery Technology Industry day to showcase their efforts to the private industry. Seventeen of their projects, including one on higher voltage Lithium ion (Li-ion) battery chemistry, attracted significant interest from the private sector attendees. As part of their efforts, ARL is soliciting Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) from the private sector to leverage its relative strengths.

The Army’s efforts are the most recent example of the technological spillover that occurs form military investments in technological innovation. The impact of a major breakthrough in battery technologies would join the Internet and GPS as part of a long list of military funded technologies with vast economic impacts. Karen Laforme, an ARL program integrator, provides a perfect assessment of  the win, win nature of the efforts:

“We work with our industry partners whenever we can to advance technology in the military sector to support the Soldier in the field. We also understand the enormous opportunities or commercial markets and encourage companies to enter into licensing and cooperative agreements with ARL to adapt our technology to their products and bring these products to the market faster. The goal is to look for opportunities to leverage our technologies through partnerships with private industry. This creates a win-win situation for the Army and industry.”

For more information on the military’s energy related efforts see How Energy Fits into U.S. Military Posture by Andrew Schlossberg.

 

In the midst of the ongoing partial meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant, energy experts across the spectrum are urging caution and patience in considering the implications for nuclear energy in the United States and internationally.  In particular, many energy and climate change experts note that we should not so readily dismiss nuclear power as an option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting rising global energy demand.

International Energy Agency Chief Nobuo Tanaka:

“While I understand the public’s fear, I am concerned given the important role of nuclear power. I encourage patience until more information is gathered for a full review so we can learn the lessons,” he added… ”The cost of fighting against global warming will increase, that is sure,” he told Reuters. “I think it is very difficult (to fight global warming), even impossible, without using nuclear power.”

U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu:

“The president and the administration believe we have to be looking very, very closely at the events in Japan. We have to apply whatever lessons that can be and will be learned from what has happened and what is happening in Japan,” Chu explained. “Those lessons would then be applied to first look at our current existing fleet of reactors, to make sure that they can be used safely and… how as one proceeds forward, any lessons learned can be applied.

…”The administration believes we must rely on a diverse set of energy sources, including renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power,” Chu said before a House subcommittee. “The administration is committed to learning from Japan’s experience as we work to continue to strengthen America’s nuclear industry.”

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee:

“We have depended on nuclear power for many decades to meet much of our electricity needs, and I think we will continue to in the future,” said Bingaman, D-N.M. “And I do believe we can produce power safely. We’ve done that. We’ve done it for many decades.”

“Clearly we need to be sure that the design that we are using in our power plants is the very best and the safest design. And whatever changes we need to make to those designs or to the regulations of those plants we need to make. But I’m not persuaded that nuclear power should be deleted from the list of options that we look at.”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

Nuclear power plants built in the areas usually thought of as earthquake zones, such as the California coastline, have a surprisingly low risk of damage from those earthquakes. Why? They built anticipating a major quake… The NRC, the federal agency responsible for nuclear power safety, says the odds are in the public’s favor. “Operating nuclear power plants are safe,” the NRC said when it reported the new risk estimates.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):

Robert Engel, former IAEA inspector and Swiss nuclear engineer, told Reuters Sunday that a partial meltdown of a reactor “is not a disaster”… the current Japanese reactor crisis bear little similarity to the Soviet-era meltdown at Chernobyl, which came about through design flaws and human error before it spread a radioactive cloud across much of Europe and Asia 25 years ago.

Experts at the IAEA “aren’t planning for the next Chernobyl” says a mid-level Western diplomat familiar with how the organization works. “But nor do [they] think we are out of the woods yet. The reactors are still hot. But this situation has no relation to Chernobyl, even though I realize that in the popular lore, if you say ‘Chernobyl,’ it means ‘catastrophic meltdown.’”

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

How Energy Fits into U.S. Military Posture

Soldiers wait as bundles of fuel are air delivered to Forward Operating Base Waza Kwah in Paktika province, Afghanistan, Jan. 30, 2011.

Source: energy.defense.gov | Soldiers wait as bundles of fuel are air delivered to Forward Operating Base Waza K'wah in Paktika province, Afghanistan, Jan. 30, 2011.

Last week, the services of the U.S. military (and the JCS) released their respective posture statements, which are unclassified summaries of the roles, missions, accomplishments, plans, and programs of each branch. Essentially, these statements combine to represent the state of the military as a whole.

In a reflection of an emerging consensus, each statement devotes a substantial portion to energy issues, acting as a benchmark for our military’s energy reform efforts. Combined with the launch of the DoD Operational Energy website, found here, these statements have contributed to an eventful week on the military energy front.

(more…)

Tagged with:
 

Screen shot 2011-03-07 at 6.17.33 PMLast week, with Congress in the midst of budget gridlock, the nation’s leading energy innovators gathered to showcase and discuss solutions to the world’s energy challenges. First in DC for the ARPA-E Innovation Summit, then in Boston for the MIT Energy Conference, we joined as many of the world’s leading minds reaffirmed an emerging consensus: to meet this global challenge we must drive rapid technological development to make clean energy cheap.

The ARPA-E Innovation Summit provided an opportunity for the young agency to share some of its accomplishments and make clear the opportunities provided by federal investment in high risk, high reward ventures. ARPA-E — which was originally signed into law under President Bush and funded  with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — has distributed $151 million dollars for projects “deemed too radical or too preliminary to attract much private financing.” Over a year later, six of those have leveraged $108 million in private finance, four times more private investment than the amount of tax payer dollars given to those companies.

Featuring keynote speakers Arnold Schwarzenegger, Secretary of the Navy Ray Maybus, Chairman of Bank of America Chad Holliday, Senator Lisa Murkowski, as well as Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, the conference provided a ringing endorsement from leaders of government and business alike (see the keynote addresses here).

(more…)