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.

Building the Energy Innovation Consensus

As the national debate on federal energy and climate legislation continues to unfold, Americans for Energy Leadership has been working to advance energy innovation and education investment as a critical component, adding to the growing “energy innovation consensus.”   These efforts have been recognized by a number of outlets and experts.  Some recent examples include:

In Time Magazine’s Special History Cover Issue, “The Electrifying Edison,” Bryan Walsh wrote:

“Even when America’s scientific preeminence was threatened by the Soviet Union’s Sputnik launch in 1957, the U.S. only came back stronger. “The federal response to Sputnik was an overwhelming investment in science and engineering education,” says Teryn Norris, director of Americans for Energy Leadership. “That had spillover benefits across the board.”

At the National Journal, in “Bill Will Slight Technology Innovation,” Mark Muro from Brookings Institution wrote:

“As we and many others have been saying for years, the nation badly needs to sign up for a new push for energy system innovation that seeks countless efficiencies but also triples to quintuples today’s anemic baseline level of federal energy innovation R&D. (For some great discussion of this need see recent posts by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, a group of 34 Nobel Laureates, NYT Dot Earth blogger Andy Revkin, and Teryn Norris of Americans for Energy Leadership).”

At New York Times Dot Earth, in “Quantum Dots, Obama and the Energy Quest,” Andrew Revkin wrote:

“I asked Dan Kammen, along with Teryn Norris, an energy policy blogger affiliated with the Breakthrough Instituteto assess the energy innovation report. Their views are appended below.  Interestingly, there’s a decent amount of agreement between Norris and Sean Pool, the author of the Center for American Progress report. Here’s Norris’s take on the innovation analysis, followed by Kammen’s:”

(more…)

Edison_Time_Magazine_CoverWelcome to our new Time Magazine readers.  Americans for Energy Leadership was just featured by Time’s must-read Special Annual History Cover Issue on Thomas Edison and U.S. technological leadership (July 5th), called “The Electrifying Edison.”  Time’s lead energy and environment reporter Bryan Walsh wrote:

“Inventors like Edison helped build America’s unparalleled scientific and technological dominance, a dominance that, more than any other single factor, made the 20th century the American century… the federal government played an important role through its own research laboratories and investments in education. Even when America’s scientific preeminence was threatened by the Soviet Union’s Sputnik launch in 1957, the U.S. only came back stronger. “The federal response to Sputnik was an overwhelming investment in science and engineering education,” says Teryn Norris, director of Americans for Energy Leadership. “That had spillover benefits across the board.” (emphasis added)

The article explains the critical importance of large-scale federal investment today in clean energy technology and education for the sake of America’s global leadership and competitiveness, adding Time’s voice to the ever-growing national “energy innovation consensus.”  It cites statistics from the previous report I co-authored with Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant,” a widely acclaimed study containing the first comprehensive international review of clean energy competitiveness (see our updated “The Power to Compete” policy memo for more).  The article continues:

“It’s ironic that nowhere is America’s position in science and technology more threatened than in the industry that Edison essentially invented: energy. Clean power could be to the 21st century what aeronautics and the computer were to the 20th, but the U.S. is already falling behind. China, South Korea and Japan are set to invest more than $500 billion combined in clean technology over the next five years, while the U.S. is likely to invest less than $200 billion, and that’s assuming clean-energy legislation makes it into law. Meanwhile, Congress remains largely paralyzed.

The article, available in news stands this week, concludes by pointing to Bill Gates and Jeffrey Immelt, who recently joined forces with other business titans to launch the American Energy Innovation Council, calling for at least $16 billion per year in federal energy RD&D.

“In mid-June, a group of corporate titans, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, descended on Washington to call for U.S. spending on energy research to be tripled.  They noted that the government today spends less than $5 billion a year on energy research and development – not counting temporary stimulus projects – compared with $30 billion annually on health research and more than $80 billion on military R&D. At a time when energy is more important than ever – and while oil from a blown well bleeds into the Gulf of Mexico – the U.S. no longer seems willing to create the environment that can engender the innovation we were once known for. “The world is not going to wait for the United States to lead,” said Immelt.  “This is about innovation.  This is about competition. This is about energy security.”

Some erosion of the U.S.’s scientific dominance is inevitable in a globalized world and might not even be a bad thing. Tomorrow’s innovators could arise in Shanghai or Seoul or Bangalore.  And Edison would counsel against panic – as he put it once, “Whatever setbacks America has encountered, it has always emerged as a stronger and more prosperous nation.”  But the U.S. will inevitably decline unless we invest in the education and research necessary to maintain the American edge.  The next generation of Edisons could be waiting.  But unless we move quickly, they won’t have the tools they need to thrive.”

Welcome to readers from New York Times Dot Earth!

Welcome to readers from the New York Times Dot Earth blog!  Dot Earth — a widely read energy and environment blog run by the well-respected reporter and author Andrew Revkin – just featured a post about our efforts on the RE-ENERGYSE energy education proposal, particularly our letter to Congress including over 100 student governments, representing more than one million American students.

For first-time visitors to Americans for Energy Leadership, we’re a new project led by young people to foster the next generation of energy innovators and advance U.S. leadership in the global clean energy sector.   Founded at Stanford University in 2009, we’re now headquartered in Washington, DC, working to advance a large-scale federal program for clean energy science and engineering education, with RE-ENERGYSE as a first step.   More broadly, we’re empowering young leaders through our Policy Fellowship Program to develop and advance a new national energy innovation agenda capable of bridging the partisan divide and generating broad public support.

(more…)