There is an idea that has been around for a long time, at least since the fall of 1973: All that stands between the United States and an abundant energy future is a lack of spending on research and development.
It is as though the Knights Templar could find the Holy Grail, if only the pope would commit just a few more resources to the hunt.
Tens of billions of dollars have been spent, many of them fruitlessly; and some advances have been made, not the least in the kind of drilling technology that enables us to drill miles below the sea floor in the Gulf of Mexico. (Oops!)
Much else has been researched and not come to market. Wind and solar have taken giant strides, but still require tax breaks and subsidies. Nuclear energy through nuclear fission has been researched, even as its deployment has slowed. Worldwide hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on nuclear fusion with nothing to show for it. Other programs have gone by the board, from coal liquefaction to magneto hydrodynamics and ocean-thermal gradients.
The thing about energy research has been that there are many promising lines, but seldom a big success.
On Thursday, a new set of highly qualified persuaders came to Washington to exhort the government to increase energy research and development funding from $5 billion to $16 billion a year, and to set up new organizations to channel and manage basic research on energy.
Some of the nation’s industrial savants, including Bill Gates late of Microsoft, Jeff Immelt of General Electric and Ursula Burns of Xerox, appeared at a press conference here as members of the American Energy Innovation Council. The chairman of the group, Chad Holliday of Bank of America, told the press: “Up until now energy investments have gotten short shrift.”
That is debatable. The problem with energy research has not been that it has been shortchanged, but that it has often been directed at the wrong thing; it has often been diluted or spread out for political purposes. Farmers want ethanol research, coal states want carbon management, and the populous Eastern states want carbon-free energy — so long as it is not nuclear.
The group of industry captains is not looking at the political, social and economic divides that have negated so many past endeavors. Just when the nuclear industry was ready to enter its long-expected renaissance in the 1990s, it was broadsided by new gas turbines. If the carbon in coal can be safely sequestered, does that solve the environmental problems of ripping it out of the ground?
R&D always produces something of interest and often of value, but not always what it was directed toward. At the press conference, Xerox’s Burns said that innovation needed to be managed, and that the CEOs of the group knew that from experience.
Actually, the experience of Xerox itself may belie that. The original copying machine technology nearly perished for want of sponsorship and was finally saved by not-for-profit Battelle Laboratories. Later, when many of the innovations that made the rise of Microsoft, Apple and Cisco possible were developed at Xerox’s California computer laboratories, the company did not know what to do with them. But Bill Gates did. These two should talk.
The great Bell Labs produced optic fiber and the transistor, but did nothing with them. Management is a lovely business when it controls but in so doing, it stifles.
If you want innovation, first get rid of the managers; second, get on bended knee before the bankers.
A new attitude toward energy is needed, but first it is a good idea to know where we want to go.
With the catastrophe in the Gulf, our energy future is again in flux. The trusted has become dangerous, and the dangerous may again be trusted. –For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate
Follow
John Holt, NRECA
As usual, you hit the nail on the head. Have always enjoyed your commentary. Totally agreed with the June 14 statements. When I graduated from college (1961) fusion and magnetohydrodynamics were just a few years away (that was hot fusion, not cold). Of course fuels cells, invented in the 1800s, was only 5 years away.
Joseph Bashore
Mr King:
I am writing to you not as a public servant or nuclear professional, but as a private citizen with a keen interest in the energy future of our country. I am writing in reference to a commentary written by you. The article was run in the Energy Daily, June 14th edition. I agree with your underlying theme, that a direction is needed regarding our energy future. Investing in R&D without an endpoint or goal is simply pouring money down the drain. For example, for 30+ years science has focused their solar R&D money on eeking out another percentage point in panel efficiency instead of lowering the production cost for technology already available. We now have solar panels that are 22% efficient instead of 18%, yet the average homeowner still cannot afford them. In my eyes, the reason for this is obvious, there were no goals set to increase residential use of solar power. An endpoint or goal should be clear before the R&D is spent. However, the goals should be practical, achievable, and realistic. For example, those who believe that solar, wind, and conservation will solve all of our problems are living in a dream world. Wind and solar are not practical base loads. Conservation doesnt actually produce anything. When the lights go out or the tank is empty, you are by definition conserving. The goal of converting the entire country to solar and wind is neither achievable, practical, nor realistic.
In our country, politics seems to dominate our path rather than science or market forces. Politics, not science drove the abandonment of the Yucca Mountain repository. Political landscapes are recreated every 2-4 years. Inevitably, our direction changes at about the same frequency. The need for a long term energy strategy became evident in the early 70s, yet no administration has been able to provide a suitable path to follow. Simply stating that we need to reduce our dependence on oil without a practical strategy to achieve the goal is nothing more than pandering to the electorate. Unfortunately, politicians appear to try to be all things to all people rather than leaders that set sound policy.
I recall back in the early to mid 1990s a move afoot to deregulate the electric utility industry under the guise of competition. Most, if not all of the information that I read during that era warned against such sweeping changes. Politics driven by popular opinion prevailed. California was afforded the opportunity to reap the consequence of that rush to deregulate in 2000. Again, we are faced with rapidly changing market conditions. Again, we will most likely proceed in the face of uncertainty in order to placate the political philosophy of a few loud spoken individuals. I believe the real solution is a diversified mix with a strategy in place that takes us out to 2050 and beyond. But what I believe is irrelevant. Instead, we will try to fix our problems through legislation and regulation.
I believe the real challenge is to educate of the general public on energy issues. An informed public would be better suited to drive public policy than an uniformed politician whose real interest is re-election. Unfortunately, most Americans do not know or care how the electricity is brought to their home or how the gallon of gas made it to their tank. When the lights go out, or gas reaches $5/gal, people and congress will simply look for someone to blame. Few, if any, will recognize that we arrived here through bad choices of the past. Those bad choices were the product of a lack of a long term strategy or road map to follow.
Robert Margolis, Florida Power & Light
I really enjoyed your editorial on Bill Gates and energy research. I have been in the business since the 1980s, but I always hear the same refrain: “give us the money and we will find the magic energy source”. I am for research, but as you pointed out, our social/political divides spill into these programs and nothing much is accomplished.
Best wishes to you in your efforts.