'Green' energy needs a big leap

When Energy Secretary Steven Chu talks about how Americans can break their addiction to oil and coal, he starts with his hi-fi amplifier. It's so old that the on-off light burned out long ago. But inside lies a technology that -- in its day -- was as revolutionary as the changes needed to solve the nation's energy problems.

Radios, telephones and other electronics once depended on fragile vacuum tubes the size of small light bulbs. Then scientists pioneered a smaller, cheaper and more durable replacement called the transistor, opening the way to trans-Atlantic phone calls and a host of other marvels, including Chu's stereo.

Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, and other experts say similar scientific breakthroughs are needed to make renewable power sources such as wind, solar and biofuels as cheap and easy to use as costly, environmentally damaging oil and coal. Toward that end, President Obama's stimulus package contains $8 billion for energy research, including $400 million targeted for game-changing technology.

The problem is that over the last three decades, the U.S. has spent many times that much on energy research and development -- with nothing like a transistor to show for it.

"It's very easy to say we should spend more" on research, said Jeffrey Wadsworth, chief executive and president of the Battelle Memorial Institute, which manages several Energy Department laboratories. "What really needs to happen is more effective use of the money." As Wadsworth is quick to acknowledge, that's easier said than done.

A recent Energy Department task force report details the sort of breakthroughs crucial to fulfilling Obama's vision of a "clean energy economy" that could slash dependence on foreign oil, combat climate change and ignite the next great domestic job boom.

The wish list includes cells that convert sunlight to electricity with double or triple the efficiency of today's solar panels; batteries that store 10 times more energy than current models; a process for capturing and storing the carbon dioxide emissions from coal; and advanced materials that allow coal and nuclear power plants to operate at hotter temperatures and higher efficiency.

Researchers are working on all of them. But what's required is more than incremental advances in technology. It is advances in understanding basic physics and chemistry that are "beyond our present reach," the report said.

As task force co-chairman George Crabtree, a senior scientist at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago, put it: "Everything you can think of that is a renewable -- or somewhat more renewable -- energy option has roadblocks to it, and it needs a science solution."

More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-energy-future23-2009feb23,0,6854898.story

If it is true that quantum leaps in technology are needed to convert over to a green economy, and we have already decided the conversion is happening today by our policies (ie no more coal fired plants or accessing our own fossil fuel), then were are we heading? We are setting ourselves up to see significantly higher energy prices which is particularly important if you think about international manufacturing competitiveness. It is also important for individual consumers.

Any planning done with the assumption of a technological jump (and not just incremental foreseeable improvements) is irresponsible. You should still try to get the jumps, but technologies mature - and in some cases mature quite quickly. Take a look at a passenger jet and compare it to one manufacturerd in the 1960s. The only improvements have been incremental ones. The technological jump was the adoption of a jet engine.

The Scientific American article last year about "The Grand Solar Plan" really got me thinking about this situation. In the plan they talked about basically coverning at least half of Arizona with solar collectors to get the necessary energy conversion. No subsequent follow up about what environmental impact would result from this approach.

Another implication is that even assuming we get our own CO2 house in order, what about other countries. Unless we get a near equivalent cost solution, we may not be able to stop countries like China without economic sanctions (if that is even possible) or possibly military force (not advised).

President Obama may want to think about the messages being sent out in his Cabinet.