Even with great tech, no easy answers on energy

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--No matter how you look at it, the big picture on energy trends isn't pretty.

A number of factors--a swelling world population with more people aspiring to higher standards of living, limited resources, and a pressing need to curb pollutants--mean that the world needs more efficient and cleaner sources of energy, according to a panel of experts at the EmTech technology conference here on Thursday.

A number of technologies can play a significant role in cleaning the massive energy industry, but the innovations in energy face a far more complicated path to market than other technologies, like computing, they said.

"It takes patient investment from some large technology companies," said Uma Chowdhry, chief science and technology officer of DuPont. "Why are (clean energy technologies) hard? Simply because they require more technology breakthroughs. And we have to recognize there's inertia in the system."

After the oil shock of the 1970s, a number of technologies were developed, such as solar photovoltaics or synthesis gas production, but were abandoned as oil prices dropped along with government research funding.

Today, many of those technologies are being revived and improved upon, but there still remain a number of risks, including the high capital costs of making products which, in the case of electricity and liquid fuels, are commodities, said Jim Matheson, a venture capitalist at Flagship Ventures.

There's also a funding gap for young companies that have developed technologies, such as improved biofuels processes, but need financing to test that their products can be made as designed. As a result, many people say it's not clear that the billions of dollars in venture capital will deliver the returns they expect.

"The reality is in this sector you have to actually deploy something to realize full value," said Matheson. "The challenge is not so much in the innovation piece--it's a deployment challenge."

Energy is also a heavily regulated industry. Negotiations around cap-and-trade carbon regulations are expected to continue for months, which makes it difficult for investors to place their bets, said Steven Isakowitz, the chief financial officer from the Department of Energy.

The DOE will be disbursing tens of billion of dollars in loans and grants over the next few years in an effort to "fill the breach" left by risk-averse banks and to jump-start energy innovation. Evaluating which companies and technologies receive money is an admittedly very difficult task and the DOE has a patchy track record, said Isakowitz.

"One of the challenges is the hype can swing things way too hard. At one point it was fusion, at another, superconductivity would be the answer," he said.

Important technologies
Still, panelists said there are a number of technologies that look promising because there's a clear need when viewed on a global scale.

Dupont's expertise in material science applies in a number of areas, including industrial efficiency, solar, and in bio-based materials, such as corn-derived plastic, said Chowdhry.

BP is investing in cleaner ways of extracting oil and gas and in biofuels through start-ups and university research. It is also working on carbon capture and sequestration, where carbon dioxide from coal plants or other sources is stored underground. The cost of that technology is very high and there's "no product," which means that it will only take hold if government regulations put a price on carbon emissions--a position that BP supports, Eyton said.

Both BP and DuPont have abandoned hydrogen storage research because the technical challenges are so high.

As part of its sustainability portfolio, Flagship Ventures, meanwhile, has invested in biofuels, water purification, and waste-to-energy companies.

Chowdhry said she is optimistic that many of the energy challenges can be met through innovation, particularly in materials and bio-based processes, such as synthetic fuels made from plants.

But all the panelists said that there needs to be coordination between large corporations, technology start-ups, financiers, and the government for them to take hold in the market.

BP's Eyton noted the concerns over the supply of energy may be brought to a head, politically and socially, by other closely interlinked environmental issues.

"The scarcity issues we face are far broader. Energy intersects quite uncomfortably with a whole lot of other natural resources like food, like water, like land. And I think it's possible that the first crisis we face in terms of a lack of something may be one of those," he said.

[vikinzer]

I'm a terrible person, I have to admit. What I would really dearly love to see happen is for the rest of the world to STOP lending us money, and have part of the fallout that would come as a result of that be subsidies on our current energy sources like oil and coal. Sure the renewable energy subsidies would come first, but then there would be an equal playing field, and you know once people were paying three times what they pay today for gas and electricity there would be some innovation and deployment of that innovation in the sector.

[gthurman]

In Germany as early as the 1980s, nuclear plants were next door to grade schools. It was because they were safe. They were also designed to be small and affordable as neighborhood servers. Germany only updated building specs every ten years, not ever ten weeks like the U.S.. Our politicians, available for rent, can be persuaded to enact laws forcing change just to generate new business for the suppliers. In the U.S., to my knowledge, we still have more people killed in the autos of senators than nuclear power plants. Let's put safeguards in place to protect usfrom politicians and enjoy reasonable priced power.

[Been_there_Saw_it_before]

My simplistic suggestion is to go nuclear, with the following provisions:

1. Nuclear plants are expensive. Coal is more so when all the other costs to society are added to it. Look at the long-term aspects of 100 years, not just the next quarter the way American business does.

2. It will take government involvement. So did the freeway system, the airline system, Hoover Dam, and many other big projects.

3. Do not worry about the nuclear waste, just put in Nevada or Utah in concrete cubes 500 feet on a side, which would be too big to steal.

4. Over a fifteen year span, do Research and Development on a Standard Nuclear Plant. When everyone acknowledges it is correct and safe, mass produce the same EXACT plant 100 times, absolutely no changes. As it is we have 100 plants of 100 different designs. California has about 35 million cars, can you imagine what it would be like if there were 35 million unique designs for those cars?

5. When problems are found, all 100 plants get the exact same repair.

6. If you want your products included in the design, you must agree to support your products for the next 50 years. Remember, 50 years ago the world still ran on vacuum tubes. There is no reason why vacuum tubes can?t continue to be used today, except for the cost. They are still in production too.


Commentary...
I went to Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo while PG&E was building the Diablo Canyon plant. The engineering classes had numerous tours and technical lectures about how and why it was being built a particular way. When it was completed, some group filed a lawsuit every month for ten years alleging some new defect. Every suit required a 30-day waiting period and a hearing. After ten years, hundreds of fixes, and interest on interest, it was finally put into operation. What was intended to be power ?too cheap to meter? is now the most expensive power in the state.

[moviegeek65]

I also think nuclear is the way to go, it's a proven technology that is safe and efficient.
Photo-voltaic(solar panels) has been around siince the 60's but they still can't get the cost down to an affordable price for the consumer, they are low wattage so using them at a powerplant is out of the question.
Turbines are cost effective when the wind is blowing but they are unsightly, I drive by them on I-580 everyweek.
I will now make a suggestion that nobody wants to hear but must be considered....birth control and limiting immigration, we only have so many resources in the US you know.

[MagiMamoru]

I already live 100 miles downwind of one Nuke Plant, and 30 miles from one of the dirtiest coal planets in the US. Plant Bowman. Guess which I prefer.

[psk7]

Apparently one of the issues with nuclear power in the US is that a certain reprocessing step is banned because it can create weapons grade plutonium or something like that. This step is used to dramatically reduce the volume of the nuclear waste so that it is more practical to dispose of by burying it or something like that. As it stands if the US went mostly nuclear we wouldn't be able to handle the waste.