Germany Sets Energy Example

  • Nearly 20 years ago, Germany passed a law requiring utility companies to pay homeowners more for creating green energy. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Many European countries are taking
climate change seriously. Since
1990, Germany has slashed their carbon
emissions nearly 23%, emerging
as a leader in green energy. Conrad
Wilson explains the country’s transformation
to an alternative energy leader:

Transcript

Many European countries are taking
climate change seriously. Since
1990, Germany has slashed their carbon
emissions nearly 23%, emerging
as a leader in green energy. Conrad
Wilson explains the country’s transformation
to an alternative energy leader:

Nearly 20 years ago, Germany passed a law requiring utility companies to pay
homeowners more for creating green energy. Today that includes wind and
geothermal, but the big winner is solar.

Dr. Silke Karcher is a scientist at the German Ministry of Environment in Berlin.
She says the solar industry is growing, despite the lack of sun.

“One of the instruments, one of the legal instruments that we would really like to
export that has really been successful is the way that we’re supporting renewable
energies and electricity. We have a so-called ‘feed in tariff law,’ which mean that
wherever in Germany you produce renewable energy, you can feed it into the
grid and you get a specific price.”

And that policy has put Germany way ahead to the US. Even with all the rebates
and other recent incentives in the nation’s most pioneering green tech states, it
takes longer for homeowners in the US to pay off an investment in a solar array.

“What Germany does is that they say we’ll pay x amount of euros for every
kilowatt produced, period.”

That’s Jim Rarus, principal of InPower. It’s a Colorado-based solar installation
company. Rarus says rather than comparing renewable fuels to less expensive
fossil fuels, Germany accounts for the costs of pollution.

“They don’t compare certain technologies like solar, which obviously have a
higher cost basis, to other technologies like coal and natural gas, which have a
lower costs basis. So they’re paying a price that reflects the fact that it’s a little
more expensive to build a solar plant and allows the people that put it in to either
get their money back or to make a reasonable return.”

For homeowners investing in solar arrays in the US, the process can be
unpredictable and even frustrating. Johnny Weiss is executive director of Solar
Energy International. It’s a Colorado based nonprofit that trains people for
careers in the solar industry. He says the incentive system in the US is too
complex.

“Over here, it’s different and a more complicated system. We all have states that
are free to do their own incentive programs. We have incentives at the national
level. We have incentives at the local level. But the result is that it’s a bit
overwhelming for not just solar professionals, but the public as well. And it’s not a
consistent thing people can count on.”

Some communities in the US are trying out the European model. But the limited
government support in the US has driven competition as solar companies try to
make the energy source affordable. That’s something some fear isn’t happening
anymore in Germany.

Dr. Kurt Christian Scheel heads up the Department of Climate and Sustainable
Development for the German private industry association. Scheel worries that
government incentives have stifled innovation.

“I mean, let’s put it this way. Whoever produces solar panels in Germany has a
safe earning and no motivation in anyway to, and not enough competition to,
innovate and to make things better.”

But even if in the long-term some feel a feed-in tariff slows innovation and
growth, it’s proven that in a short period of time it can drive energy consumers to
become producers.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Related Links

Coal Will Not Go Quietly

  • In the fall of 2007, the state of Kansas made the unprecedented decision to deny a power company permits for a coal plant because of greenhouse gas emissions. (Photo courtesy of the Energy Information Administration)

Reducing the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming will mean less
reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal.
Almost two years ago, Kansas became
the first state ever to deny permits
for a coal plant because of greenhouse
gas emissions. Since then, there have
been lawsuits on all sides. Even the
compromise the Governor in Kansas reached
with the coal company in May is now
stalled. Devin Browne reports that
coal just will not go quietly:

Transcript

Reducing the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming will mean less
reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal.
Almost two years ago, Kansas became
the first state ever to deny permits
for a coal plant because of greenhouse
gas emissions. Since then, there have
been lawsuits on all sides. Even the
compromise the Governor in Kansas reached
with the coal company in May is now
stalled. Devin Browne reports that
coal just will not go quietly:

The Sunflower Electric Power Corporation had actually applied and been
approved for a permit to build a new coal plant in 2002. But, for whatever
reason, they let the permit expire. Seemed like no big deal at the time
– they figured they’d get another one whenever they turned in another
application.

Except that they didn’t. In the fall of 2007, the state of Kansas made
the unprecedented decision to deny the power company. Cindy Hertel is with
Sunflower.

“It would be like going for your drivers license, taking the drivers
test, passing it, then being denied your drivers license because you
don’t drive a Prius. Can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
And that’s what happened.”

Rod Bremby is the Secretary of Health and Environment in Kansas. He says
the state didn’t really change the rules on regulating CO2 because there
aren’t any rules on CO2. And since there’s no federal regulations,
Secretary Bremby instituted a state regulation. He said it would be
irresponsible not to regulate the gases causing climate change.

Stephanie Cole with the Sierra Club called it a watershed moment.

“We were excited, we were stunned – however, it wasn’t long after
that, legislators from Western Kansas started making comments that they
disapproved of Secretary Bremby’s decision and that they were going to
make legislative attempts to overturn the permit denial. So victory was
short-lived.”

Since then, the power company, Sunflower, has hired lobbyists. They’ve
helped legislators draft new bills to allow the coal-burning power plant.
The power company sued both the previous and current governor for civil
rights violations. For two years – nothing.

Then Kansas got a new governor – Mark Parkinson. Almost immediately
after he became governor last May, he cut a deal with Sunflower. Stop the
lawsuits. Build only one unit, not two or three. And, most importantly to
the Governor’s agenda, put in transmission lines to Colorado so that
Kansas can start exporting wind energy out of state.

Kansas is the third windiest state in the country. But it needs
infrastructure to get that wind-power to other states. And, in the
governor’s deal, power companies like Sunflower help build that
infrastructure.

Cole, with the Sierra Club, said the deal was very much a let-down.

“Because it is very troubling to many of us who have been involved in
this so long. It is such a disappointment.”

For a moment the battle seemed to be over. But, it wasn’t.

In July, Sunflower received a letter from the EPA asking them to submit a
new application for a permit. John Knodel is an environmental engineer
with the EPA.

“It’s not appropriate, in our mind, that they take an application that
was for three 700 MW units and simply say, ‘that was bigger, this project
is smaller.’ We say, ‘you have to go through a process and make it
very clear what this new project is all about.’”

Now that the EPA is stepping in, Sunflower & the Sierra Club are back to
square one.

The power company is expected to turn in its new application this fall.
The Sierra Club is expected to fight it. And Sunflower is expected to
fight back.

Cindy Hertel with Sunflower says the power company is just trying to keep
electricity bills low.

Hertel: “This is still in the best interest of our members.”

Browne: “This still makes sense economically?”

Hertel: “It still makes sense. What people need to know is that we are
cost biased, not fuel biased.”

Browne: “And, right now, for Sunflower, that means coal.”

But it might not be coal for very long.

The U.S. House passed a bill last winter that includes a hefty carbon tax
and incentives for renewable energy. A similar bill was recently
introduced in the Senate.

If it passes, Kansas might find its wind energy not only beats coal in
price, but wind-power could become the next big export for the state.

For The Environment Report, I’m Devin Browne.

Related Links

Keeping It Close to Home

  • Baylor Radtke bags up anemometers for the climbers to carry up the tower. The student crew placed three anemometers at different heights, along with two wind direction indicators. The data is recorded and analyzed to estimate average wind speed. Researcher Mike Mageau is getting detailed information on several towers up and down the North Shore of Lake Superior. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)

People concerned about energy are
getting more and more interested
in producing their own. Stephanie
Hemphill reports on an effort to
harvest the wind, and other natural
resources, to power a community:

Transcript

People concerned about energy are
getting more and more interested
in producing their own. Stephanie
Hemphill reports on an effort to
harvest the wind, and other natural
resources, to power a community:

(sound of climbing)

Three students are getting ready to climb a TV tower on Moose
Mountain on the north shore of Lake Superior. They’ll put up three
anemometers – little cups that spin in the wind and measure how fast
it’s blowing.

As they deploy their climbing equipment, their professor, Mike
Mageau, keeps asking if they have enough safety gear. He seems a
little anxious.

“Two of them are mountain climbers. So they seem to think this will
be no big deal.” (laughs)

Mageau teaches at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He’s been
measuring the wind on the high ridge that runs along the Lake
Superior shoreline.

“If you look at the statewide wind maps, they don’t give us credit for
having any wind along the North Shore of Lake Superior. But Grand
Portage was interested in wind, and they did some monitoring and we
helped them. This was years ago.”

That’s the Grand Portage Band of Ojibway Indians. Mageau got a
grant to install monitoring equipment up and down Lake Superior
shoreline.

“And we found 15 to 20 mile-an-hour average wind speeds at the
sites.”

That’s about the same as the best wind sites in Iowa, where huge
wind farms spread across the landscape.

Mageau doesn’t advocate a big wind farm here. Instead, the idea is
to put up one windmill for each community along the shore. One big
turbine could supply roughly half the electricity each town uses.

He knows some people are nervous about this. The North Shore of
Lake Superior is beautiful, and no one wants to ruin the scenery. It’s
also an important route for migrating birds. There’s concern that
birds could fly into the spinning blades. A separate group of
researchers is studying the migration routes.

“Are they flying close to the lake, along the peaks, just inland or
lakeside of the peak, where are they flying? So hopefully when we
pick a wind site we’ll stay away from the birds.”

If a wind tower is ever built here, the power would go to the town of
Grand Marais Minnesota, 20 miles north. And it would fit in with other
projects local folks are working on, to become more energy self-
sufficient.

Buck Benson owns the local hardware store. He says he and his
friends, George and Lonnie, hatched the idea while they were fishing.

“We were grumbling about all this stuff, ‘what can we really do.’ And,
when we came back home, George kept prodding us, ‘you know what
we talked about,’ so we formed a little group. And I think we’ve done
good work since we started this organization.”

The group has been researching various ideas about how to produce
energy locally. One team is pursuing that windmill idea we heard
about. Another project is a little closer to being built: they want to
burn the wood chips from a local sawmill in a central heating system
for the town.

(sound of buzzing)

The chips would come from Hedstrom Lumber mill. Howard
Hedstrom says the mill sells bark chipped off the trees. But he has to
haul it miles away to sell it.

“By the time you pay the freight, there’s not much left. And if it could
be used locally, why not use it locally and save all that transportation
cost.”

The city of Grand Marais has applied for a federal grant to pay for half
the cost of the boiler.

Communities across the country are looking to use what they’ve got
around them, instead of importing energy from a big coal or nuclear
plant miles away.

It helps keep money close to home, and it could be better for the
earth.

For The Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

Solar Panel Prices Drop

  • Experts say one of the main reasons solar is cheaper is because of Spain. (Photo courtesy of National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

There’s a big push to find alternative sources of energy. Problem is, a lot of alternative energy is just too darn expensive. The cost of solar energy, however, is on the decline. Jennifer Guerra reports:

Transcript

There’s a big push to find alternative sources of energy. Problem is, a lot of alternative energy is just too darn expensive. The cost of solar energy, however, is on the decline. Jennifer Guerra reports:

The price of solar panels took a huge drop this year.

Experts say one of the main reasons solar is cheaper is because of Spain.

The country is a big buyer of solar panels, or what are called PV modules, largely because Spain offers generous incentives for people who buy them.

Galen Barbose is with a federal research lab in Berkley, California. He says, because of the economic crisis, Spain had to slash those incentives.

“And so demand in Spain dropped fairly significantly. And so what we’ve seen over the past year is a glut in the global supply of PV modules. And that has led to a fairly significant drop of the wholesale price of PV modules.”

The cost of solar still isn’t on par with conventional energy, but Barbose says things are headed in that direction.

For The Environment Report, I’m Jennifer Guerra.

Related Links

Green Crime: Stealing Solar Panels

  • Solar panels were recently stolen off the community rec center in Carbondale, Colorado. The building is one of the greenest building in the state. (Photo courtesy of Lynn Burton)

Solar panels are expensive and
increasingly in demand. And now,
many communities are learning of
their solar array’s value the hard
way – they’re being stolen. Conrad
Wilson tells up about this new type
of “green crime:”

Transcript

Solar panels are expensive and
increasingly in demand. And now,
many communities are learning of
their solar array’s value the hard
way – they’re being stolen. Conrad
Wilson tells up about this new type
of “green crime:”

Solar panels are expensive and they’re increasingly in demand throughout the
world, so it sands to reason solar panels have become an attractive target for
criminals.

Recently, 30 panels were stolen from one of the “greenest” buildings in Colorado.
Ninety solar panels valued at $135,000 were swiped off a waste water treatment
plant outside San Francisco.

Monique Hannis is a spokesperson for the Solar Energy Industries Association.
She says, over the last year, solar theft has become a greater concern.

“It’s really just emerged as an issue we need to be watching, really, in the last
year. And the reason is, as solar becomes more prevalent and people
understand the value of the solar panels, it’s just like any other target for theft.”

Currently the group doesn’t track the crimes, but since more panels are
disappearing Hannis says they’ll likely start.

This type of “green crime” is nothing new in developing countries. Lori Stone is
international program manager for Solar Energy International. It’s a Colorado-
based nonprofit that trains students world-wide for careers in the solar industry.
Stone says in some cases the solar panels are gone just days after they’re
installed.

“If somebody really wants to steal solar panels, it’s pretty hard to keep them from
doing it. You know, there’s some new things that are coming out now with ways
to lock them and stuff, but they’re costly and so a lot of these developing country
systems, solar home systems, are pretty easy to take.”

In Kenya, last September, thieves unsuccessfully tried to swipe solar panels on
the house belonging to President Obama’s 86 year-old step-grandmother.

As the solar industry becomes more established, security is gearing up. It’s
becoming part of installing a solar array.

The Solar Industry’s Hannis says manufactures are making things harder for
thieves by adding tracking numbers as part of a recycling program.

“This same system could be used to at least track the location of panels, the
rightful owner of panels going forward, similar to a VIN number of a car.”

Hannis says consumers should be wary of purchasing panels from online sites
such as eBay or Craigslist because they could be buying stolen panels.

To ward off thefts, some go so far as to post night watchmen. Other larger arrays
are equipped with cameras and fences. But there’re also more affordable
options.

Bryce Campbell is president of Bryce Fastener Company, an Arizona based
business that specializes in a unique type of security bolt that acts like a key. The
bolts cost about two dollars per panel.

“The solar industry is starting to say, ‘Hey, what do we do?’ Ha ha. Are we going
to up security systems up here, cameras? Not really effective in places where
most of these solar arrays are laid out.”

Campbell says solar companies began contacting him about a year and a half
ago. Now he gets orders daily.

For Campbell, it makes sense considering people are parking thousands of
dollars on roof-tops and in fields.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Related Links

Stimulus Funds for Home Weatherization

  • A fan is sized to the front door so they can de-pressurize the house. This helps them see where air is escaping - and where insulation may be needed. (Photo by Julie Grant)

The government stimulus package
included billions of new dollars
for home weatherization programs.
The money is used to help low income
folks make their homes more energy
efficient. But some critics say
it’s not a good use of federal tax
dollars. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

The government stimulus package included billions of new dollars for home weatherization programs. The money is used to help low income folks make their homes more energy efficient. But some critics say it’s not a good use of federal tax dollars. Julie Grant reports:

Chris Graham spends his days checking the energy efficiency of people’s homes.

Today he’s at Sandra Richards’ in Mogodore, Ohio.

Graham: “Hi Sandra.”

Sandra: “How are ya?”

Graham: “Wonderful. And you?”

Sandra: “Better.”

Graham: “Better?”

Sandra is 55. Her house is clean and neat. She was a nurse for many years, but today she’s sitting on the couch, watching TV. A broken foot spiraled into problems with her knee and hip – and other health problems.

“I mean I’ve just had so many things go on in such a little time. I was working 12 hour days, and one month later, I couldn’t work at all.”

Sandra qualified for the home weatherization program because she doesn’t have much in the way of income anymore.

Chris Graham says he’s been to a lot of homes where people are far worse off. They can’t get around, they don’t have money coming in, and their houses get cold in the winter.

Graham heads to the basement.

“The first thing we have to make sure is that the heating unit is not in terrible, dilapidated shape. And that it does not have more than a specified amount of carbon monoxide in the flu gasses.”

He turns on the furnace and sticks a probe into the flu pipe.

(sound of a tester)

Grant: “Looks like a receipt came out.”

Graham: “It kind of is. It tells you exactly what was going on there.”

Looks like Sandra’s furnace is running pretty well. 81% efficiency.

But Graham sees evidence of carbon monoxide on her old water heater.

“It’s 17 years old and it just plain needs changed. It’s got burnt, scorch all over it. So we’re gonna do that.”

That could cost more than $1,000.

But the home weatherization program can afford it these days. The stimulus packaged included $5-billion for this kind of work – compared with less than a quarter of a billion dollars last year. The new money has to be spent within two years.

And some people think that’s just too much money – too fast. Leslie Paige is with a taxpayer watchdog group called Citizens Against Government Waste.

“There’s always a lot of waste in government spending anyway, but when you spend it quickly and there’s very little oversight, that’s almost a prescription for seeing a lot of that money go for waste and fraud and losing to abuse.”

That kind of criticism is shocking to David Shea. He’s director the Community Action Council of Portage County, Ohio – the organization that hires inspector Chris Graham.
The weatherization program has been around since 1976 and Shea says they have to report their spending in about a hundred different ways.

“It’s not like money is being thrown out at agencies and just say, ‘oh go out and do it.’ There are volumes and volumes of written regulations that have been around for a long time. We do so much sophisticated reporting; they know how every dollar is being spent. Always. Always.”

Shea’s office used to have one crew out weatherizing homes around the county. Since the stimulus money’s come in, he’s hired a second crew. But there are so many people wanting their services, the waiting list is still years long.

(sound of a fan)

Back at Sandra Richards’ house, inspector Chris Graham has sized a big fan into the front door. He’s depressurizing the house – so he can see where air is escaping. Graham says she’s going to need some doors sealed and new insulation in the attic.

He says Sandra will feel more comfortable, so she won’t need to turn up the heat in the winter. That means she’ll save on energy costs, and will use less fossil fuels.

That’s the whole idea of this project – to use less energy in the future, and to help millions of families that couldn’t afford to improve things on their own.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Nuclear Careers to Heat Up?

  • Until recently, there hasn’t been an order for a new nuclear plant in 30 years. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Some Senate Republicans want the climate
change bill to focus on building new nuclear
power plants. They’re calling for as many as
100 new plants in 20 years. But the industry
has been in decline for so many years now,
there’s concern there might not be enough
nuclear engineers to do the job. Julie Grant
reports:

Transcript

Some Senate Republicans want the climate
change bill to focus on building new nuclear
power plants. They’re calling for as many as
100 new plants in 20 years. But the industry
has been in decline for so many years now,
there’s concern there might not be enough
nuclear engineers to do the job. Julie Grant
reports:

There’s a lot of new interest in nuclear energy and technology these days. But there’s a problem.

The American Nuclear Society estimates they need 700 new nuclear engineers per year to keep up with growing the demand. It’s enough to give long-time nuclear supporters whip-lash. Until recently, things looked gloomy for the nuclear industry.

William Martin is chair of the nuclear engineering department at the University of Michigan. Ten years ago, he says no new plants were being designed or built. And he was having a tough time finding students.

“A student entering the field, what you could tell them was, ‘well, there’s a big focus on waste.’ That’s not hardly something that excites young students to enter the field.”

Martin remembers standing on the stage at graduation in the mid 1990s to call the names of his graduates. Other engineering departments had so many students, it took an hour to call them all. But Martin only had a few names to call.

“Our students trip across in about ten seconds.”

Lots of nuclear engineering programs didn’t make it through the down times. There are less than half the university programs today than there were 30 years ago.

Nuclear got a bad name starting in 1979 – with the meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. That was followed by the deadly nuclear accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine in the ‘80s.
By the early 1990s, President Clinton announced he would eliminate funding for nuclear power research and development.

Until recently, there hasn’t been an order for a new nuclear plant in 30 years.

Vaughn Gilbert is spokesman for Westinghouse Electric Company, which focuses on nuclear energy.


He says Westinghouse laid off a lot its engineers in the down years. A decade ago, those who were left were heading toward retirement. So, Gilbert says, the company started working with universities to train engineering students to run its aging nuclear plants.

“Simply because we knew we would need to attract new people to maintain the existing fleet and then also to work with our customers to decommission the plants as they came offline.”

Westinghouse and other nuclear companies started giving lots of money to maintain university programs.

And then, everyone started worrying about climate change – and looking for ways to make energy that wouldn’t create more greenhouse gases. Nuclear power has started making a comeback.

Gilbert says new plants are in the works again – and Westinghouse needs engineers. The company’s designs will be used in six new U.S. plants.

The timing is pretty good for 25 year old Nick Touran. He’s a PhD student in nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan. He knows there’s a negative stigma to nuclear power – because he’s asked people about it.

“I just say, ‘so what do you think about nuclear power?’ Just to passersby on the street. And one person said, ‘I only think one thing – no, no, no, no, no.’”

But Touran says the negative stuff mostly comes from older people. When Three Mile Island melted-down, Touran wasn’t even born yet. He says most people his age are much more accepting of nuclear power.

“It’s the people who remember Three Mile Island and remember Chernobyl and remember World War II, who have all these very negative associations with nuclear weapons and Soviet reactors that were built incredibly wrong. And stuff like that.”

Touran says much of his generation just sees a power source that doesn’t create greenhouse gases.

Of course, there are greenhouse gases created in the process of manufacturing nuclear fuel rods. And then there’s that pesky problem of that spent nuclear waste. There’s still no permanent place to dump it.

Touran says he started studying nuclear power because he was amazed by it. But as the number of students in his department grows, he says more are choosing nuclear because it’s a smart career choice.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Your Power Bill in the Future

  • The Energy Information Administration says power bills could also fluctuate based on whether we develop cheap low-carbon coal technology. (Photo source: Frank C. Muller at Wikimedia Commons)

The price we pay for power in the
future will depend on the kind of
power plants we invest in. That’s
according to a report that examines
proposed climate change regulations.
Shawn Allee has more:

Transcript

The price we pay for power in the
future will depend on the kind of
power plants we invest in. That’s
according to a report that examines
proposed climate change regulations.
Shawn Allee has more:

The Energy Information Administration is the federal government’s crystal ball when it comes to energy policy.

The EIA looked at the House version of a big climate change bill. The Senate takes it up next month.

Forecast director John Conti says new regulations could cost each household between $12 and $227 more each year within a decade.

Conti says there’s a range because it’s not exactly clear how much it’ll cost to switch to low-carbon power sources, like nuclear.

“For most technologies, you have a good idea of how much they’re going to cost. Of course, we haven’t built a nuclear plant in twenty or so years and, as a result, there’re varying cost estimates and people can debate, I think, for a large extent, until that first plant is indeed built.”

Conti says power bills could also fluctuate based on whether we develop cheap low-carbon coal technology.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Grappling With the Grid

  • Net metering is when people use rooftop solar or wind power to generate electricity, and then sell the extra back to the power companies (Photo courtesy of Sandia National Laboratories)

As a climate change bill works its way

through Congress, businesses are bracing

for change to cleaner energy. Lester Graham

reports some homeowners are thinking about

generating their own clean electricity:

Transcript

As a climate change bill works its way

through Congress, businesses are bracing

for change to cleaner energy. Lester Graham

reports some homeowners are thinking about

generating their own clean electricity:

People like the idea of using rooftop solar or wind power to generate the electricity and selling extra back to the power companies. It’s called net metering.

But some state regulations don’t allow it.

James Rose is the Senior Policy Analyst for the Network for New Energy Choices. He says these days more states are smoothing the way for net metering.

“It started out looking like a very big patchwork quilt – where some states are doing well, other states aren’t doing well, other states aren’t doing anything – to more of a regional mosaic, now where we see, like, the northeastern states in the United States to really improve their net metering. States out West such as Colorado and California are leading the way.”

Some power companies block net metering where they can.

But Rose says as lawmakers watch neighboring states implement net metering, and then embrace the idea for their own states.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Interview: Energy Innovation

  • European consumers have been quicker to adopt new technologies, like hybrids and efficient diesel cars. Energy Discovery -Innovation Institutes might change that. (Photo by Michael Pereckas, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Making the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy will be a long-term, expensive effort. But, there is the opportunity for jobs, energy independence and reducing the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. This week a report from the Brookings Institution proposes a way to help get us there: Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes. These institutes would take a big picture view of the change and help researchers and businesses avoid pitfalls and false starts along the way. Lester Graham spoke with a supporter of the idea, Gary Was. He’s the Director the Phoenix Energy Institute at the University of Michigan:

Transcript

Making the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy will be a long-term, expensive effort. But, there is the opportunity for jobs, energy independence and reducing the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. This week a report from the Brookings Institution proposes a way to help get us there: Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes. These institutes would take a big picture view of the change and help researchers and businesses avoid pitfalls and false starts along the way. Lester Graham spoke with a supporter of the idea, Gary Was. He’s the Director the Phoenix Energy Institute at the University of Michigan:

Gary Was: Energy is a very complex topic. It’s a social issue as much as it is a
technological issue. In addition to the technological challenges of coming up with
new energy sources and proving energy efficiency, we also have a lot of social issues
involved as well. The business sector is heavily involved. Economics is a big issue.
Social behavior and social preferences are big factors in our energy use patterns and
our habits.

Lester Graham: Give me an example of that.

Was: Well, one example is plug-in hybrid electrics. There’s a lot of questions to
how these plug-in hybrids are going to function, and whether they’ll be successful. A
lot of that depends upon people’s preferences. The idea of plugging in, when you
can plug in, how long you have to plug in, how complicated or how difficult it is –
can make a big difference. We’ve seen examples of that with diesel. In Europe, half
the cars are diesel powered. We have the same technology here. There are no diesel
powered cars here. It’s a social issue, not a technological issue.

Graham: Steven Chu, the new Energy Secretary, has spent a good deal of his career
in research. What do you expect his reaction will be to your suggestion of tying
together this energy research?

Was: I think it will be quite positive. Dr. Chu has a background both in the
academic setting as well as in the National Laboratories, and I think he appreciates
well the capabilities of each institution. The meat of this whole proposal, and of this
whole concept, is that the National Laboratories alone, or universities alone, or
industry alone – the three principal research institutions in the US – really aren’t
prepared to handle a challenge of this breadth, and depth, and complexity. And that
we need a new paradigm. We need a new way to be able to take basic science,
accelerate it into development, and push it through technology, transfer it to the
private sector. None of these institutions alone can do that really highly successfully.

Graham: What is this going to do require? Is this government money to get this
launched? Is this going to be another scientific layer of bureaucracy when we get
finished? How do you handle this to make sure it’s effective?

Was: One of the problems we have with energy in the country is that, overall,
regardless of these institutes, this institute concept, its terribly underfunded – in terms
of its comparison to the impact on the economy. The energy business is a 1.5 trillion
dollar business in the US. It’s comparable to healthcare. In healthcare, there is
approximately ten times the amount of federal funds going into research than there is
in energy. So in comparison to the impacts on our lives, it’s underfunded by almost
a factor of ten.

Graham: If we’re to invest in these kinds of institutes, and invest in more research
into energy and how we use it, what kind of return might we see on our tax dollars
that we shovel over to you guys?

Was: Well, that’s a very good question. These discovery institutes, these will be
regionally situated, and each one might be on the order of 200 million dollars a year
funding, and so the entire price tag would be maybe 5 billion dollars. So what do
you get for 5 billion dollars? We expect that the transformation will be much more
rapid, it will be with fewer false starts, and left turns, or dead ends, and it will be
much more efficient than we’re able to do right now. Right now, the system is such
that technology advancements tend to sort of diffuse through society in an uncharted
and undirected way. The objective here is to sharpen that diffusion so that we can
pull these technologies out, translate them into useful products much more quickly.

Graham: Gary Was is the director of the Phoenix Energy Institute at the University
of Michigan. Thanks for coming in.

Was: Thanks very much.

Related Links