Do We Need a Manhattan/Apollo Project to Solve the Energy/Climate Problem?
A panel discussion with Rad Byerly, CIRES Center for Science and Technology Policy Research; Craig Cox, Interwest Energy Alliance; Pete Geddes, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment; Chuck Kutscher, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and Gregory Nemet, La Follette School of Public A airs and Nelson Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Moderator: Paul Komor, CU Renewable and Sustainable Energy Initiative.
Paul Komor opened the discussion with a brief overview of three of the most significant aspects of the climate and energy challenge. His points as follows:
1. The challenge is enormous. In the U.S., a 50-85% reduction in CO2 output is needed by 2050.
2. Energy is the primary culprit (larger than waste, methane, etc). More than 80% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is energy-related CO2.
3. There are sharp disagreements over what is more important: new energy technologies (research and development), or better use of what we already have (Deployment and efficiency of existing technologies).
The panelists unanimously agreed that in order to address the current global energy and climate problem, it is imperative that the U.S. allocates a significant amount of human and financial capital to the issue. They were also careful to point out that the Manhattan and Apollo projects culminated in a finite number of products/events. The climate problem operates on entirely different scales of time and outcomes, in that it is a global problem with an infinite time frame.
Greg Nemet spoke strongly about the need for better deployment of existing technologies. He immediately pointed to the connection between government guidance and citizen involvement. He argued that deployment comes from adoption decisions, and that the general public is dependent on government to provide incentives to make adoption decisions. He pointed out that ‘new technologies’ such as fuel cells, are not actually new, they are just underutilized and not yet available to the market. Greg made a convincing argument that instead of going in search of new technologies that may or may not be more effective than the technologies we have today, research and development should instead be focused on making existing technologies accessible to everyone.
Pete Geddes took a different approach to the problem, and called for the need of increased support of human innovation. He argued that the path to technology innovation and breakthroughs is something that the government does not do well. He used FEMA and TSA as examples of dysfunctional government bodies that failed to address serious issues. Pete gave strong support for the market’s ability to blossom new, or new forms of energy technologies. He called the market “a discovery process… capable of capturing diffused information.” Information that Pete believes will lead to effective energy solutions.
Chuck Kutscher showed a few fascinating slides during his discussion. One slide in particular illustrated above, shows the potential U.S. carbon reductions in 2030 from energy efficiency and renewable technologies and paths to achieve reductions of 60% and 80% below today’s emissions value by 2050.
What strikes me about the figure is the dominance of the dark blue energy efficiency section. Chuck then attached a few numbers to figure. He quoted the combined cost of research and development into renewable energy technologies would total approximately $26 billion per year. He then quoted the cost savings of 100% citizen energy efficiency (behavior changes as well as use of current technologies) at $-108 billion per year. To see the extent to which changes in human behavior will determine our ability to address energy problems is both encouraging as well as daunting. The model frames the energy/climate problem as a human problem. Without increased efficiency, which will result from changes in human behavior, values, and decision-making, investing in renewable technologies will fail to address energy and climate issues.
Chuck then expanded his economic model to the global scale. He stated that the cost of addressing climate change on an international scale would total 1% of global GDP, while the cost of NOT acting to address climate change would cost between 5-20% of global GDP. He gave damage from sea levels risings and severe weather episodes, and food, water and health crises as a few sources of the inaction costs. It is models like these that effectively illustrate not only the immediacy of the energy/climate problem, but also the range of costs that our generation and future generations will incur.
A panel discussion with Rad Byerly, CIRES Center for Science and Technology Policy Research; Craig Cox, Interwest Energy Alliance; Pete Geddes, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment; Chuck Kutscher, National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and Gregory Nemet, La Follette School of Public A airs and Nelson Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Moderator: Paul Komor, CU Renewable and Sustainable Energy Initiative.
Paul Komor opened the discussion with a brief overview of three of the most significant aspects of the climate and energy challenge. His points as follows:
1. The challenge is enormous. In the U.S., a 50-85% reduction in CO2 output is needed by 2050.
2. Energy is the primary culprit (larger than waste, methane, etc). More than 80% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is energy-related CO2.
3. There are sharp disagreements over what is more important: new energy technologies (research and development), or better use of what we already have (Deployment and efficiency of existing technologies).
The panelists unanimously agreed that in order to address the current global energy and climate problem, it is imperative that the U.S. allocates a significant amount of human and financial capital to the issue. They were also careful to point out that the Manhattan and Apollo projects culminated in a finite number of products/events. The climate problem operates on entirely different scales of time and outcomes, in that it is a global problem with an infinite time frame.
Greg Nemet spoke strongly about the need for better deployment of existing technologies. He immediately pointed to the connection between government guidance and citizen involvement. He argued that deployment comes from adoption decisions, and that the general public is dependent on government to provide incentives to make adoption decisions. He pointed out that ‘new technologies’ such as fuel cells, are not actually new, they are just underutilized and not yet available to the market. Greg made a convincing argument that instead of going in search of new technologies that may or may not be more effective than the technologies we have today, research and development should instead be focused on making existing technologies accessible to everyone.
Pete Geddes took a different approach to the problem, and called for the need of increased support of human innovation. He argued that the path to technology innovation and breakthroughs is something that the government does not do well. He used FEMA and TSA as examples of dysfunctional government bodies that failed to address serious issues. Pete gave strong support for the market’s ability to blossom new, or new forms of energy technologies. He called the market “a discovery process… capable of capturing diffused information.” Information that Pete believes will lead to effective energy solutions.
Chuck Kutscher showed a few fascinating slides during his discussion. One slide in particular illustrated above, shows the potential U.S. carbon reductions in 2030 from energy efficiency and renewable technologies and paths to achieve reductions of 60% and 80% below today’s emissions value by 2050.
What strikes me about the figure is the dominance of the dark blue energy efficiency section. Chuck then attached a few numbers to figure. He quoted the combined cost of research and development into renewable energy technologies would total approximately $26 billion per year. He then quoted the cost savings of 100% citizen energy efficiency (behavior changes as well as use of current technologies) at $-108 billion per year. To see the extent to which changes in human behavior will determine our ability to address energy problems is both encouraging as well as daunting. The model frames the energy/climate problem as a human problem. Without increased efficiency, which will result from changes in human behavior, values, and decision-making, investing in renewable technologies will fail to address energy and climate issues.
Chuck then expanded his economic model to the global scale. He stated that the cost of addressing climate change on an international scale would total 1% of global GDP, while the cost of NOT acting to address climate change would cost between 5-20% of global GDP. He gave damage from sea levels risings and severe weather episodes, and food, water and health crises as a few sources of the inaction costs. It is models like these that effectively illustrate not only the immediacy of the energy/climate problem, but also the range of costs that our generation and future generations will incur.
