Solution by Lunch (in 2030)

Sorry I am jumping the shark so early in the life of this blog. But I must rant about how we solve problems. Or rather, the lack of clear vision on how we solve problems.

I feel that government planning and funding is very disjointed. We have the best researchers in the world, just not a clear enough picture of just what innovation we are asking them to provide to solve the big picture problems.

This rant stems from the fact that alternative fuel technologies aren't being given the proportional attention for their relative potential to solve the energy security problem. What we need is a big consensus study much like what they do in the Copenhagen Consensus studies.

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

I am a big fan of Lomborg. For one, he is a big proponent of research. He says (or more accurately he cites others that say) that $1 of R&D gives $11 of payout in the end.

But in spending this money, DOE needs to be clear about what the desired outcomes should be so researchers have clear goals when they go out and innovate. But then most importantly, the overall plan must link all these outcomes into a scenario that achieves our goals at a very high level. Many DOE programs sound great all by themselves I guess. But none have done more than taking incremental pot shots at the mammoth problem of energy security. As evidence, the problem is still no more solved then it was back in the days of the Carter administration.

Let me give you an example of a linked, long-term, big-picture energy roadmap:

Supply: Phase the grid from fossil to renewables. But only at a pace that doesn’t break the bank. Invest the research into renewables (better wind and solar). But you are asking engineers to make things less expensive, what if this never happens (fuel cells come to mind).  We already HAVE solar and wind, just not COST-EFFECTIVE solar and wind. If initial installation costs can't be solved by engineering, then what if the total cost savings comes from longevity - engineering longevity is something engineers can do! That is, install, then have little or no maintenance costs for the next 30-50 years, all the while generating valuable electricity.

Policy: Government grants are wasteful. They assume the stuff is expensive, and so with no price signals pressuring lower costs, governments get what they pay for: wasteful renewable energy. However, what if governments bridge the gap between savings now and savings 30-50 years from now? Then government input is highly leveraged and less wasteful. Companies will not invest in technologies that pay out only after 30-50 years. So what if the government gives low-interest loans, but gets repayment over very long time-scales in exchange for private investment getting paid on more conventional time-scales?  The goal is to get companies to install robust, and long-life renewable generators. Hopefully in the long run, the business case no longer needs assistance. If not, then we need innovation from another renewable generating technologies. 

Demand: Find a suitable energy carrier for transportation that is supplied by the grid or by other renewables. Energy carrier? That's how transportation runs, it's what we have been doing all along, right? But I am looking for a rechargeable substance, probably a liquid. If we can make a fuel that uses the renewable supply - good. If we can develop a liquid electrochemical energy carrier, then we can have all the transient, renewable, energy generators we want and couple these two energy systems together. The "recharge" of the liquid energy carrier can be done regionally within grid networks harmoniously with grid demand. Furthermore, design some of the energy carrier recharging plants to respond very quickly to hourly changes in demand. The remaining "smartgrid" connected energy consumers can do the second and ms time scale grid load leveling. No need for storage in our renewable grid - what many believe to be the holy grail of smart grid. I say "Bah" on storage. I say "use", don’t "store"

As I said, don’t ask an engineer if something can be done. Ask an economist if something makes dollars and sense to do it in the first place. (this is basically what happened with fuel cells, no doubt the engineers did a remarkable job, but it never made sense, in the big picture)

And at the high level, fuel cells are a good idea. But not the hydrogen part of it, it was the refuel-able energy carrier part that was the attractive past. We just have to keep looking for better energy carriers, not better PEM membranes or higher-pressure tanks, or all the other myopic visions I see at the merit reviews...