U.S. should launch a national energy innovation mission to reach climate goals, says report

Posted: September 17, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, Energy, ideology, innovation
Tags: ,


If the U.S or anywhere else thinks it needs to spend a fortune on energy innovation to meet ‘critical needs’, which may or may not deliver anything useful, what does that say about existing technologies like wind and solar power? This report suggests they’re at least 50% short of reaching the pie-in-the-sky targets of climate alarmist dreamers with existing (zero emission) technology, so they must now try to invent their way out of trouble with what they call ‘advanced energy’. Good luck with that, if they still intend to shun nuclear power. Will the climate notice anyway, whatever they end up doing?
– – –
Research released today recommends that the U.S. federal government triple its annual investment in energy innovation over the next five years to speed clean energy transitions around the world and build advanced energy industries at home, says TechXplore.

The Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia SIPA released Energizing America: A Roadmap to Launch a National Energy Innovation Mission, a detailed guide for federal policymakers to raise energy innovation as a core national priority.

Co-authored with scholars from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), Energizing America is the first in a series of volumes to kickstart a U.S. federal clean energy innovation policy agenda.

Offering a detailed roadmap for the next presidential administration and Congress, the volume released today calls for the federal government to dramatically increase federal funding for energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) across ten Technology Pillars that represent critical needs to decarbonize the global economy.

John Kerry, 68th U.S. Secretary of State, endorsed Energizing America as, “A plan to make the U.S. the world leader in clean energy innovation and rise to an existential challenge—creating exciting new jobs along the way.”

The federal government currently invests less than $9 billion per year on energy innovation, less than a quarter of what it invests in health innovation and less than a tenth of what it invests in defense innovation. Raising annual federal investment to $25 billion by 2025, can jumpstart private innovation and sustain one million jobs over the long run, the authors conclude.

Varun Sivaram, the lead author of the roadmap said, “Clean energy innovation is central to combating climate change—and to positioning the United States to compete globally in growing cleantech markets. As the IEA warns, half of the emissions reductions needed to swiftly reach net-zero emissions must come from immature technologies that haven’t yet reached markets.”

The volume explains why energy innovation is a critical national priority and synthesizes lessons from previous federal funding increases for space, health, and defense funding to create detailed recommendations for ramping up energy innovation funding across five years.

Full article here.

Comments
  1. pochas94 says:

    “positioning the United States to compete globally in growing cleantech markets”
    Like building a gazebo in your back yard. Nice to look at but really kinda useless.

  2. JB says:

    Bottomless pockets
    Awaiting the ricochet from the $3T bailout last Spring.

    “Historical observation: ‘There is no idea so insane, laughable, vile, or dangerous that an academic won’t buy into it.’”–Mark T Appeared elsewhere on this blog

    “If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” –Halton Arp

    An institution of higher learning today is an oxymoron. The academics have boxed themselves into a corner. As usual.

  3. Kip Hansen says:

    They do support nuclear, but a lot of namby-pamby nonsense as well. They are, of course, just an advocacy group, seeking more money for their specialty — energy innovation.

    That said, OF COURSE the governments of the world should seek better ways of creating electricity and powering industry — it is silly that humans are still “burning stuff” for heat enwrgy.

    By bet is on Small Modular Reactors, already in production and being rolled out as you read this.

  4. dscott says:

    NO, and heck NO. These people, crony capitalists, are just looking for more tax dollars to waste. Let private enterprise develop a cost effective, sustainable power generator…like this one someone already paid for:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission Approves First Domestic Small Commercial Reactor
    New nuclear reactors are important for clean power, but are hindered by intense regulatory schemes.

    https://reason.com/2020/09/10/nuclear-regulatory-commission-approves-first-domestic-small-commercial-nuclear-reactor/

  5. oldbrew says:

    Raising annual federal investment to $25 billion by 2025, can jumpstart private innovation and sustain one million jobs over the long run, the authors conclude.

    This type of idea used to be called a job creation scheme. What would they expect the $25 bn to deliver that might be of any practical use or value?

  6. Gamecock says:

    For the forty-eleventh time, the successful project starts with an idea, which is developed into a plausible implementation, then pitched to get funding.

    They are endeavoring to authorize funding, without any ideas. This is professional malfeasance on a colossal scale.

    Anyone with a decent energy idea can get funding. Funding is absolutely not a limiting factor. Government funding is completely unnecessary, hence, obvious fraud. Billions for their friends.

    ‘Raising annual federal investment to $25 billion by 2025, can jumpstart private innovation and sustain one million jobs over the long run, the authors conclude.’

    As if no one has done anything in the last 30 years. “If we had just spent a little more.”

    The theory being that if you spend enough money you can overcome the laws of physics. $9B a year isn’t getting it done.

    And jobs are a cost, not a benefit. ‘One million jobs over the long run,’ producing nothing. At $75k per annum per job, that’s $75B a year of cost.

    Whose name is on this? ‘The Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia SIPA.’ And ‘Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.’ Any government money to them should be shut off immediately.

    BWTM. There should be an immediate audit of what the $9B is being spent on.

    If you want Congress to authorize funding, bring them developed ideas. And an explanation for why if it is such a good idea it hasn’t already been funded.

  7. gbaikie says:

    –Gamecock says:
    September 17, 2020 at 9:13 pm
    For the forty-eleventh time, the successful project starts with an idea, which is developed into a plausible implementation, then pitched to get funding.–

    How about methane hydrate mining in the ocean.
    It seems one would need to know where is best place in the world to mine methane hydrates in the ocean.
    Is such information available? A google search doesn’t seem to give answer.
    So, I would exploration of ocean for best place to mine methane hydrates, would a starting point.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Gamecock – ‘The theory being that if you spend enough money you can overcome the laws of physics.’

    One has to wonder if they (The Center on Global Energy Policy) even know there are such laws.

  9. tom0mason says:

    The Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia SIPA. & Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, from evidence of this report, are soviet style big government advocates.

  10. Climate Heretic says:

    Molten Salt Reactors. (Thorium based). Problem solved.

    Regards
    Climate Heretic

  11. ivan says:

    Oh, oh, the wackademics are getting restless, must be time to replace their cars again.

    I think we can take it as fact that their ivory tower institutions will NOT be contributing any funds to this stupidity but one has to wonder just why they think the taxpayers should do so when they wont.

  12. Gamecock says:

    “Molten Salt Reactors. (Thorium based).”

    You are running 60 years behind reality.

  13. Climate Heretic says:

    @Gamecock

    You are ignorant of what is going on in regards to Molten Salt Reactor research. Just an example, Indonesia and India are heading towards commercialization:

    1) https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsindonesia-signs-mou-on-molten-salt-reactor-8055819
    2) https://nuclear-news.net/category/2-world/asia/india-asia/

    Let me give you a heads up of what is going to happen.

    Oil, Gas and Coal will eventually ‘run out’. LWR ie PWR or BWR have several inherent problems. These reactors are inefficient in regards to the fuel cycle and nuclear waste problem. Molten salt reactors do not have these problems (albeit a small one for waste).

    Hence over time Molten Salt Reactors will come into more use.

    As for your, “You are running 60 years behind reality.” an ad hominem attack. You should have stated pros and cons on the use of MSR’s.

    Regards
    Climate Heretic

  14. oldbrew says:

    The delusion of thorium
    Posted on November 3, 2019

    The U.S. tried for 50 years to create thorium reactors, without success. Four commercial thorium reactors were constructed, all of which failed. And because of the complexity of problems listed below, thorium reactors are far more expensive than uranium fueled reactors.

    https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2019/11/03/the-delusion-of-thorium/

  15. Climate Heretic says:

    @oldbrew

    Helen Caldicott, the author of, “the delusion of thorium.” is a known anti nuclear activist.[1] Therefore, what she says in regards to nuclear, I will take with a grain of salt and verify myself to the veracity of what she says in regards to nuclear statements.

    Lets analyse that particular paragraph that you picked out.

    1) “The U.S. tried for 50 years to create thorium reactors” False. Molten Salt Rector research was basically shut down in 1973.[2][3]

    2) “Four commercial thorium reactors were constructed, all of which failed.” False. My question is what are the names of these reactors? No commercial thorium reactors have ever been built. In addition ‘these reactors’ do not have any information in regards to where, when and how they were built.

    3) “And because of the complexity of problems listed below, thorium reactors are far more expensive than uranium fueled reactors.” This statement cannot verified one way or another at this moment in time. However they would seem to be cheaper on the face of it, because of the size and the reactor being designed in Indonesia.

    Therefore the article you mentioned is just a puff piece or a bull shit article and should be taken with a grain of salt.

    The pros of molten salt reactors outweigh any cons. My statement in regards to power still stands. Fossil fuels will run out. LWR will dwindle in numbers and Molten Salt Reactors will become the dominant power for centuries to come.

    Regards
    Climate Heretic

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Caldicott
    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
    [3] https://energyfromthorium.com/2019/12/24/msre-shutdown-50th/

  16. Climate Heretic says:

    My reply to oldbrew has not been posted?

    Regards
    Climate Heretic

    [mod] retrieved from spam bin, likely due to number of links

  17. oldbrew says:

    World Nuclear Association: Molten Salt Reactors(Updated December 2018)

    Molten salt reactors operated in the 1960s.
    They are seen as a promising technology today principally as a thorium fuel cycle prospect or for using spent LWR fuel.
    A variety of designs is being developed, some as fast neutron types.
    Global research is currently led by China.
    Some have solid fuel similar to HTR fuel, others have fuel dissolved in the molten salt coolant.

    https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx
    – – –
    After 60 years they are still at the research stage.

  18. Climate Heretic says:

    @oldbrew

    I wonder why they are still at the research stage? Two reasons:

    1) President Nixon gave the nod to California to build LWR, that is job for the boys. [1]
    2) Sodium cooled faster reactors as the only national program. [2]

    There are other reasons, but these are the main ones why MSR research died. Therefore research was delayed for 40 odd years and the last 20 years research has been picked up. That is why research is still ongoing in regards to Molten Salt Reactors.

    Anyway, Most of the technology to build and maintain MSR reactors exists today. Politics, money and anti nuclear are the reasons why MSR’s are not being built

    Regards
    Climate Heretic

    [1] http://transcriptvids.com/v/bbyr7jZOllI.html
    [2] https://atomicinsights.com/kirk-sorensen-why-didnt-molten-salt-thorium-reactors-succeed-the-first-time/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s