Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Special Reports

See All Biofuels Special Reports »
« Back 1 [2]

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Alternative-Energy Spending Fizzles Out

Continued from page 1

By Kevin Bullis
smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

One concern is that the pipeline from basic research to an affordable commercial technology is decades long: if new research isn't currently feeding this pipeline, it could run dry just when growing energy demand worldwide means that new products are needed more than ever. "If the government research funding is being squeezed significantly, it tends to hit the beginning of the pipeline, which to a certain extent you don't see for a few years," Moniz says. "But you will see it down the road. We'll be paying the price."

"We've lulled ourselves into thinking we're the leading country in renewable-energy technology because we were the early leader," Eckhart says. "But we've gotten old, and soft, and underfunded. We are simply not competitive in the world market anymore." Indeed, he says that countries like Germany, Japan, China, and India are now the primary manufacturers of technologies that were originally developed with U.S. funding. "Of the largest ten wind-turbine manufacturers, the only U.S. company is GE," Eckhart says. "Nine of the ten are non-U.S. companies. Of the largest ten solar-cell manufacturers in the world, none are U.S. companies."

Perhaps more important in the short term than funding energy research is changing government policy, say some experts. Technology exists today that can reduce emissions from power plants and cut petroleum use, but it is not being put to use. If a price were put on carbon emissions, Moniz says, "that would be a huge influence almost immediately in terms of what existing technologies industry deploys."

To develop carbon-free sources of energy and reduce petroleum dependence, Romm says the United States needs a program on the same scale--relative to GDP--as the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program. It would mean spending tens of billions of dollars on basic and applied research, and commercialization of existing technologies. "We have to go whole hog with the technologies that we have now," Romm says. "At the same time, we have to develop new technologies so that after we've spent 20 years deploying what we have, we have another go-around of technologies."
« Back 1 [2]

Tags

biomass energy nulcear renewable energy solar

Comments

  • Where's the Suprise Here?
    mkogrady on 01/04/2007 at 12:59 PM
    Posts:
    118
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Our Energy Strategists are clueless. When they talk about policies they generally fail to recognize the impact to other aspects to U.S. interests like Employment. How many new companies and jobs would be created if some type of "reset" button was pushed that allowed us to move forward with innovative products and services - aside from getting weaned off Big-Oil.

    Farmers would grow stuff and not need as much subsidation. Moonshiners would convert it to fuel, automakers and other engine technologies would take off to adapt to the new fuels, laid off autoworkers and idled factories can build new machinery useful in wind farms (a transmission is a transmission whether it's for a car or windmill). Nuclear Energy and storage techniques would drive more jobs.

    FDR had the New Deal - looks like we're all born too late or the Feds and Congress have failed to read their own history.

    When is reasonably priced oil supposed to run out - 2017?  When should we fire our current Policymakers and Government Leadership - 2008 when its going to be too late? Our global competitors aren't waiting, why are we?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Where's the Suprise Here?
      Ecowriter on 01/06/2007 at 1:42 AM
      Posts:
      7
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      I agree.  This reminds me of when Detroit said that if it had to include basic safety features--such as air bags and seatbelts--it would RUIN the industry.  Turned out that most people WANTED these features, but the big American automakers were too clueless to realize it.

      NOW, they say that not enough Americans care about fuel economy to make cares that conserve fuel and/or run on alternative fuels such as hydrogen or electricity. So even though there are plenty of companies with prototypical hydrogen cars (Ecotality at www.ecotality.com, for example, or Hy Fuels), they don't think anyone else will want them.  The last time they didn't think anyone cared about fuel economy was in the 1970s, and it gave the Japanese manufacturers the toehold they needed to get into the U.S. market in a BIG way.  Before that, NOBODY drove Japanese cars, which were perceived as low-quality tin cans on wheels until then .

      Now, Toyota and Honda are leading the charge toward hybrids, and where are our big three?  Those who can't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      Lisa Hart
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • we need to complain
    learner on 01/04/2007 at 4:19 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
      With this article Americans must voice our displeasure. Politicians from the oil embargo of the 1970`s have been promising us more research into oil alternatives. Its time that they make real their promises. There are easy accessible sites to these people.Its time for us to act.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: we need to complain
      wmerck on 01/08/2007 at 10:58 AM
      Posts:
      4
      Having had similar frustrations, I once asked Rep. Barney Frank what is the best way for "us" to make our voices heard in D.C. He said it is surprisingly simple: write a concise, letter (not an email) to your Rep., which reflects your knowledge of the topic, and recognizes any effort the Rep. may have already made. Be specific. Don't ask for the world, ask him to vote yes or no on Bill # so-and-so. If you show you have done some homework, they really do take it seriously.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • disappointment regarding funding for alternative energy
    dkmeller on 01/05/2007 at 5:07 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Why should the government (least of all as current staffed) fund alternative (and probably better) sources of energy? After all, existing Hydrocarbon fuel producers, transporters and refiners pay good money for the politicians and regulators whom they wish to buy, and these people NEED a place to go after they retire, (or get out of jail). Lucrative Corporate and Trade Union directorships are available to officials who cooperate.

    Nuclear power after all, is another White Elephant, who needs taxpayer funding badly, far more than alternative energy sources. It is inherently highly capitalized, highly centralized, and easily controllable through politics.

    If you were a Congressman, Presidential official,or Governor, would YOU want energy sources which are so decentralized and autonomous that you and your office wouldn't even be needed when things went wrong? To ask the question is to answer it!

    The faults of existing energy technology and economics cited by critics are often true enough, but they don't give the funding masters (and mistresses) any real reason to change their funding priorities, and indeed, are good reasons for them to maintain the defective status quo.

    Funding alternative technology--Why explore Low Temperature Nuclear Reactions and Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (so-called "cold fusion")--when, as it had for the last 40 years? Hot fusion research allows you and your fellow politicians to spend Billions of $$$ to favored Universities and tax-exempt foundations, and their client corporations, allowing you and yours more access to the perks outlined above; along with the chance to promise voters that because a process powers the sun, it will be a useful, humane, and profitable technology on Earth in everyone's lifetime.

    I think that we have to do better than expect government, its funding, its politics, and its controls and corruption to solve our society's energy problems. I don't think that it can be any more successful than they were in building "democracy" in Afghanistan and Iraq!!

    If better, sustainable, and environment-friendly energy is ever to be available, people will have to do it ourselves. To do this ourselves, we need to keep our own money, not to have it drained away to feed those vagabonds.

    Taxes and spending imposed by those Corporate/ Bureaucratic parasites and the governments they own will have to be drastically reduced as soon as possible. 

    PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
    David K. Meller
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • human nature
    zig158 on 01/06/2007 at 3:51 AM
    Posts:
    64
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    Who wasn’t expecting this? Every one knows that once the immediate crisis is over people loose interest. It is human nature. If you are a researcher depending on this funding don’t fret, the next crisis is just a few years away. Funding will then spike, and begin to taper off again.

    I personally believe that the next crisis will be caused by a war that makes the Iraq incident look like a little catfight. If this is the case it will become a matter of security, and that will open up some of those strategic R&D dollars.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • At least private VC funding is helping
    Ecowriter on 01/07/2007 at 6:32 PM
    Posts:
    7
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    Our government might be no help, but this was quite a year for private funding of alternative energy, including hydrogen, and the trend is expected to continue.  See, for example, http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/2007-alternative-energy-investments/ and http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6128378.html.  Some companies, such as Alchemy (now Ecotality) are finally getting the money they need to bring good ideas to the marketplace, where we can only hope that the best of them will prosper.

    At least not EVERYBODY is cluesless about the power of such technologies.

    Lisa Hart
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: At least private VC funding is helping
      protn7 on 01/26/2007 at 7:39 PM
      Posts:
      39
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
      Lisa, What's ecotopia? Can you give me your number? I'm the executive of a small high tech firm called Vulvox. My e-mail address is protn7@att.net

      http://vulvoxnanobio.com
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: At least private VC funding is helping
      webfuel on 08/31/2008 at 9:49 AM
      Posts:
      1
      We Specialize in Alternative Energy Funding. Not only has the US Gov Slowed down in funding good Alternative Energy projects but with the current housing crises the Banks are in no position to even look at these.
      www.CreativeCommercialCapital.com is currently funding the largest Wind Farm Project in the US as well as a multiple of biofuel and Solar projects. In 08 the Funding requests more than doubled for Alternative Energy Ideas and projects. Its a bit of a transformation from the traditional Commercial Loans but as we move into the future we will see more Alternative Energy ideas and projects that will need funding.
      Thanks
      Kent
      919-559-9867
      www.creativecommercialcapital.com
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Energy Saving lamp
    ablamp on 05/28/2007 at 9:28 AM
    Posts:
    5
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    China Manufacturer of high quality Energy Saving Compact Fluorescent light bulbs ( CFLs ),LED Replacement Lamps,Halogen Lamps,Fluorescent tubes.
    http://www.ablamp.com
    info@ablamp.com
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Problems
    jjddpp on 05/01/2008 at 11:46 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Private alternative energy companies confuse me. To me it seems they are half good and half bad.  Whenever they come out with a good idea, it seems to disappear.  Seems like the Oil companies buy the patent rights and you never hear from the idea again. If you think about it, the idea for the internal combustion engine really hasn't changed for a long time.  Before that, all these great ideas came up, like steam engines, until the oil dependent design.  Only improvement have been based upon the same idea. Technology has advanced  exponentially since then so why haven't there been any new ones.  The only alternative energy to me seems like it would have to be funded by the government.  They would be less prone to sell out the idea to the big Oil companies.  

    Check out this great link to explain my case. Read the comments at the bottom of the page.

    http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-cars/larsen-radax-hydrogen-internal-combustion-engine-video/
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • The new Toyota FCHV drive north of the earth
    payk on 09/17/2008 at 9:02 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Honda has announced that mass production of fuel cell vehicles “clarity” is a feeling of future automotive debut in style. F1 race, similar to rival Honda fuel cell vehicles will also work hard, because Toyota can not keep silence. It would be, F1 funds to take over the development of fuel cell vehicles, Toyota’s recent trend that is worrisome? http://www.hydrogen-motors.com/hydrogen/2008/09/the-new-toyota-fchv-drive-north-of-the-earth/
    Rate this comment: 12345
Add New Thread
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review November/December 2008
Sun + Water = Fuel
An MIT chemist has opened the way to making hydrogen fuel from water using sunlight.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

•  Gift Subscription
•  Digital Subscription
•  Reprints, Back Issues, Customer Service

Career Resources

Visit the Job Board and Resource Center to move your career to the next level.

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!
Advertisement

Wire Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology