DOE aims to change energy outlook

How do you transform the energy system of a nation of 300 million people? The US Department of Energy (DOE) has outlined a strategic plan to help the country catch up with — and, it hopes, leap past — other parts of the world now leading in the clean-energy development race.

The DOE blueprint lays out four main goals: build US leadership in clean-energy technologies, bring back to life the nation’s efforts in science and engineering, enhance nuclear security and set up a framework that maximises the DOE’s chances for success in achieving these aims.

The first goal — build leadership in clean-energy technologies — is probably the most important in terms of potential market growth and impacts.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the man in charge of the DOE, knows what he is talking about (he did, after all, share a Nobel Prize in physics in 1997). More importantly, he’s saying the right things. That’s a positive step for the US, which has long been seen as lukewarm on efforts toward a low-carbon future.

Attribute the change in attitude in part to the rising costs of fossil fuels … and the declining costs of low-carbon energy. Rapid growth in developing countries, especially China, is also forcing the US to up its game in renewable-energy manufacturing capabilities.

“It is imperative that we reverse the loss of US manufacturing jobs, particularly in high technology manufacturing, and maintain a wide set of opportunities for our citizens by rebuilding manufacturing capabilities,” Chu writes in the strategic plan’s introduction.

Clearly, the US feels threatened by developments in China … and energy is a market that’s seeing some of the fastest growth, both in terms of conventional sources and particularly for renewable energy. China now has the highest level of investment in clean technology, and manufacturing is one of the key areas where there has been rapid expansion, overtaking US and European companies that previously led the way.

The opportunities implicit in building a low-carbon energy future are immense. As the DOE blueprint asserts, “the transition to a secure, low-carbon energy future requires nothing less than a new industrial revolution.”

A bold statement, yes. But it can be backed up by the sheer levels of growth already evident in the clean-energy market, and also through the predicted rising demand in developing nations.

Since World War II, the US has consistently maintained a considerable influence on countries around the world, and it must rely on new innovation to develop this further. In Africa, for example — often considered a risky investment — the Chinese influence is already becoming evident and is bringing in significant rewards.

Inside the US itself, the energy situation is challenging, to say the least. Factors hindering an easy uptake of new technologies range from logistical and distribution issues to conflicting political arguments. Implementing change is also difficult thanks to the existence of 50 different states with different laws, different political environments and different energy/resource environments.

On a national scale, the Obama administration has set an ambitious target of 80 per cent clean energy by 2035. Achieving that will require significant investment.

While energy systems have traditionally taken decades to evolve, they no longer have that luxury: economics and climate science demand a rapid transition on a large scale. Of course, the US has known this for years. Just look at these points raised in the 1977 Department of Energy Organisation Act:

• “The United States faces an increasing shortage of non-renewable energy resources.”
• “This energy shortage and  increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies present a serious threat to the national security of the United State and to the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.”

It’s amazing that, 34 years after these statements were made, there’s still been relatively little progress, even as the realities today have become even harder to deny. Perhaps now really is the time for change. And perhaps it is not yet too late for the US to catch up with Europe, which has traditionally led the way in renewable energy and other clean technologies.

Since the Obama administration has entered the scene, there have been improvements. Despite the ongoing economic turmoil, ambitious targets are now taking shape. They include:

• Reduce energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent by 2020 and 83 per cent by 2050, from a 2005 baseline
• By 2035, 80 per cent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources
• Put 1 million electric vehicles on US roads by 2015

These targets show a ramping-up effort to 2020, with the development of technology and manufacturing capabilities so that implementation can really start taking off post-2020. While targets should always be ambitious, they must also be achievable. The main driver of the rapid development needed? Most likely, it will simply be competition from other economies. And, because the cost of implementing renewable energy technologies can only decrease, it really is a matter of when rather than if.

The key to successful deployment of a clean-technology industry in the US will be collaboration between the Department of Energy and private business. Here, both stakeholders will need to resolve their traditionally contradicting viewpoints, as companies have long said they need better policies while government has said companies need to invest more. The DOE can help smooth the way in this by, for example, providing grants for new concepts such as algae production for fuels, and by helping businesses to grow by providing them with a fertile foundation for development.

In the overall energy market, the opportunities remaining are vast. The doubling of renewable energy generation (excluding conventional hydropower and bio-power) by 2012 is a high-priority goal in the strategic plan and should easily help to bring new, much-needed jobs to the American economy. Boosting battery manufacturing to a capacity for 500,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles a year by 2015 offers another relatively straightforward opportunity. However, these short-term targets are still mostly nice political statements — they don’t exert much of an impact on the nation’s overall energy mix.

One of the biggest and most important opportunities is the development of a smart grid within the US so the energy infrastructure can become more efficient, more reliable and more secure. The success of this will rely on utilities gaining the confidence in the performance of such integrated systems. That’s why the DOE is building and promoting well-instrumented micro-grids to demonstrate the advantages of implementing these technological changes. It will also facilitate the demonstration and deployment of energy storage technologies for applications ranging from frequency regulation to bulk-energy management.

Some of the targets for the US grid include:

• Enable better understanding and control of the electric grid by installing more than 1,000 synchrophasor measurement units by 2013
• Deploy more than 26 million smart meters in American homes and businesses by 2013
• Reduce utility-scale energy storage costs 30 per cent by 2015

These, again, are short-term targets. To drive meaningful and long-term improvements across the grid, there needs to be a greater level of ambition to promote development.

One of the most underrated, yet vital, factors to consider when developing an “industrial revolution” for the energy sector is education. The US public is famously fickle when it comes to energy policy, with states like California shining as a leading light for greener alternatives, while others continue to deny the need for change. The new DOE blueprint has two targeted outcomes in terms of education:

• By 2012, identify the most promising educational opportunities to improve domestic energy literacy
• By 2013, provide online energy literacy content by 2013 for the National Training and Education Resource platform

These points do not seem to be particularly ambitious regarding the impact that energy education can have on the wider public. If the potential savings, creation of jobs, improved energy security, etc., can be highlighted, then implementing the change required in the energy sector will be a lot easier. An ancient Native American saying reminds us of this duty: “Treat the Earth well. It was not given to you by your parents, but is loaned to you by your children.”

The opportunities that lie ahead in the next decade are huge, and the US cannot afford to bide its time simply because there’s a new kid on the block in the shape of China. This potential second industrial revolution should prove to be an exciting period of innovation. Besides, the prospect of energy independence and, thus, security is too great to ignore.