The frequently asked question in the US these days is whether energy alternatives will falter in the face of a new abundance of fossil fuels. The alternative energy landscape is in tumult, judging by the recent fourth annual summit of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA–E. A glut of cheap natural gas threatens to sweep all other energy sources before it. Funding for alternative energy has dried up, says a report by Scientific American.
To cite an example, the ‘artificial leaf’ promised to revolutionize the world by bringing reliable modern energy to those mired in poverty. But the company founded to commercialize the research found that it needs to concentrate its efforts on something likely to make money in the nearer term, for instance flow batteries that might provide large amounts of energy storage on the electric grid.
ARPA–E efforts range from power-flow controllers for electricity transmission lines to modified microbe that builds liquid fuels from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. But even ARPA-E has begun to shift its limited funding into projects to enhance the use of natural gas, such as the Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy, or the MOVE program.
The Breakthrough Institute estimates that US energy firms reinvest less than one percent of total revenues into research, development and demonstration (RD&D) projects, compared to 15-20% in the IT, semiconductor, and pharmaceutical industries. Is this the reason for ‘disadvantage alternatives’, or simply a refusal to see long-term? Eternal optimism that when one source dries up, the planet will throw up another may be a feel-good factor but are we fooling ourselves that from coal to natural gas to shale and on and on is a natural jump? Are we simply pressing on for luck? What do you think?
To cite an example, the ‘artificial leaf’ promised to revolutionize the world by bringing reliable modern energy to those mired in poverty. But the company founded to commercialize the research found that it needs to concentrate its efforts on something likely to make money in the nearer term, for instance flow batteries that might provide large amounts of energy storage on the electric grid.
ARPA–E efforts range from power-flow controllers for electricity transmission lines to modified microbe that builds liquid fuels from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. But even ARPA-E has begun to shift its limited funding into projects to enhance the use of natural gas, such as the Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy, or the MOVE program.
The Breakthrough Institute estimates that US energy firms reinvest less than one percent of total revenues into research, development and demonstration (RD&D) projects, compared to 15-20% in the IT, semiconductor, and pharmaceutical industries. Is this the reason for ‘disadvantage alternatives’, or simply a refusal to see long-term? Eternal optimism that when one source dries up, the planet will throw up another may be a feel-good factor but are we fooling ourselves that from coal to natural gas to shale and on and on is a natural jump? Are we simply pressing on for luck? What do you think?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment