About Social Media Today
Comments by Jesse Jenkins Subscribe 
On Scaled-Back Climate Bill Likely to Strand Energy Innovation
Shifting the tax code to encourage private sector investment in the buildings blocks of an innovation economy -- capital, research and innovation, workforce development and education -- would be smart economic policy. But we can't rely on the private sector alone to deliver the innovation necessary. Even with tax incentives, there are simply research quests the private sector will not take on. That's why, when a true public priority emerges, this nation always levels the public investments necessary to overcome it, and in the process, galvanizes even greater private sector innovation, investment and leadership. We need a collaborative, national public-private partnership to develop the clean and affordable energy sources needed to repower the country and the world, and that will require not just changes in the tax code (as wise as those would be) but active federal investment as well. That's how we tackle health care innovation (investing $30 billion annually in public money which leverages an additional $60 billion in private investment) and defense R&D, and how we encouraged the IT and communications revolutions, the birth of nuclear power, wind and solar, radios, microchips, radar, GPS, the Internet, etc. etc... And that's precisely why the industry titans in the American Energy Innovation Council -- the folks most practiced with private sector innovation -- are calling on the federal government to get off the bench. Will Obama and Congress listen?
On Scaled-Back Climate Bill Likely to Strand Energy Innovation
Ed,
The point is that you can't "save the world from AGW" -- nor accomplish any other energy objectives, be it energy freedom or building a new competitive clean energy industry -- without a roughly order-of-mangitude scale-up in funding for energy innovation to accelerate cost reductions in existing technologies and invent the next generation of affordable, scaleable low-carbon energy sources. That's the conclusion reached across the board by energy experts from the IEA to Secretary of Energy Chu to 34 Nobel Laureates, leading think tanks, the nation's research universities, and business leaders...
You just can't get there with the technologies we have on the shelf today. We can get started, but we'll never scale at the pace required, nor penetrate markets in the developing world (where the vast bulk of growing energy demand resides) that cannot/will not sustain high carbon prices, regulatory imposed prices, or sustained clean energy subsidies, unless we make energy clean and cheap. And that requires a massive influsion of innovation funding on the scale of other national innovation priorities, from NIH and Defense R&D to Apollo and Manhattan: all were about an order of magnitude greater endeavors than our current meager energy R&D spending.
On The Jevons Paradox: Time to Send it The Way of the Dodo?
I have to say I find this post unconvincing on all fronts. First off, the post has an extremely Western (and US-centric) bias that ignores that fact that, globally speaking, we are in the throws of a major expansion in global demand for energy services. In that context, energy efficiency efforts may help us become a much richer world with greater access to energy services given a (functionally) limited supply of energy, but efficiency measures will not allow us to achieve real, sustained reductions in absolute levels of energy consumption. If you care about climate change, then the global system is the only one that matters, and here, the world doesn't look quite so different from Industrial Revolution England or the US...Energy efficiency measures may help us grow global consumption of energy services (i.e. heating, lighting, transport, refrigeration, production, etc.) at a more efficient and rapid rate, but make no mistake about the direction of that trend.
The mechanism of demand rebound following energy efficiency improvements -- aka Jevon's Paradox -- is well documented and operates at numerous scales: from an individual driving more miles after purchasing a more efficient vehicle, to global demand for steel and products containing steel increasing after industry-wide improvements in efficiency of steel production, to a macro-economic rebound as efficiency improvements aggregated at macro-scales constitute productivity improvements that spur economic growth and thus a rebound in energy consumption.
I'm now completing a literature review on the rebound effect that should be published later this year and will certainly share much more about that with the Energy Collective soon. But suffice to say: rebound effects are quite real, quite widespread, and when aggregated together at the scales that matter most, are quite significant. 150 years may have elapsed since Jevons (and many of his classical contemporaries) explored issues of energy and resource efficiency and rebound, but sometimes, the more things change, the more things stay the same...
On Sweden stays on flight path to nuclear future
"Under the bill, the number of new reactors cannot exceed 10, but there is no limit on the power level for new units. The current level of power generation is about 9 GWe. "
Seems like this sets Sweden up to stay wedded to large, GW-scale reactors, rather than embrace new modular reactor designs at smaller scales. Perhaps once those technologies are pioneered and deployed by the US, Japan, South Korea, China, India etc. Sweden and others may revisit these kinds of formulations.
On Sweden stays on flight path to nuclear future
Further evidence that as times change and the climate challenge comes into clearer focus, it's high time to refresh our views about the relative risks and rewards of nuclear power...On Liberty Turbines
Great post David. Exercises in scale like this are critical to understanding the climate and energy challenge and grounding ourselves in the scale of the technological and infrastructural task involved. I've got a post coming soon doing a similar exercise comparing the jet airplane industry (and current rates of production) with the potential scale-up of modular nuclear reactor production. Useful exercises to determine what scalable solutions really look like. Thanks for this one,Jesse
On A Carbon Price is a Bet America Needs to Make
Sam and Josh,Betting on clean energy is clearly a smart move for America, and it's a bet our competitors are already doubling down on, as you note. And putting in place a politically sustainable and steadily rising carbon price is a key policy strategy to help provide steady demand for clean energy products in the US. It's important to note however that China's bet on clean energy notably does not include a carbon price policy. As I know Third Way is aware (from our collaborations in the past), several strategies exist to spur clean energy demand, and multiple (including carbon pricing) are likely key in the US. Furthermore, strong domestic demand is of course just one part of a comprehensive national clean energy competitiveness strategy, which must also tend to research and innovation capacity, manufacturing capabilities, and supportive policies in infrastructure, education and human capital, and industry cluster formation. Abroad, programs to promote US exports and open new markets are critical, as Third Way has also written on.
In short: a carbon pricing can - and we would all agree should - be a key part of a national clean energy strategy. But it's merely one part, and the only way to call China's all-in bet on clean energy is to answer with a comprehensive national strategy of our own.
Your friend and colleague,
Jesse
On YouTube Video titled "Renewable Energy Solution of the Month - Wind"
@Rod, RE farming under turbines:I've toured several wind farms in eastern Oregon and Washington state located on dryland wheat farms. Spoken to the farmers there. Each are more than happy to have the wind farms located on their land. The areas they take out of production produce about 10x the value in wind royalties vs. wheat yields, including the area taken up by the access roads and substation, etc. In fact, two of the farmers I've spoken to both said they preferred the new access roads, because it made access to the fields for combines and other farming machinery that much easier.
I'm not directly familiar with how wind farming impacts corn or soy fields in the Midwest, for example, but I have read very similar accounts from farmers in those regions.
If you're worried about the land impact of wind turbines, locating them on already disturbed lands like farms is far more preferable than scrublands or forested ridgelines, etc. The turbines and roads really don't remove much land from production. It's a non-issue. (Solar parks can be a whole different story...)
Will leave the rest of your questions alone for now. Cheers,
Jesse
On EIA Stunner: Energy-related CO2 emissions are now down nearly 10% from 2005 levels. Can’t this country manage another 7% drop in 10 years? - Clean energy leads the way
Geoff, you are right (and Joe's headline is hyperbolic) as usual. The drop in energy intensity of the economy is also largely driven by the recession, with the big drop in industrial activity exceeding the drop in less energy intensive commercial sectors, hence the big decline in energy intensity -- aka it wasn't some big improvement in energy efficiency that lead the way. And as you point out, while the gains in renewables (largely driven by stimulus measures) have helped cut carbon intensity of the energy supply, the gains in natural gas generation are a bit larger and (in displacing coal-fired generation) appear responsible for a bit more than half of the fall in carbon intensity.So if the decrease in carbon intensity of the energy supply is responsible for about 1/3rd of the total emissions drop, and renewables are only responsible for maybe half of that, then we're really looking at only about 1/6th of the emissions drop, or about a 1% drop in CO2 output, due to "clean energy leading the way" (unless Romm considers natural gas "clean energy," which he might, given CAP's bullish views lately on gas).
On Cap and Trade: Right Debate, Wrong Solution
Nathan, no one is asking to schedule breakthroughs. It's about maximizing our chances. I just read a quote today that couldn't be more apropos of this conversation:Thomas Watson, the founder of IBM, once said, “If you want to succeed, raise your error rate.” A government that makes no mistakes when promoting industry is one that makes the bigger mistake of not trying hard enough.
Gotta take more rolls of the dice if we ever hope to succeed. Funding levels now are dangerously pitiful.
On Debunking the Myths of Global Climate Change
Congrats on seeing this post featured at Andy Revkin's Dot Earth blog at the NYTimes!
I agree with Charles actually that his proposed "eleventh myth" is worth debunking as well. I'm actually presenting a talk later today to our class of Breakthrough Generation Fellows at the Breakthrough Institute today about exactly why that's a myth with no basis in reality...
Welcome to the Energy Collective Darrene!
Jesse