Rdd

IEA [6, 7], Hawksworth [8], Morgan [15], MIT [4], Princiotta [20], and the American Energy Innovation Council, AEIC, [21] have observed that RD&D funding in the energy area will need to be substantially increased to accelerate deployment and utilization of key technologies. As illustrated earlier, the later a mitigation program is initiated, the more severe emission cuts will need to be if CO2 concentrations above 500 ppm are to be avoided. The Stern Report [22] concluded: ".. .support for energy R&D should at least double, and support for the deployment of new low-carbon technologies should increase up to fivefold." IEA [7] reviewed several references and concluded the range of increase for RD&D required was between 2 and 10 over current levels. IEA estimates a total of about $14 trillion of RD&D plus deployment would be required for their Blue scenario. Deployment costs are those costs that would allow construction and operation of near commercial technologies with the aim of improving performance and lowering the cost differential relative to the high carbon emission technology it would displace. Most recently, the AEIC [21], a council comprised of world class business leaders, called for US federal expenditures of ".$16 billion per year - an increase of $11 billion over current annual investments of about $5 billion . the minimum level required."

It is important that such RD&D be conducted at both the federal and private sector levels. Federal funding is particularly relevant for those technologies that require substantial funding due to high capital costs and have a low probability of commercial impact and profitability in the near term. Examples include carbon capture and storage and next generation nuclear power technologies. Private sector funding for the developing lower cost, lower risk technologies could be encouraged by providing incentives, such as a significant price on carbon emissions.

Figure 1.31, generated from IEA data [23], depict IEA countries' public research expenditures in critical energy technology areas. It illustrates the relatively low

18000

16000

14000

S 10000

6000

4000

2000

1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Other 1=3 Nuclear

Fossil Fuels

. Renewable energy sources

Hydrogen & Fuel Cells

Share Energy R&D to total R&D

Fig. 1.31 IEA countries' public RD&D expenditures for key energy sectors, 2008 U.S. $ (millions)

1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Other 1=3 Nuclear

Energy Efficiency

Fossil Fuels

. Renewable energy sources

Hydrogen & Fuel Cells

Share Energy R&D to total R&D

20000

18000

16000

14000

S 10000

6000

4000

2000

Fig. 1.31 IEA countries' public RD&D expenditures for key energy sectors, 2008 U.S. $ (millions)

funding in recent years and the major funding reductions since the major funding increases in the 1970s, which were motivated by the 1967 oil embargo. It should be recognized that, in the last few years, the United States has redirected some of its research resources to some key technologies, especially hydrogen/fuel cells, IGCC, carbon capture and storage, and biomass-to-ethanol technologies. The United States has coordinated its efforts in this area through the Climate Change Technology Program, CCTP [24]. Within the constraint of current budget priorities, the CCTP has coordinated a diversified portfolio of advanced technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment projects, focusing on energy efficiency enhancements; low-GHG-emission energy supply technologies; carbon capture, storage, and sequestration methods; and technologies to reduce emissions of non-CO2 gases. The key agency responsible for CCTP related research is the Department of Energy, with about 86% of fiscal year 2008 CCTP funding. As part of this program, USEPA [25] is implementing a series of voluntary programs that encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, including Energy Star for the building sector, transportation programs, and non-CO2 emission reduction programs in collaboration with industry. These programs, with their focus on conservation and low GHG technologies, could provide a foundation for an expanded program consistent with the mitigation challenge.

There have been two recent developments which have enhanced GHG mitigation technology R, D, D&D in the US. In FY 2009, stimulus funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act supplemented funding in the energy area, with a one-time budget supplement of $6.8 billion. In addition, the creation of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) has provided a significant boost to innovation in the energy technology area. ARPA-E focuses exclusively on high-risk, high payoff technologies that can change the way energy is generated, stored, and used, and has challenged innovators to come up with novel ideas with the aim of ultimately yielding breakthrough technologies. The program has the potential to accelerate development of breakthrough technologies, if funding levels are consistent with the challenge. The AEIC [21] has recommended annual funding levels for ARPA-E of $1billion.

Figure 1.32 depicts the same technologies as Fig. 1.25, with their contribution to CO2 avoidance in 2050 for the Blue scenario, but characterizes each technology into high, medium, and low research priority categories. This is based on the author's judgment regarding the potential contribution to CO2 avoidance each technology can achieve with an accelerated research, development, demonstration, and deployment program. It is noteworthy that for the coal generation sector, these priorities are consistent with MIT [4], which has conducted the most in-depth study of this critical energy source. Technologies earliest in their development cycle and having the greatest potential for major mitigation are ranked highest.

As indicated in the last column of Tables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4, many of these technologies have the potential for significant environmental impacts via ecosystem damage and/or emissions/effluents to the air, water, and land. Therefore, a parallel research program to better understand such impacts for key technologies is indicated. Figure 1.33, which again is based on the IEA Blue technologies, indicates

Highest Priority

High Priority

Low/Medium Priority

Highest Priority

High Priority

Low/Medium Priority

Fig. 1.32 Author's RD&D priorities to achieve Blue Scenario's CO2 Avoidance Goal in 2050

High

Uncertain © Medium |

u 40

POWERGENERATION

TRANSPORT

Fig. 1.33 Author's assessment of the potential environmental impacts of mitigation technologies for the Blue scenario the author's judgment regarding the potential magnitude of environmental impacts, assuming wide scale utilization. Such a judgment involves consideration of the potential scope and impact of environmental/health impacts and the current knowledge on the quantification and potential mitigation of such impacts. As shown, advanced coal and biomass technologies are among those with the potential for

BUILDINGS

INDUSTRY

major impacts and should be the focus of a comprehensive environmental assessment research program.

It should be noted that all the transportation technologies offer the potential for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Further, the countries that can bring these technologies to market first have the potential for major revenue streams from a multi-billion dollar international market.

As mentioned earlier, further consideration of the environmental implications of emerging technologies is discussed in Chap. 12: Potential Adverse Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Strategies.

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Waste Management And Control

Waste Management And Control

Get All The Support And Guidance You Need To Be A Success At Understanding Waste Management. This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To The Truth about Environment, Waste and Landfills.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment