While the
climate change policy has struggled beleaguered to the finish line, what will
it take to actually spur an energy revolution? A revolution that is ripe with
inventions and innovations penetrating the market, shaking up entrenched
technologies, and changing the way we the people relate to energy?
Charles Weiss,
School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, visited CSPO last month to
share the thoughts explored in his book Structuring an Energy Technology Revolution,
co-authored by veteran of the Hill, William Bonvillian. They believe our
addiction to fossil fuels and arrogant neglect of unsexy problems bound up in
energy infrastructure now require focused and organized attention on stimulating
real innovation in energy. A national effort akin to a Manhattan Project or
Apollo Program on energy is urgent.
The origins of the book are relatively straightforward. How to teach innovation
policy if you don’t subscribe to the simple formula guiding basic research: money
in--marvelous innovation out?
The trick
with this marvel machine is that there are priorities set at the get go,
political fights over allocations, decisions at the lab bench that could have
been made otherwise, and often questionable social benefits as outcomes. Technological
innovation is not a simple equation but a delicate balance of interests,
support structures, incentives, cash flows, personalities and true miracles.
Since, unlike other miracles of the modern age, energy is hard to bottle and
polish, Weiss sees few industrial players coordinating efforts in such a way to
solve the sticky problems faced by the energy sector. While IBM is
investing upwards of 3 billion in the Smart Grid and Google wants to play too,
large coordinated efforts to address basic research have not been launched. Certainly
the problems surrounding energy are complex and looming enough to warrant serious
investments.
For Weiss
and Bonvillian, a major federal research and development program is necessary
to stimulate innovation. They believe market based incentives are not enough
and propose a research and development framework that treats different kinds of
energy technologies differently. Some already have niche markets and need help
scaling up (like LED lighting). Others are socially problematic (biofuels,
nuclear) or require large and expensive demonstration projects (carbon
sequestration). Each poses particular policy challenges and needs unique
financial support.
The
discussions at CSPO on his integrated policy framework ranged from curiosity
over the nascent ARPA for energy
to how to incorporate the desires and values of everyday people into energy
policy. There was a particularly lively discussion about the need for a roadmap
for the future of energy. We exchanged ideas about the importance of supporting
societal learning of energy policy and how a strategic plan for basic research-
and decisions around energy futures- should be based on public deliberation.
