Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Debunking Shellenberger & Nordhaus — Part II, Breaking the technology breakthrough myth

By Joe Romm  

"Debunking Shellenberger & Nordhaus — Part II, Breaking the technology breakthrough myth"

Share:

google plus icon

Do we need “disruptive clean-energy technologies that achieve non-incremental breakthroughs” to solve the global warming problem, as S&N (and Lomborg and Bush and his advisors) argue? Let’s hope not — for the sake of the next 50 generations!

Why? Two reasons:

  1. Such breakthroughs hardly ever happen.
  2. Even when they do happen, they rarely have a transformative impact on energy markets, even over a span of decades.

Consider that solar photovoltaic cells — a major breakthrough — were invented over 50 years ago, and still comprise only about 0.1% of U.S. electricity (and that amount thanks to major subsidies).

Consider that hydrogen fuel cells — a favorite technology of the breakthrough bunch — were invented more than 165 years ago, and deliver very little electricity (and what little they do deliver comes only because of major subsidies) and no consumer transportation.

Consider fusion — ’nuff said!

I know this seems counterintuitive, when we see such remarkable technology advances almost every month in telecommunications and computers. But it’s true — and I will explain why in this post.

Let me start with a question I often pose to audiences of energy and environmental exports: What technology breakthroughs in the past three decades have transformed how we use energy today? The answer may surprise you:

There really haven’t been any — certainly none has ever been suggested to me after years of giving talks.

We use energy today roughly the same way we did 30 years ago. Our cars still run on internal combustion engines that burn gasoline. Alternatives to gasoline like corn ethanol make up but a few percent of all U.S. transportation fuels–and corn ethanol is hardly a breakthrough fuel and required a massive subsidy and a mandate to achieve its recent growth. (In every country that has succeeded with alternative fuels — and there aren’t many — mandates have played a central role).

Fuel economy from the mid-1970s did double by the mid-1980s, as required by government regulations, but in the last quarter-century, the average fuel economy of American consumer vehicles has remained flat or even declined slightly.

The single biggest source of electricity generation, by far, is still coal power, just as it was 30 years ago. The vast majority of all power plants still generate heat to make steam turn a turbine-and the average efficiency of our electric power plants is about what it was 30 years ago. We did see the introduction of the highly efficient natural gas combined cycle turbine, but that was not based on a breakthrough from the past three decades and constrained natural gas supply in North America severely limited growth in gas-fired power, so the share of U.S. electricity generated by natural gas has grown only modestly in 30 years. Nuclear power was about 10 percent of total U.S. electric power 30 years ago and now it’s about 20 percent. But the nuclear energy “breakthrough” occurred long before the 1970s, and we haven’t built a new nuclear power plant in two decades, in large part because that power has been so expensive (and the growth in nuclear power required massive government regulatory support).

We do have a lot more home appliances, but they still haven’t fundamentally changed how we use energy. Interestingly, home energy use per square foot has not changed that much even with all those new electronic gadgets for two reasons. First, my old office at DOE developed major advances in key consumer technologies, including refrigeration and lighting. Second, efficiency standards for appliances have made the use of those efficient technologies widespread. From the mid-1970s until today, refrigerator electricity used has dropped a whopping three quarters. Perhaps that should be called a breakthrough, especially because some of the savings came from remarkable improvements in the guts of the refrigerator from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. But we still use refrigerators pretty much as we did, so in that sense, these breakthroughs didn’t change how we use energy — and they still required mandates to deeply penetrate the market.

One of the most widely publicized energy technology breakthroughs occurred in 1986 when researchers in IBM’s Research Laboratories in Zurich, Switzerland discovered a material that conducted electricity with no resistance at considerably higher temperatures than previous conductors. Over the next few years a series of breakthroughs in these high-temperature superconductors were announced. This technology generated great excitement because it held the promise of super-efficient electric motors and loss-free long-distance electric transmission lines. My old office at DOE poured millions into applying the breakthrough. Yet all these years later, you may ask, where are all the high-temperature superconductors? They have had very little impact on either electric motors or power transmission.

“Typically it has taken 25 years after commercial introduction for a primary energy form to obtain a 1 percent share of the global market.”

So noted Royal Dutch/Shell, one of the world’s largest oil companies, in its 2001 scenarios for how energy use is likely to evolve over the next five decades. Note that this tiny toe-hold comes 25 years after commercial introduction. The first transition from scientific breakthrough to commercial introduction may itself take decades. We still haven’t seen commercial introduction of a hydrogen fuel cell car.

I tend to think that Shell’s statement is basically true, although I believe we could in some instances speed things up–but only with the kind of aggressive technology deployment programs and government standards that conservatives do not like and S&N think are not central. Given that we must dramatically reverse greenhouse gas emissions trends over the next 25 years, we must focus on technologies that are either commercial today or nearly commercial today. That’s why S&N’s whole analysis is wrong. They argue:

1. Setting a price on carbon dioxide … cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions anywhere close to what is needed….

2. Technically, there simply do not yet exist the low-cost, low-carbon technologies that could be quickly brought to scale to replace carbon intensive energy sources…..

3. Dramatic and rapid technological breakthroughs will not be primarily driven by the private sector.

4. … to deal with global warming, we will need an almost entirely new energy infrastructure.

1. Straw man. 2. Very wrong. 3. Quite irrelevant. 4. Precisely why we need regulations!

1. We need a price for carbon and a bunch of intelligent regulations to achieve the necessary emissions reductions. No one I know is only arguing for a carbon price.

2. This is the Bush Administration’s central argument. If the fate of the planet rests on non-existent technology, we are in big, big trouble — because the thing about nonexistent technology, like fusion, is that it tends to stay non-existent, or like hydrogen cars, just has too many technical and infrastructure barriers to overcome (a point I will return to in the next part) — even after you spend hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing the technology. Fortunately, the technology to combat warming does exist, as I argue in my book at length (see also the “stabilization wedges” work from Princeton).

3. Again, we can’t rely on historically super-rare “dramatic and rapid technological breakthroughs” and don’t need to. So this whole argument is moot. We need to drive capital into the private sector to deploy existing technology far more than we need to ramp up public sector money to develop breakthroughs.

4. We will need a new energy infrastructure — primarily for vehicles and electricity. Such infrastructure changes historically have required government action — because the infrastructure barriers to entry in those two sectors are so enormous that new technology (and even smart old technology, like combined heat and power) can’t compete effectively. This is the central reason that technology breakthroughs don’t transform the energy market the way they seem to in other sectors, a point I will elaborate on in Part III.

The bottom line though is that if you want to transform the infrastructure for vehicles and electricity, if you want to solve the global warming problem, you need intelligent government regulations infinitely more than you need a massive effort to find breakthough technologies. Indeed, I can certainly solve the the global warming problem with smart regulations and no publically-funded breakthroughs, but I almost certainly cannot solve global warming with publically-funded breakthroughs but no smart regulations to get them into the marketplace quickly and at the necessary scale.

Want to stay in-the-know on all things climate? Subscribe to our RSS Feed!

‹ Update on Warner-Lieberman climate bill

BBC: Car of the future ›

10 Responses to Debunking Shellenberger & Nordhaus — Part II, Breaking the technology breakthrough myth

  1. David B. Benson says:

    I am not quite sure whether some of the developments reported by Biopact

    http://biopact.com/

    are breakthrough-like, but the following one seems to be so to me:

    http://biopact.com/2007/09/microbial-fuel-cell-development-speeds.html

  2. Joe says:

    These type of breakthrough PR announcements are not worth the paper they are written on — call me back when they have a commercial product with significantly better cost and performance than whatever is in the marketplace.

    Fuel cells are wildly overrated as a subject of breakthroughs because fundamentally 1) you can’t can beat electric drive (like a plug-in hybrd) in terms of efficient utilization of zero-carbon electricity for transportation and 2) fuel cells only represent a major advance in electric generation efficiency if they cogenerate — but the barriers to cogeneration are all regulatory not technological.

  3. tidal says:

    great post

  4. Earl Killian says:

    I tend to think the one breakthrough in the last 30 years was efficiency, which you almost seem to agree with when you write “Perhaps that should be called a breakthrough”. You might also want to give credit to Arthur Rosenfeld and his team and the California Energy Commission, as described at:
    http://www.energy.ca.gov/commission/commissioners/rosenfeld_docs/2000-10_ROSENFELD_AUTOBIO.PDF
    See Figure 3 on page 16 for example.

  5. Paul K says:

    David B. Benson ,
    Thanks for the CO2 website. Here’s the link for anybody else. It is part of the very interesting Oak Ridge National Laboratory site.
    Joe,
    Reading your critique, I wonder if there is any place for public spending in AGW policy.
    The private sector can, should, and will fund technological advancements. The government’s contribution is taxation and regulation. As I understand it – actually, I don’t but am hoping you’ll explain it – this enables the establishment of a market mechanism by which CO2 will be reduced.

  6. Paul K says:

    Butterfingers on that link

  7. Joe says:

    I am very much in favor of public spending for AGW. I don’t think it is one of the three most important things, but it can be valuable, especially when it is focused on deploying existing technology.

  8. Paul K says:

    Government spending should be focused on deploying existing technology. Well said.

  9. Vikingisson says:

    We have to keep pace with efficiencies however along with those improvements came increased usage. Does the efficiency of the car compared to 30 years ago offset the increase in the number of cars and miles driven? I doubt it and suggest that the pollution problem hasn’t changed at all. Same for appliances, they *are* better but we have so many more of them now in numbers and per capita. How many of those cheap power adapters do you have plugged in waiting for you to charge the phone, the laptop, the everything else? They waste huge amounts of energy doing nothing useful most of the time. We can do a lot in just the small things but if a Chinese “dumb” power supply costs $5 and a “smart” one that consumes a fraction of the power at idle costs $10 guess which one I’ll never see with my gadget?
    Hoping for a switch in fuel while maintaining the status quo in everything else is certain doom even if the magic pill were to come along.
    Don’t let anyone tell you they are doing the planet any favours by buying one product over another. They might be doing less harm but never doing it any good. Consider an all electric car that I’d be excited to see compared to fuel burners; they still take space, generate heat, and wear out. Where does all that worn out rubber and brake pads go to? The air as you drive. It is always cheaper to save a watt than to make one.

  10. I have a product for solving one area of our global environmental impact: water bottles. My product is called Gaia’s Tribute, and converts ordinary plastic water bottles into a self-watering container for plants. Over 1 billion water bottles go into landfills every year worldwide, and over 50 million each day in my home state of California.

    Anyone can use them to grow new plants, and because of this re-use, the Gaia’s Tribute containers do not go into landfills. They would instead be used to grow new plants/seedlings/trees, that could reverse global impact. Great for kids to get involved and learn how to make a difference! As the bottles degrade over time, the compacting process begins, too. Also, there’s an instant reversal and creation of carbon credits by the simple use of this product.

    A very large potential for fundraising exists by use of the Gaia’s Tribute containers. There is a great potential for distribution of this system 408.476.3750 or e-mail to mdcnet1@gmail.com.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Mike Carrieri, CEO
    Gaia’s Tribute
    mdcnet1@gmail.com
    408.476.3750