The problem is that the industry dynamic behind this trend didn't much resemble the pristine image that the term "experience curve" evokes, of diligent engineers relentlessly focused on continuous improvement. Without diminishing the contribution of a lot of smart people, a key driver was the tough competition for market share between silicon-based PV, which had to overcome a major bottleneck in the supply of its primary raw material, polysilicon--the price for which spiked and subsequently collapsed--and cheaper but less efficient thin-film PV technologies relying on entirely different chemistries such as cadmium telluride and copper, indium, gallium and selenium.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Keystone Round-up
Yesterday the President announced that his decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline would be delayed until after 2012 (read: the election) and that a more thorough State Department review is called. for. The pipeline would open up Canadian tar sands for import and domestic consumption in the United States. Environmental organizations have been protesting this for months, via high-profile tactics that nonetheless received disproportionately low-profile attention in the media. Some really, really smart people weigh in:
Michael Levi at NYT:
Michael Levi at NYT:
For green groups, the shortest route to blocking fossil fuel development appears to be leveraging local opposition. Many will seek to turn this not only against the Canadian oil sands but against United States oil production and coal exports, too. At the same time, they will find themselves increasingly appealing to the federal government for help in overriding local opposition to wind farms, solar plants, long distance transmission lines and other critical pieces of zero-carbon infrastructure. These two endeavors will conflict.
Levi's point here is insightful. His chief criticism is that in order to block the pipeline and protect the climate, enviros had to triangulate with NIMBYs. The ends may justify the means, but will groups like 350.org and NRDC pay a price in credibility when combatting NIMBYism that just so happens to be targeted at clean energy projects? (See last year's round-up on Cape Wind.)
Levi expanded at his blog at Council of Foreign Relations:
Climate change won’t be addressed by rejecting a series of new projects – an effective approach will require positive change. I’m not referring to the endless debate over whether climate advocates need a “positive” message rather than a “negative” one. I’m just stating a simple fact: those who want serious action on climate change ultimately need to change the laws, and doing that will require sixty votes in the Senate and a majority in the House. Neither anti-Keystone style tactics nor the coalition assembled to oppose the pipeline will make that possible.Bill McKibben at 350.org was quite celebratory, but I suspect Levi will be disappointed by his reaction:
In the meantime, since federal action will be in abeyance for a long stretch, we need to figure out how best to support our Canadian brothers and sisters, who are effectively battling against proposed pipelines west from the tar sands to the Pacific. And we need to broaden our work to take on all the forms of ‘extreme energy’ now coming to the fore: mountaintop removal coal mining, deepsea oil drilling, fracking for gas and oil. We’ll keep sending you updates; you keep letting us know what we need to do next.Bryan Walsh weighed in at Time's Ecocentric blog, with a good round-up of coverage and some further cautionary optimism:
If the climate movement is going to make a real difference, it needs to mobilize the same level of popular and political passion towards developing renewable energy, spending more government money on energy research and development and passing climate legislation. This is hardly a secret—there were protests and campaigns for the climate bill in 2009 and 2010, and McKibben's own 350.org campaign is about a lot more than just stopping fossil fuel development. But I've rarely seen the sheer energy towards technocratic policies like cap-and-trade or renewable energy mandates that I've seen when visiting Americans who are vehemently opposed to hydrofracking, for example. Protests and passion may have helped stop the Keystone pipeline, but will it be enough to build a new energy economy?Geoff Styles has a can't-miss look at the math of breaking our "addiction to oil" at his blog Energy Outlook:
Taking all these considerations into account it's not realistic to imagine that we could break our addiction to oil to any great extent for at least another decade. In the interim, we should certainly pursue all options that could alter the feasibility of such a shift in the years ahead, in a manner consistent with the fiscal constraints we face. I'm also not oblivious to what that implies for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, though I would point out that our use of oil in transportation is neither the worst emissions offender, nor the easiest high-emitting segment of the US energy economy to tackle in that time frame. In the meantime, we are committed by virtue of scale, infrastructure and fleet requirements to burn many billions of barrels of oil over the next few decades, from wherever they may come. In that light, the administration's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline could prove to be a costly misstep, no matter how much political pressure they were under to withhold approval.If the #NoKXL victory paves the way towards less carbon infrastructure and more clean energy, sweet. If it paves the way towards uninhibited NIMBYism, then we'll be faced not only with a greater energy challenges but a lamentable shift in our ability as a society to build the future. Even if Keystone is a victory, it represents one victory of many thousands needed to secure a clean energy future. Keep truckin'.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Radical vs. Incremental
Matt Hourihan at ITIF:
It’s true, incremental innovation can help drive new business models, address integration, and resolve other challenges in areas like solar. But it won’t create a step-change up to next-generation nano-based solar modules, when the current generation of panels hit their performance/cost barriers. Nuclear power plays a big role in the California scenario, but deploying more Generation III reactors won’t cause spent fuel recycling technology to spring forth. There are major limits to existing battery and biofuel technology as well, that won’t be solved by putting more electric vehicles on the road or ramping up production mandates. All of these challenges ultimately require the “radical” kind of innovation. Deployment to drive incremental innovation could have some benefits in some areas, and we should be cognizant of those benefits, but the mileage on these will vary.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Sandolow's Yale speech on innovation
Robert Sandolow of DOE recently gave a speech at Yale on the government's role in technological innovation. He cited three case studies -- the Internet, shale gas, and Google -- whose origins were directed and sustained government investment. He also glossed over other key examples, like GPS and DNA mapping. He could also have mentioned the jet engine, the microchip, the cell phone, biotech, and the personal computer.
It's a speech worth reading in full. According to Sandolow, there are five key reasons why the government does -- and must -- invest in innovative technologies.
It's a speech worth reading in full. According to Sandolow, there are five key reasons why the government does -- and must -- invest in innovative technologies.
- Government protects intellectual property, with patents and other tools.
- The private sectors under-invests in fundamental research.
- Innovation depends on an educated workforce, which is a job for governments.
- Market failures stifle innovative technologies.
- Government polices and standards can lay strong groundwork for innovation.
There's really no understating #4 on that list. The spillover effect, the Valleys of Death, market externalities, technological lock-in -- all these and more combine to present serious challenges to private sector investors and innovators.
With federal clean energy policy on the verge of collapse, it's encouraging to see Administration officials talking the Big Game -- innovation, cost reductions, and performance improvements. The federal government has and does initiate and drive blockbuster technological advances -- we need it to keep up the good work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)