On Energy.gov, we’ve been showcasing a series of stories about innovations from our National Laboratories that have been successfully commercialized – and how they impact Americans’ lives. During 2010 alone, our National Laboratories engaged in more than 13,500 technology transfer transactions – from licensing lab-developed technologies to using lab resources to drive industry innovation and commercial success.

But to ensure American leadership in emerging energy technologies, we must address the financial and deployment obstacles facing renewable energy.

On Thursday, October 20th, at 2:00 p.m. EDT, please join Richard Kauffman, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Energy, for a live discussion about the challenges and opportunities of renewable energy innovation and deployment.

Kauffman recently joined the Energy Department from the private sector, where he served as the Chief Executive Officer of Good Energies, a global investor in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Regarded as one of the country’s leading experts on private sector investment in clean energy, Kauffman is looking forward to working with the business community to break down financial obstacles that stand in the way of deploying clean technologies.

You can submit your question sand ideas about renewable innovation and deployment to Richard Kauffman in advance of the event through email, Twitter or Facebook, by:
•     Sending an email to newmedia@hq.doe.gov;
•     Tweeting your question to @energy with the hashtag #energymatters; or
•     Leaving a question for Kauffman at Facebook.com/energygov.

You’ll also be able to send him questions live during the event using the above methods or by visiting Energy.gov.

The United States can transform our energy future, but we must address market obstacles facing new technologies. We hope to see you online on Energy.gov this Thursday at 2:00 p.m. EDT to discuss what can be done.

Cross-posted from Energy.gov

photo: jurvetson

Related posts:

• Ford Decides To Pull Back The Reins On Electric Vehicle Investment
• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says
• Two Recommended Green Tech Events in San Francisco
• J-REC Conference: Jewish Clean Tech & Green Energy Leaders To Meet
• Top 6 Tips for Clean Tech Events and Renewable Energy Conferences

As the world weighs how to deal with warming, the idea of human manipulation of climate systems is gaining attention.  Yet beyond the environmental and technical questions looms a more practical issue: How could governments really commit to supervising geoengineering schemes for centuries?

In the summer of 2006, geoengineering — the radical proposal to offset one human intervention into planetary systems with another — came roaring out of the scientific closet. Deliberate climate modification, as climate scientist Wally Broecker once noted, had long been “one of the few subjects considered taboo in the realm of scientific inquiry.”

Two things spurred this dramatic reversal: growing alarm because climate change was hitting harder and faster than expected and the abysmal failure of political efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Indeed, since world leaders signed the Rio Convention on Climate Change in 1992, global emissions climbed from 6.1 billion metric tons of carbon a year to 8.5 billion tons in 2007. Dismayed by the inaction, Paul Crutzen, a Nobel laureate, published a controversial paper in August, 2006 that opened the door to the hitherto unthinkable. Since timely and sufficient reductions appeared to be, in his words, “a pious wish,” he urged serious investigation of technological proposals to offset rising temperatures.

For some, geoengineering seemed to hold out another hope: that technology might provide an escape not only from growing heat, but also from the thorny realm of hard choices and difficult international politics. Those politics were on vivid display in Copenhagen this week, as nations have agreed on the gravity of the threat but little else.

Since the release of Crutzen’s influential paper, many have voiced concerns about possible hazards posed by geoengineering schemes. For example, the artificial volcano projects, which would inject sulfate particles into the stratosphere to deflect incoming sunlight, might reduce the symptom of excess heat, but experience from past volcanic eruptions and climate models indicates that this approach would likely alter rainfall patterns and intensify drought in many regions. And because such sunshade schemes only treat a symptom rather than tackle the cause, this technofix would do nothing to prevent another dire consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — increasing acidity in ocean waters. This acidity jeopardizes coral reefs, shelled marine life, and a tiny plankton Emiliania huxleyi, which plays a key role in the transfer of carbon from the atmosphere to long-term storage in deep ocean sediments.

The moral and political hazards of geoengineering are as formidable as the physical dangers.

But the biggest hitch in sunshade remedies involves politics and questions of governance, for they would require an unflagging commitment of centuries: five hundred years or so, or, if we do not make major emissions cuts, even as long as a millennium. If anything were to interrupt this geoengineering effort, which would have to keep replenishing the sulfates every few years, the world would quickly confront a doomsday scenario: Temperatures would suddenly soar upward at a rate 20 times faster than they are rising today, causing unimaginable havoc in human and natural systems and with it, the real danger of human extinction. This institutional challenge is without question a far greater obstacle than any technological difficulties. It is hard to imagine that anyone with even a passing knowledge of human history would think this long-term commitment could be a prudent gamble.

The moral and political hazards of geoengineering are altogether as formidable as the physical dangers. However inviting the prospects shimmering on the technological horizon, geoengineering “solutions” and the promise of a technofix down the road lead us easily into temptation. Indeed, these speculative technologies are already figuring in the political debate and hover in the background of diplomatic discussions, since it will be impossible to limit future warming to 2 degrees C, as G-8 leaders pledged in July, without something like a new technology to suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It is easy to forget that these are proposals, not proven technologies. There is no assurance that any will actually work as imagined.

Even more troubling, these tantalizing prospects can encourage neglect of what can be done now. Former President George W. Bush often used future technology as an excuse for inaction, touting research on hydrogen fuel-cell “freedom cars” while rejecting proposals to improve the efficiency of today’s vehicles. One energy economist quipped, the freedom car “is really about Bush’s freedom to do nothing about cars today.”

Similarly, longtime climate skeptic Bjorn Lomborg claims that the best, most cost-effective approach isn’t any of the policy proposals on the table in the U.S. Congress or at the Copenhagen conference — for instance, carbon taxes or a regime of cap-and-trade — but rather one of the sunshade technologies that would boost the cooling capacity of clouds by spraying saltwater into the air to stimulate the formation of more cloud droplets.

If Lomborg and his allies in conservative think tanks tout such technofixes as a better “solution” to the climate change, others such as Crutzen and Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, see it as an insurance policy in the event of full-blown emergency. They advocate research to distinguish the merely risky geoengineering schemes from the manifestly mad. It is hard to object to a backup plan, especially as the world has not yet halted emissions, much less embarked on the deep reductions that are required.

Insurance, however, often has a perverse effect: The promise that something will be there to bail you out if the worst happens encourages imprudent behavior. The number of mountain rescues has increase because hikers carry cell phones. The National Flood Insurance Program for people living in coastal communities aimed to discourage development in high-risk areas by providing subsidized insurance if the local government agreed to guide development away from flood-prone areas, but the program instead has increased development in these danger zones. Similarly, geoengineering schemes foster the notion that technology can rescue us from climate hell, if it comes to that, and thereby discourages early, prudent action to head off the worst danger.

The promise that something will bail you out if the worst happens encourages imprudent behavior.

The political hazards of deliberate planetary manipulation are as formidable as the moral pitfalls. The technologies that scientists and engineers regard as “insurance” to safeguard the human future may precipitate new kinds of international conflict and the possibility of an arms race in geoengineering technology.

If geoengineering becomes the chosen response, the obvious question is, Who is going to make decisions that are truly global in scope, and how? Who, if anyone, will be approving, overseeing, and policing any use of geoengineering? If the time comes when the Earth needs a sunshade, there must be a guarantee, once started, that it will continue for centuries. If the monsoon fails following some geoengineering effort, there must be some authority to mediate the dispute about what caused it or compensate those who claim damages. As Stanford climate scientist Stephen Schneider has suggested, such claims are inevitable, so it would be unwise to do this without some plan for “no-fault climate disaster insurance” to provide compensation.

And how is it going to be possible to distinguish plain old bad weather from climatological warfare? In a geoengineered world, a catastrophic hurricane or devastating drought can generate suspicion, paranoia, and conflict.

The problems of the planetary era clearly require some manner of global governance, but our first attempts at this have failed miserably. Gus Speth, the former dean of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and an early leader on global problems, describes the current state of affairs bluntly: “The climate convention is not protecting climate, the biodiversity convention is not protecting biodiversity, the desertification convention is not preventing desertification, and even the older and stronger Convention of the Law of the Sea is not protecting fisheries.”

What happens if a single country opts for planetary manipulation instead of reducing emissions?

The planetary system binds us more tightly in a common destiny than the economic system. No one will be secure in a world with runaway warming. Yet governments that willingly concede some of their sovereignty to promote economic expansion will not do the same to protect planetary systems.

In the absence of some means to arrive at a collective decision and provide oversight, all sorts of conflicts and tensions are almost inevitable. What happens if a single country decides to opt for planetary manipulation instead of reducing its emissions? What if other countries object that the project is too risky? If it becomes possible to scrub carbon dioxide from the air and reduce carbon dioxide levels, the question of who gets to choose what kind of climate we want and whether nations should pay to remove their share of past emissions could spark serious disputes.

Until a shift in their rhetoric on climate change six months ago, Russian leaders, for example, were inclined to an upbeat assessment of the benefits of climate change and quick to claim land along with any oil, gas, and minerals lying beneath the no-longer-icebound Arctic. Even if their new-found concern about future warming proves genuine, the Russians might balk at a plan to reduce carbon dioxide levels to 280 to 300 parts per million — a target that would return CO2 levels to what is indisputably the safe range for the climate system. Climate scientist Ken Caldeira judged that it isn’t far-fetched to imagine “some kind of arms race of geoengineering where one country is trying to cool the planet and another is trying to warm the planet.”

The greatest temptation is the naïve hope for a quick fix that will spare us from the difficult challenges of cutting greenhouse gas emissions or finding a way to live together on a shared planet. Even if one of these geoengineering schemes does pan out, be assured that it isn’t going to prove either simple or a “solution.”

Author Dianne Dumanoski is an author and journalist who has reported on a wide range of environmental and energy issues for four decades. As an environmental reporter for The Boston Globe, she covered the effects of ozone depletion, global warming, and the accelerating loss of species. Her latest book is “The End of the Long Summer: Why We Must Remake Our Civilization to Survive on A Volatile Earth.”

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo credit: University of Edinburgh]

Related posts:

• Geoengineering — A Magic Bullet Against Global Warming?
• Climate Change Skeptic Changes Stance and Calls for Action
• Panel Urges Research Into Climate Geoengineering Options
• New Computer Game Simulates Challenges of Global Warming
• Clean Tech Revolution In Need of a Green Gandhi. He May be Emerging.

If Internet companies and some utilities have their way, the smart grid will rely on the existing infrastructure of the information superhighway in order to function. They argue that by relying on existing standards like Internet Protocol (IP), the smart grid will grow faster and more organically than if utilities adopt an assortment of proprietary methods. Issues like security become easier to address too because the Internet manages exceptionally sensitive data quite well with existing technologies. To that end, the players dominating in the Internet arena including Google, Microsoft, and Cisco are all banking on the Internet’s role in the future of electricity management.

Connecting the smart grid and the Internet is a thoughtful union of two sophisticated systems. As a result, issues like net neutrality that were previously limited to high-tech circles are now relevant in the energy arena. While these new issues add complexity to the creation of the smart grid, the benefits of this union far outweigh the costs.

The integration of the Internet and electricity management will help progress the development of renewable energy immensely. Software products that rely on the Internet can play a significant role in managing the problems associated with renewable energy on the grid including intermittency, distributed generation, and demand-response. In order to roll out these major software advances, it is important to consider what already exists. The Internet provides a stable, fast, and secure medium to transport vital energy data.

One might think a major source of opposition is from those operating the existing electricity grid. On the contrary, utilities like PG&E have pushed for existing standards to drive the development of the smart grid because they need help to reach the ambitious goals for renewable energy in California. At the Berkeley-Standford CleanTech Conference Series last week, PG&E’s Andrew Tang opined the backbone of the smart grid would operate in a similar way to the Internet.

This idea is not without its problems, however. Electricity management is outside the comfort zone of Internet companies. From 120-degree heat in Arizona to below freezing temperatures in Ohio, Cisco will need to design hardware that operates in uncontrolled weather conditions. The outrage due to outages with Gmail will be nothing compared to the response due to blackouts caused by the company’s software.

The Internet culture in Silicon Valley does not lend itself well to the boring (and reliable) products required by the utilities, but cultural shifts are not unheard of in Silicon Valley. Google has more than 10,000 employees and there can be little doubt that the company undertook changes in operations and even culture during their massive growth period.

Internet companies are poised to tackle this problem. Google aims to organize the world’s information; it is clear that organizing principles will be necessary for the smart grid. The transition of electricity from traditional to renewable sources is a transition that lines up well with Cisco’s strategy. What the Internet does above all is allow small players to shake up the market. Companies like OPOWER [view some of their current clean tech job openings on the CleanTechies Job Board] are looking to become a big player on the smart grid by using software that incorporates behavioral science. Ultimately, software that relies on the Internet is the critical component required to add renewable energy to the grid.

Related posts:

• Germany Plans Renewable Energy Superhighway
• Siemens Promotes Smart Grid Technology Innovation Contest
• Solar-Powered Washing Machine Puts Smart Grid To The Test
• IBM and Trilliant Team to Simplify Smart Grid
• The Networked Grid — A Greentech Media Conference on the Smart Grid

On November 16-17, 2009 in Beijing, China — one of the pioneering countries of clean technology – the U.S.-China Green Tech Summit will share innovative solutions to deploying renewable and energy efficient technologies. The conference is expecting over 300 clean tech leaders from the United States and China, including speakers from BP Solar, General Motors China Group and UC Berkeley. It will discuss and analyze international projects that will aid in development of sustainability, alternative energy and more.

As official media partner of the U.S. China Green Tech Summit, CleanTechies is happy to offer you a special discount of $300 dollars off the ticket price. Simply mention “CleanTechies” when you register.

“Climate change, clean and efficient energy and environmental protection are among the greatest challenges facing the United States and China. Cooperation between the United States and China is critical to enhancing energy security, combating climate change, and protecting the environment and natural resources…”— U.S.-China Memorandum of Understanding to Enhance Cooperation on Climate Change, Energy and the Environment (July 2009)

With guest speakers such as Dan Kammen, author of over 90 publications and a book on environmental, technological, and health risks and numerous reports on renewable energy and development, Jonathan Woetzel, Director of McKinsey and Co., Greater China Office, and numerous others hailing from China’s leading clean tech companies such as Tsing Capital and Trina Solar, this conference is sure to bring new light to the world’s dependency on foreign oil, global warming concerns and other inefficiencies we currently face.

The panels of experienced speakers will give a glimpse into several topics including a vision of a low carbon future and what it takes to achieve it. This includes turning current research on climate change into practical implementation on certain green tech projects.

In addition, discussion will then cover China’s focus to further build its solar power capacity. The conference will discuss how to produce solar power competitively and steadily to compete with traditional electricity, as well as analyzing an upcoming project of building an international communication and R&D center without harming the surrounding area, including water and soil quality. The agenda will then focus on electric vehicles and where the sector stands and how the U.S. has invested more than $25 billion in the emerging division, yet China is the forefront leader in electric vehicles.

This dynamic discussion with the cooperation between the United States and China, two leaders pioneering clean tech advancements, will surely bring best practices to obstacles facing green technology. This is truly a conference you do not want to miss!

Register for the 2009 Green Tech Summit here, and visit the CleanTechies Events Calendar for more clean tech conferences.

Related posts:

• Climate Summit Host Denmark Proposes Ambitious Emissions Goals
• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says
• Schwarzenegger Announces New Climate Change Alliance
• J-REC Conference: Jewish Clean Tech & Green Energy Leaders To Meet
• Clean Tech Event: Smart Grid Bilateral Trade and Investment Opportunities