Andrew,
Concerning the "culture of absurd caution" - more of us might want to suggest our government agencies employ a different R&D agreement mechanism. DOE recently requested feedback on how they could do a better job funding R&D. One of the categories was "Agreement Mechanism." The mechanism I suggested could be applied for any CO2 capture technology. One would substitute $/ton of C stored into the energy example I used. If thickening Arctic sea ice, one might substitute $/hectare of ice cover increased from Summer 2014 minimum:
Agreement mechanisms – Current agreements which pay a large
fraction of R&D costs are appropriate for early stage R&D. The loan program is Ok for really large ($100
million) late-stage full scale production projects. DOE should add another kind of agreement for
moving technologies from about Technical Readiness Level 4-5 to TRL 8-9. That is: if it works, DOE pays. If it doesn’t work, DOE doesn’t pay.
Many
of DOE’s potential partners and customers hit a wall when the project cost is
$1m to $20m and technology is unproven at that scale. The potential customers (particularly local
governments) do not want to chance even an “only pay, if it works” because they
cannot define “works” within their infrastructure due to uncertainties on
possible interactions with existing infrastructure. (It’s a question of going first. Customers need large rewards to overcome
their aversion to going first on a new technology.) Investors for the technology provider would
be willing to accept an “only paid, if it works” contract, but only if the rewards
justify the risks.
For
example – The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s hydrothermal
waste-to-energy process combined with an ammonia, phosphorus, potassium and
other metals recovery process appears economically viable on Guam. But the first $10 million TRL 7 demonstration
to transform wastewater treatment plant sludge and used lubrication oils into
electricity has insufficient reward, given the first-time risk, for both
customers and investors. Once past the
first-time risk, it can grow to transform general wet organic municipal
waste-to-energy in Guam and Hawaii. Then
grow to transform global wastes (particularly refugee camps) to energy. Then become a component for converting ocean
nutrient deserts into food, energy, and ocean acidification solving ecosystems.
Solution
– Increase the rewards of the project, while reducing DOE’s risk. Facilitate “only pay, if it works” contracts
by offering to increase the reward on a unit quantity basis. In the Guam example, DOE might contribute
$0.05/kWh for ten years of produced energy, paid to the Guam Power Authority as
it is produced by the Guam Power Authority from the hydrothermal biogas.
DOE risk tolerance – See above agreement mechanism. Use “only pay for useful products” contracts
with a minimum of application paperwork to sidestep risk assessments. Aim for, advertise, and recruit for a 50%
failure rate. It’s not DOE money on the
line for a failure. Ideally, the
RDD&D providers and their investors select themselves. DOE tweaks the ease of application and tunes
the incentives to compensate for the 50% failure rate.
DOE
can also negotiate more technologies into projects. For example, suppose DOE wants to prototype a
1 MW fuel cell for combined heat and power.
DOE might convince the parties participating in the Guam project to
employ the fuel cell by increasing DOE’s ten-year electricity subsidy. (The hydrothermal process needs
high-temperature waste heat, like that from many fuel cells.)
DOE might need to set aside
10% of project costs for the customer (not the technology provider) to use when
removing “didn’t work” projects.
---------- Original Message --------
Subject: [geo] Harvard Kennedy School - David Keith, Shaking the
Establishment
From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, June 15, 2015 12:07 am
To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
ExtractPlanning his next Arctic wilderness trip.
Keith says we’re at an environmental inflection point. Despite promising technology and social movements that will nudge smarter policies, public investment in focused energy R&D is “pitifully small” – less than we spend on nuclear weapons development. Given the importance of these efforts, Keith says, “that’s just goofy.”Culture of “absurd caution”Even more important than higher budgets, he says, is something counterintuitive: higher tolerance for failure. A major contributor of technological stagnation, he argues, is a “culture of absurd caution.” Scientific institutions like NASA and parts of DOE have become bureaucracies with minimal tolerance for failure. “If failure cannot be tolerated,” Keith says, “then you are certain to avoid success.”This culture cannot be changed by blaming agencies. Government leaders need the courage to reframe fiascos like Solyndra as part of the discovery process. And Congress must prioritize a culture of competitiveness over “gotcha” hearings when things go wrong. Without such a shift, Keith says, America will lose the innovation race with China.Keith is doing his part, working to build momentum for a once-taboo technology that could be one of our most effective tactics against climate change: solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation management (SRM). In a nutshell, SRM injects aerosols into the stratosphere to block a portion of inbound sunlight, reversing the warming effect of carbon emissions.SRM manages the symptoms of greenhouse gases only; it does not undo decades of damaging greenhouse gases, nor does it obviate the need for huge efforts to lower carbon emissions. Still, at a time when even the most aggressive global carbon treaties simply stop the problem from getting worse at a faster rate, Keith says this low-cost, high-impact technology represents one of the few tools we have to stop the planet’s dangerous warming.Benefits and RisksHe is up-front about the risks of SRM, both to nature and national security, in which states could be drawn into conflict over earth’s thermostat. The need for greater clarity about both SRM’s promise and potential pitfalls, Keith says, are exactly why governments should support controlled experiments. Dispassionate analysis soon, he argues, will save us from desperate, ill-considered measures later. Meanwhile, Keith is leading a fundraising effort for Harvard’s own geoengineering initiative.Keith is mindful that technological innovation alone won’t solve our climate problems. “There is absolutely no possibility of this issue getting solved by some kind of policy-free technology invention,” Keith says. “It’s all about policy.” Carbon, he explains, is basically a global public good. “We have to coordinate the provision of this public good. It’s a free-rider problem.”To address this, policymakers must establish a carbon price. Despite major political barriers, Kieth says even conservatives who find “carbon taxes” a non-starter should embrace a competitive policy that would diminish today’s crony capitalism and lobbying-driven subsidies.Just as the Belfer Center took the lead in confronting nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation, Keith hopes the Center will lead the effort to reduce the dangers of climate change. Stronger programs to help students gain mastery at the intersection of policy and science, he argues, are a must for Harvard Kennedy School. “We need the convening power of the Kennedy School to bear on the cutting edge of science and technology.”--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
