While this summer's Energy Policy Act and its latest reincarnation, the
Energy Bill II may do little to address these issues, the short term tax
credits and ambitious State programs from Renewable Energy Portfolio
Standards, continued investments by State clean energy System Benefit
Trust Funds, and aggressive initiatives - such as the Western Governors
Association to Governor Schwatzeneggar's revived Million Solar Roofs
Initiative - - will assuredly grow the renewable and clean distributed
energy markets here in the States.
But an important question should focus on the role of the DOE-sponsored
National Laboratories, particularly the dedicated renewable energy
institution - the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden,
Colorado.
Before I start an article like this, it is important to separate the
hardworking researchers from the policymakers and setters. NREL has done
some outstanding work and even recently won some awards. In October,
scientists and engineers at 12 US Department of Energy national
laboratories won 29 of the 100 awards given out this year by R&D Magazine.
The prestigious "R&D 100" awards honor the most outstanding technology
developments of the year that have commercial potential. Of the 12 DOE
awards, three related directly to energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Specifically, NREL helped develop a method of detecting impurities and
defects in silicon boules, the single-crystal ingots from which solar
cells are made. The lab also helped to develop an energy-modeling program
called Targeted Residential Energy Analysis Tools (TREAT), which
identifies the most cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades for both
single-family and multifamily homes. The third award went to DOE's Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), which worked with SEMCO Inc. to develop
a rooftop air conditioner that can independently control humidity and
temperature while delivering any specified percentage of outdoor air into
commercial and institutional buildings.
But R&D 100 awards aside, the role of NREL and its ability to insert
itself more plainly at the cutting edge is open to question. Now again,
federal RD&D budgets have been stagnant and more appropriations directed
line-items wrench dollars from the Labs into more regional and applied
projects. So life at the bottom of the federal R&D food chain isn't all
that rosy in times of expected budget cuts. And NREL's newly-selected
director, Dan Arvizu has just gotten into the driver's seat and change
takes awhile.
However, the world does not sit still - federal budgets always fluctuate
and international competition remains relentless. The National Academy
recently recommended in its report that the US Department of Energy
establish a program similar to the Department of Defense's "Defense
Advanced Research Program" (DARPA). DARPA has been extremely successful
not only because it works closely with private sector players but it also
doggedly drives the cutting edge technologies and applications essential
for the US military to stay ahead of the competitors. It's a great idea,
but this still begs the question of the role of the National labs, in the
case of REN readers and this author, primarily NREL, but also Oak Ridge,
Sandia, and Pacific NW Laboratories,
The fundamental question in the Washington "power" relationship is whether
these labs are basically support contractors to DOE, or whether DOE is a
sponsor "only" of the institution. What makes DARPA so successful and well
liked by US industry is that they set tough goals but basically let the
companies evolve the technology(s) and sometimes competitively with other
companies being funded in parallel. Could possibly the same approach work
for our national labs - that DOE supplies funds and guidance - but the
labs and its university and corporate partners are allowed more freely to
copilot their parallel futures?
But aside from the National Academy, public comments on the new roles and
responsibilities of the Labs - really aren't coming from the Lab directors
themselves. The Challenge for research veteran Arvizu, who spent a long
tenure at Sandia and in the private sector with CH2M Hill, is how will the
NREL overseers allow him to not only be visionary, but stake an
appropriate longterm role for NREL. This is complicated by the
schizophrenic environment of the Administration, who lauds renewables in
public and in private shakes its head and says the combined
efficiency/renewable sector makes little impact in overall US energy and
economic growth requirements. Yes it's wrongheaded but they are stubbornly
persistent - with the traditional energy industries vociferously in the
background.
But leaders of institutions must and should take risks. While DOE has
worked with the different industry sectors to establish RD&D Roadmaps and
the national labs have been involved in that process - the leadership of
NREL and its sister national laboratories remain silent. Now as this
commentary is published, I will assuredly be sent notes from the
laboratory directors of the important statements and documents they
published that state great and lofty commitments to renewable energy,
energy efficiency and sustainable energy. And I have read most of them -
"nice words" are not what I am talking about.
Will off-shore natural gas and petroleum drilling significantly increase
domestic US energy production - no. Will offshore Liquified Natural Gas
terminals increase US imports and make our energy delivery chain more
susceptible to terrorism, international intrigue, and intense weather
patterns - yes. Will increased use of nuclear energy place more strains on
multi-thousand year waste storage and protection from terrorism,
earthquakes and other bad events - yes. Will increased use of coal and
other fossil fuels exacerbate our existing Clean Air Act Standards (SO2,
NOx, and particulates) and emissions changing our global climate - yes.
And thus the fundamental role of our renewable energy and energy
efficiency research institutions are to provide options for the American
(and global) public. This need has never been greater. It's time to be
less complacent, and not only more visionary, but also more directed and
determined. NREL and our other national laboratories must step up to the
challenge. Less emphasis on support contracting (which spanned
Administrations), and more on staking out what the responsibilities,
challenges and risks that need to be shared and carried by these important
public research and analytical institutions.
About the author...
Scott Sklar is president of his own policy and strategic
marketing firm, The Stella Group Ltd., Washington, D.C. (solarsklar@aol.com).
Previously, he served simultaneously as executive director of the Solar
Energy Industries Association and the National BioEnergy Industries
Association for 15 years. His book, A Consumer Guide to Solar Energy, was
re-released in 2004 for its third printing.
The information and views expressed in this article are
those of the author and not necessarily those of
RenewableEnergyAccess.com or the companies that advertise on its Web
site and other publications.
Copyright © 1999 - 2005 - RenewableEnergyAccess.com
Please visit www.RenewableEnergyAccess.com
for great coverage on energy today!!