Biden Says U.S. Will Lead Energy Revolution

Bill Scanlon, NREL
May 26, 2011 | 19 Comments

America, with its entrepreneurial spirit and innovative national labs, will lead the global clean-energy revolution and reap the economic and environmental benefits that go with it, Vice President Joe Biden vowed in a visit last week to the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

But that will happen only if partnerships between national labs and the most innovative start-ups are encouraged and allowed to blossom, he said.

New initiatives from the DOE are making it easier for small but innovative companies to access technologies developed at the national labs, he said.

Now, those licenses are just $1,000, so cost is no longer a barrier, he said.

NREL and other national labs will provide the spark, and private companies will use the efficiencies of the market to commercialize the best clean-energy innovations, Biden told an overflow crowd at NREL's Golden, CO campus.

"Now, more than ever, America's future competitiveness depends on our ability to innovate and our capacity to live up to our rich history of technological advancement," said Vice President Biden. "This kind of public-private partnership fosters extraordinary innovation, allows brilliant ideas to develop, and gives businesses the tools they need to bring technology to the market."

Vice-President Joe Biden spoke about clean-energy partnerships between government scientists and private entrepreneurs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory on May 20.

Vice-President Joe Biden spoke about clean-energy partnerships between government scientists and private entrepreneurs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory on May 20. Credit: Dennis Schroeder

Biden prompted a standing ovation from a crowd of scientists and policy makers when he declared that "Science is back," as a crucial player in American innovation.

The vice president noted that NREL has in the works such potentially revolutionary technology as a battery that could power a car 1,000 miles between charges, and cost about 5 percent of today's gasoline costs.

If such ideas are squelched by the faction that would label any government participation as "socialism," rest assured that China or Spain or Brazil or India will lead the clean-energy revolution — with help from their governments, Biden said.

Biden Cites Public-private Partnerships Going Back 150 Years

Using the government to spark innovation is as American as apple pie, Biden said.

He noted that President Lincoln issued government bonds to help get the Transcontinental Railroad built — and now railroads are a $300-plus billion industry.

President Eisenhower used government aid to help push to the market the innovations from the Argonne National Laboratory that sparked a revolution in telecommunications.

NREL Director Dan Arvizu accompanied Vice President Joe Biden on a tour of NREL's Process Development Integration Laboratory on Friday May 20. The PDIL has six bays where proven and experimental solar cells are made and tested in partnership with private industry. Credit: Dennis Schroeder

When President Kennedy announced a national initiative to get a man on the Moon by the end of the 1960s, neither he nor most of the scientists hired for the effort could imagine that the space mission would launch the semiconductor industry, which in turn launched the personal computer, which made possible the Microsofts, Apples and Googles of the world, he said.

Similarly, no one today can guess at the marvels that will emerge from what is being developed at NREL and commercialized by private industry, he said.

Boulder Firm First to Sign Agreement under Streamlined "America's Next Top Energy Innovator" Challenge

Biden announced the first option agreement under the DOE's "America's Next Top Energy Innovator" challenge. Boulder, CO-based U.S. e-Chromic LLC finalized an option agreement to use NREL technology to retrofit inefficient windows with thin films so that they deflect sunlight in the summer, sharply reducing the need for air conditioning in homes or offices.

"Any of you who've been in an office with direct sunlight know how fast it can make you want to crank up the A/C," Biden said. U.S. e-Chromic CEO Loren Burnett, who was given the honor of introducing Biden, said:

"I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to the Obama administration for creating the Start-up America Initiative, and to (DOE) Secretary Chu for the America's Next Top Energy Initiative Challenge. Suddenly launching a company around an NREL technology was within our reach."

Vice President Joe Biden, in NREL's PDIL, speaks to, from left, NREL director Dan Arvizu, Colorado First District Congresswoman Diana DeGette, U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, and Colorado Seventh District Congressman Ed Perlmutter. Credit: Dennis Schroeder

Buildings comprise about a third of U.S. energy consumption, and windows are a big chunk of the energy drain. So this one technology potentially can lower the nation's entire energy budget by about 1 percent, Biden said.

NREL's Executive Energy Leadership program participants were special guests at Biden's announcement. Twenty representatives of industry, nonprofit and government organizations from nine states are participating in the 2011 Energy Execs class. The five-month program gives executive decision-makers throughout the United States an in-depth look at renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

America has Tough Competitors in Clean-energy Innovation

America's heterogeneous population and its free-enterprise system have "let us do things no other system in the world has been able to do," Biden said.

But the rest of the world isn't standing still, he said.

"Imagine the first country to create a car battery better and cheaper than batteries today that can store much more energy and go 1,000 miles between charges," the vice-president said.

"And imagine the country that doesn't invest in these technologies, that continues to rely on fossil fuels. Some other country will lead us toward these breakthroughs."

The United States "still has the best research universities and the best engineers," Biden said.

"And we have 15,000 technologies held by our 17 national laboratories. Each of those technologies now can be developed by private enterprise."

Vice President Joe Biden shares a laugh with, from left, US e-Chromic CEO Loren Burnett, U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, U.S. Congressman Ed Perlmutter, and U.S. Congressswoman Diana DeGette. Credit: Dennis Schroeder

Biden pointed to the DOE-funded, NREL-run SunShot Incubator program, which funds start-ups that have the kind of disruptive technology that can lower the costs of solar energy to be on a par with coal-based electricity.

"The SunShot Incubator program has taken $60 million of DOE money and applied it to 20 start-up companies," Biden said. "Those 20 companies have attracted $1.3 billion in private investment at a time when we are coming out of a recession. They've already added more than 1,000 good clean-tech jobs. And this is just the start."

"The only way to know whether or not these ideas can fulfill the promise that they hold is to give them … to private enterprise to see if they can commercially make them viable," Biden said. "That is not the business of government. That is not our business. … We're in the business of providing the spark."

Bill Scanlon is a writer for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). This article was originally published as an NREL news feature and was reprinted with permission.

19 Comments

Upali Wickramasinghe
July 26, 2011

Cliff_Goudey
Sir, Accepted. My apologies.

Cliff Goudey
July 26, 2011

Upali, there may be merit to what you are now suggesting, but I do not understand why anyone proposing such an idea would launch their rhetoric by disparaging the audience.

Upali Wickramasinghe
July 26, 2011

Cliff_Goudey
Sir,you read only a part of the comments.Carbon sequestration is sine quo non in the context of renewable fuels.Otherwise why search for renewable fuels,with the new technology the world can last at least till 2100 with the fossil fuel resources identified and to be identified.The problem to which one seek solutions are (i) fast depleting fossil fuel resources,fast depleting water resources,global warming, ice caps and glaciers melting and many more.

Lastly movement of the human being is now a fact of life for which people use vehicles. The cost of alternate transport technologies place the average man outside the facility of using transport for his movement

Upali Wickramasinghe
July 26, 2011

The solution is not found in the US actually not in the whole of US but confined to the tropical areas of the US and the rest of the countries in the tropical belt.

There is plenty of land deserts, dry lands sub fertile lands grass lands and even homesteads ( one plant per homestead ).
Secondly these are areas where poverty is high, people lack food and water, regular droughts and most important one can find a committed work force where the wages are comparatively cheap ( Africa) Without free handouts lasting another century get these people to participate in this project.

2. Get dedicated plantations, dedicated to a distillery ( alcohol refinery ) where the input of capital will 1/10 ( that is at ten year life cycle as against one year for corn or sugar cane)where the distillery and the plantation will be self sufficient in energy, agro chemical (fertlizer) and water.CO2 sequesteration will be massive.

This will contribute to a very low ex factory price for ethanol or even butanol.

If it is ethanol, use the technology already published to use hydrous ethanol as a transport fuel.which make it still cheaper.If one require anhydrous ethanol, go ahead it will be priced at about 50% of the present cost.Of course there is an cost center not mentioned so far - cost of transport.Be it crude oil or ethanol made in the mid west, there is a significant cost of transports.

In my studies I have identified a combination of four plants that will make this project a success. The critical factor in these is the canopy, the long life cycle and the ability to help the soil retain water, automatic improvement to the soil and biodiversity..

Cliff Goudey
July 26, 2011

Upwali, who would suggest the biofuel scenario you describe as an energy revolution? I see no mention of it in the article. Similarly, carbon sequestration has no part of such a revolution. Both of these activities are but distractions from what needs to be done and, logically, what Biden and the folks from NREL are trying to move forward.

Upali Wickramasinghe
July 26, 2011

Hon Bidden is a politician, he is due for reelection one year hence. So he has to keep the electorate happy or optimistic.Leading the energy revolution is a different game altogether.
While accepting the fact that your scientists are reported to have done a lot in this field, I feel that the only result had been a string of Ph.D, a string of research papers, and publicity.

Let us look at some of the proposals.1st generation bio fuels ( as made in the US) the net energy ratio is negative, high capital investment ( it has to be repeated yearly) high maintenance costs ( repeated application of agro chemicals and fertlizer ) high water consumption in areas where the aquifers are drying up, leachate having adverse results on marine life and worst of all the loss of CO2.from the soil ( soil is reported to hold x3 times the CO2 held by the atmosphere).No body has proved that by using these plants mostly grasses, that the excess CO2 can be sequestered or that global heating can be reduced.

On the other hand there are fantastic proposal coming up as Goe engineering. Spraying the atmosphere above the earth with sulphur dust, a hood orbiting above the earth and the peach by Dr.Steven Chu to paint the roofs white.and finally the Discovery channel showed few dys ago, an experiment to sequester CO2 in caustic soda.

There is nothing wrong with these proposals in theory, but are they practical? can they be implemented, the finances for it.Dr. Chu's proposal has one more short coming, even if all the roofs in the world are painted white, what about the roads, both gravel and macadamized are they too going to be painted white? Secondly since the bulk of the worlds population is found in the poorer countries, who is going to finance the supply of paint?

Upali Wickramasinghe
July 20, 2011

Doubt it

Peter Lynch
May 31, 2011

Phil - understand. I have a solar company working in NJ and the SREC's are incredibly complex. I think a well designed, with all your points taken into account is the answer. Because the big problem with SREC's as they are evolving, at least in NJ, is that the best you can get is a 5 year deal. Uncertainty is the death of deals and the best point about FIT's is length of applicability.

Phil Manke
May 31, 2011

Thanks, Peter;
Well, it is only criminal if we had a judicial system independent enuf to call it so, and some legal body to prosecute it so.

On Solar RE credits. I prefer SREC's because they reward performance, or production. They may have less paper work up front. FIT's reward installations, right? So if a solar energy system, PV or thermal, is installed and doesn't work or performs poorly, it is credited up front anyway with a FIT, so small loss. FIT programs require gold standard, (read: expensive) testing for the brand alone. If, under an SREC program, the production is paltry, so is the reward. It, (the reward) is paid over time, for KWh's of production, so it aids the cost of money and hardware for systems that work. The poor banks and scant government coffers should favor it, because it doesn't use their money, but the ute's. Why they don't belies their real anti-solution adgenda. The good news is that the way out, for anyone, is to adopt solar energy and be on the recieving end instead of the paying end.
My complaint about solar thermal SREC systems is that they still require SRCC OG-300 certified systems, which, in itself assures nothing but higher prices because of test certification costs. It should be according to performance alone, because no one would want to have a system installed that does not perform well. Expensive hardware alone does not assure this. Performance alone also opens the door to new developments, even home built innovation, as long as there is an approved metering KWh or BTU meter in line.
Another problem is that many, most states do not have a RES with a solar carve-out in place to enable SREC trading. Why they don't is puzzling. It must be Ute' resistance lobbying.

Peter Lynch
May 31, 2011

Phil - suspicious ?? Maybe borderline criminal. Why a GE needs an extra $3MM to do something they we already doing is a simple but accurate example of why Government does not work...

BTW why do you prefer SREC's over FIT's - just curious

Phil Manke
May 31, 2011

I find it suspicious that any efforts to effect development must come by stimulating big business R&D. It is not the penchant of the capitalist economic "miracle" to respond to market forces? It would seem, therefor, that stimulating the market by providing incentives in buying ability of the general public through FIT's or preferably SREC's trading would provide a level field of market blooming across the country, and not mega bucks for big business alone. The government knows nothing about what and where development must occur. They have proven this time and again. The people of the US (citizens!) need support in purchasing the hardware in these difficult economic times, not big businesses, which are awash in stimulus money being spent in aprehension of more failing policies. Need we be reminded that for the billions spent in bailing out the banksters, each home could have a distributed energy system as its primary source in energy provision, thus negating the expansion of easy capital that the fools in receipt cry out for. Carpet-bagging, big business compromise must stop. Haven't they proven it is not the answer. Give the already established venues a chance to be employed. Let us (US) have a chance to develop the existing solar rennisance of hardware that already exists but cannot be afforded in the present economic climate. Q-Would our economic system really collapse if most domestic and small business energy supplies were to be derived from freely distributed sources that are divorced from large ongoing corporate fuel and power provision? Aren't the government programs designed to maintain this corporate control over energy sources, and the political payback it engenders? Aren't the Demublicans and Republocrats at the root of this problem? Lastly; Aren't we stupid (again) to expect them to correct the problem they benefit from? In my view, they are posturing to merely arrange the peas under the shells before presenting them to our choice.

Michael Keller
May 31, 2011

Strikes me that "innovation" and "government" is an oxymoron. Further, I seriously doubt the national labs will lead the energy revolution, as they are essentially government bureaucracies.

If you actually want innovation, stop throwing obstacles in front of private industry.

Michael Vryhof
May 27, 2011

Go Joe,

We are looking for the spark, Bring it on !

ANONYMOUS
May 27, 2011

Hollow words from a man who knows nothing about it.

Peter Lynch
May 27, 2011

Attitude is important. But in order to make a "good" decision you have to understand what you are looking at and how that compares to what else is in the market and how feasible it is for the technology to not only "work" but also be a commercially viable product that sells for more than it costs...I really think this is an important element that is missing. We still are in the old - that's the way we have to do it because that is the road we are on.....

Cliff Goudey
May 27, 2011

It doesn't have to be that way. All it takes is genuine energy leadership from the administration and a level playing field from Congress. If no ocean-based renewable energy projects happen in the U.S., then you can't expect to see the manufacturing.

ANONYMOUS
May 27, 2011

Of course China or Brazil or India or Spain will lead the clean-energy revolution. The U.S. will retain the priviledge of paying for the costly and high-risk R&D effort, after which the taxpayer-funded technology (and job creation, except for a few short-lived pilot-plant manufacturing positions and boom-or-bust construction work) will be seamlessly transferred to the aforementioned countries through various "joint-venture" and "strategic partnership" schemes for profitable commercialization.

Cliff Goudey
May 27, 2011

Bruce, I'd bet on those working on fossil fuels, but only because they own too many members of Congress. As a result, we continue lavish tax-payer support of this mature and highly profitable industry. Unfortunately their focus in not on cheaper energy, only prolonged dependence.

However, Vice President Biden's vision of the U.S. leading the global clean-energy revolution is in trouble, not because we don't have the ability to innovate but because we are mired in a dysfunctional regulatory environment that took ten years to approve Cape Wind - our first offshore wind farm. The same regulatory "safeguards" authorized BP's Macondo ultra-deep drilling fiasco in a less than six months.

Already, the regulatory agencies are massing to build careers on the backs of renewable energy, all in the name of saving the environment. Don't they realize that preventing or delaying our switch to renewables is the the very worst thing that could happen to the planet? Surely if the ills of geologic fracking are immune to the Clean Water Act, then generating clean power from the wind, waves, and ocean currents deserves some relief.

V. Bruce Stenswick
May 27, 2011

I am glad he has a can-do attitude. The problem in this country is our refusal to deal with climate change. If you formed two teams, Team Green consisting of 500,000 scientists and engineers who wanted to make 'green' energy cheaper than fossil fuels, and Team FF, consisting of 50,000 scientists and engineers trying to keep fossil fuels cheaper, I am not sure who I would bet on. We need cap-and-trade, or a carbon tax, or strict mandates on GHG emissions.