Thursday, March 15, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
EnergyWire accessible on SIU campus
Thanks to Stephen Janasie of the SIU Professional Science Masters in Advanced Energy and Fuels Management program for this info:
Greenwire, which is a service accessible via internet here on campus, has created a new EnergyWire service. With this service, you can follow important news items in the energy sector. I encourage you to check it out:
ARPA-E issues open call for transformational energy technologies
Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy
Releases $150 Million Funding Opportunity Announcement
Releases $150 Million Funding Opportunity Announcement
Today, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E)issued a $150 million funding opportunity open to all transformational energy technologies to support the Obama Administration’s all-of-the-above approach to solving our nation’s most pressing energy challenges. This Open Funding Opportunity Announcement is a call to our country’s brightest scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs to propose early-stage research projects that would not otherwise be able to attract private investment, but could lead to breakthrough energy technologies. This is the second open funding opportunity released under ARPA-E. The first was in 2009.“Today we are calling on our nation’s best and brightest to catalyze energy breakthroughs in all areas imaginable through this Open Funding Opportunity Announcement, which illustrates the true purpose of ARPA-E,” said Director Majumdar. “Innovation is our nation’s sweet spot, and it is critically important that we look at every possible energy solution in order to ensure America’s future prosperity and security.”This Open Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) joins ARPA-E’s other recently issued FOA - Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy (MOVE) - which will make $30 million available to find ways to harness our abundant supplies of domestic natural gas for vehicles and was announced by President Obama last week at the University of Miami.More details on all of ARPA-E’s Funding Opportunities and Requests For Information are available HERE. Individual awards under the Open FOA will range between $250,000 and $10 million.President Obama launched the Energy Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) in 2009 to seek out transformational, breakthrough technologies that are too risky for private sector investment but have the potential to translate science into quantum leaps in energy technology, form the foundation for entirely new industries, and in the future have large commercial impact.Including its most recent round of selections, ARPA-E has funded a total of more than 180 projects, for $521.7 million in awards across 12 program areas. Demonstrating the success ARPA-E has already seen, the Agency announced last year that eleven of its projects that received $40 million from ARPA-E for innovative research, were able to use this funding to demonstrate results, which allowed these teams to secure more than $200 million in outside private capital investment.ARPA-E’s third annual Energy Innovation Summit featured 107 speakers, including: President Bill Clinton; Microsoft Founder and Chairman, Bill Gates; Xerox CEO, Ursula Burns; FedEx CEO, Fred Smith; BDT Capital Chairman, Lee Scott; Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter; MIT President, Susan Hockfield; U.S. Energy Secretary, Steven Chu; and ARPA-E Director, Arun Majumdar. The Summit attracted 2,440 attendees from 49 states and 26 countries and featured a Technology Showcase displaying over 240 breakthrough energy developments from ARPA-E’s awardees, finalists and other teams.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit: Bill Clinton
Some notes from President Clinton's keynote (please note: any grammatical and spelling errors are those of the note taker).
He's really here to say "go get 'em." It's exciting for him to be here, and he thinks now is an important time.
There are some hazards to the innovation project right now. Oil imports have dropped, we have had achievements, and people start to say: we should say that's good enough. Budget constraints could force us to give in to the temptation not to invest more and more in innovation, one of the the government's most important priorities, he thinks.
On the other hand, there are many new discoveries, such as the evidence that investments in energy can lead to an economic boom for our country and the world; and even when the government's role is unclear, the private sector continues to invest. Recent spikes in gas prices remind us of the fragility of 'just the way we used to do' things, plus the inherent costs of fossil fuels on health and the ecosystem.
To try to close the gap between the trendlines and the headlines is important and we are making progress. For example, the belief was that the only way to grow richer was to burn fossil fuels, create greenhouse gas; but no one believes that any more. Prof Muller of Berkeley's Earth Surface Temperature Project testified in front of congress, called by the committee opposed to the idea of climate change,and he admitted he was wrong and that the globe is warming, caused by human activities. It didn't make the evening news. It was a trendline but not a headline. The American people are with you (the audience, ARPA-E) in this enterprise, but they have all they can take. He hopes that there is a citizenship component to raise knowledge and understanding that economic security is not threatened by what the audience and ARPA-E are doing, but it depends on it.
He is a huge fan of Obama's energy strategy, as long as we are moving towards a reduction in emissions along with growth. Many countries have experienced economic growth with lowering or maintaining of emissions, and also have not exacerbated the inequality aspect.
We need a consensus in congress. We need more people knowledgeable about transferring technologies to public use. Military also needs to be involved, because of their capacity to help with change. We need to remove ambivalence over whether natural gas should be embraced, along with a system of high standards for doing the work.
We need more innovation to implement what works now in the low hanging fruit area. For example: financing a buildup of wind with the infrastructure fund. We have excellent wind in Montana, but we need to get the electricity to where the people are. Get corporations to invest in the rest by repatriating corporate taxes, lowering the corporate tax and broadening the base, removing deductions. Tell the corporations: if you want to bring it back you can, but you have to put it in the infrastructure bank. So then we can put the energy where the people are.
We should do more in America and around the world to pick the low hanging fruit in terms of lowering emissions as well, for example: methane gas, black carbon, CFCs. If we could do this on a global basis, it could buy us 20 years while all of you (the audience) come up with great ideas that will make a huge difference. Americans should set an example.
There should not be one open landfill in the US. There are technologies that help farmers reduce methane waste on farms. We should have a systematic way of doing this. Waste to energy, creating steam from methane, one needs need 17-18 years to pay off the investment. This is not rocket science, we just need a systematic solution for the more rapidly dispersed greenhouse gasses. There are working, affordable models that are being implemented around the world.
We need a technological fix to finance efficiency. We all know efficiency is good. Chicago is announcing a number of improvements tomorrow; again, we need a systematic fix. Now there are software programs for bonded contractors to figure out what can be done to improve efficiency, and the organizations that can provide the backing to guarantee the services; this is a huge deal for America's biggest unemployment problem. But there is no national "just say yes" system here. Main thing to know is you get 7-8000 jobs per billion dollars invested. We can get halfway home to an 80% reduction by 2050 by efficiency measures alone. More effort needs to go into "just say yes" systems; return on investment is clear.
The biggest obstacle to going to tax breaks for home efficiency improvements is the fallacy that it erodes the value of the home investment; in fact, the home becomes more valuable, and it does not undermine the mortgage. This meaningless debate has kept congress from doing it nationwide.
Other option is decoupling, and allowing utilities to finance the improvements directly. Twenty states allow it, and there's some evidence that it's becoming more popular. We would have a "just say yes" system that would apply to homes, businesses, and larger buildings, and it would make a big difference. They cut your utility bill and add the financing of the retrofit to your utility bill, and they put the two together so you see that the bill is less than before retrofit.
If you're looking for a way to generate jobs in a hurry while getting on to the technology developments...we are making some progress.
We are really paying a price for postponing the large scale lower hanging things we know we can do while we finance things and find the silver bullets.
He's very optimistic about this. He's gratified by the fact that the President, administration and DOD are on the cutting edge. No matter what has happened with subsidies, we have this incredible venture capital network that continues to believe in it.
Once people know the facts, no one's against it. There are still too few who understand what a huge impact this could be on their future; people need to know, then they can understand and participate.
He's really here to say "go get 'em." It's exciting for him to be here, and he thinks now is an important time.
There are some hazards to the innovation project right now. Oil imports have dropped, we have had achievements, and people start to say: we should say that's good enough. Budget constraints could force us to give in to the temptation not to invest more and more in innovation, one of the the government's most important priorities, he thinks.
On the other hand, there are many new discoveries, such as the evidence that investments in energy can lead to an economic boom for our country and the world; and even when the government's role is unclear, the private sector continues to invest. Recent spikes in gas prices remind us of the fragility of 'just the way we used to do' things, plus the inherent costs of fossil fuels on health and the ecosystem.
To try to close the gap between the trendlines and the headlines is important and we are making progress. For example, the belief was that the only way to grow richer was to burn fossil fuels, create greenhouse gas; but no one believes that any more. Prof Muller of Berkeley's Earth Surface Temperature Project testified in front of congress, called by the committee opposed to the idea of climate change,and he admitted he was wrong and that the globe is warming, caused by human activities. It didn't make the evening news. It was a trendline but not a headline. The American people are with you (the audience, ARPA-E) in this enterprise, but they have all they can take. He hopes that there is a citizenship component to raise knowledge and understanding that economic security is not threatened by what the audience and ARPA-E are doing, but it depends on it.
He is a huge fan of Obama's energy strategy, as long as we are moving towards a reduction in emissions along with growth. Many countries have experienced economic growth with lowering or maintaining of emissions, and also have not exacerbated the inequality aspect.
We need a consensus in congress. We need more people knowledgeable about transferring technologies to public use. Military also needs to be involved, because of their capacity to help with change. We need to remove ambivalence over whether natural gas should be embraced, along with a system of high standards for doing the work.
We need more innovation to implement what works now in the low hanging fruit area. For example: financing a buildup of wind with the infrastructure fund. We have excellent wind in Montana, but we need to get the electricity to where the people are. Get corporations to invest in the rest by repatriating corporate taxes, lowering the corporate tax and broadening the base, removing deductions. Tell the corporations: if you want to bring it back you can, but you have to put it in the infrastructure bank. So then we can put the energy where the people are.
We should do more in America and around the world to pick the low hanging fruit in terms of lowering emissions as well, for example: methane gas, black carbon, CFCs. If we could do this on a global basis, it could buy us 20 years while all of you (the audience) come up with great ideas that will make a huge difference. Americans should set an example.
There should not be one open landfill in the US. There are technologies that help farmers reduce methane waste on farms. We should have a systematic way of doing this. Waste to energy, creating steam from methane, one needs need 17-18 years to pay off the investment. This is not rocket science, we just need a systematic solution for the more rapidly dispersed greenhouse gasses. There are working, affordable models that are being implemented around the world.
We need a technological fix to finance efficiency. We all know efficiency is good. Chicago is announcing a number of improvements tomorrow; again, we need a systematic fix. Now there are software programs for bonded contractors to figure out what can be done to improve efficiency, and the organizations that can provide the backing to guarantee the services; this is a huge deal for America's biggest unemployment problem. But there is no national "just say yes" system here. Main thing to know is you get 7-8000 jobs per billion dollars invested. We can get halfway home to an 80% reduction by 2050 by efficiency measures alone. More effort needs to go into "just say yes" systems; return on investment is clear.
The biggest obstacle to going to tax breaks for home efficiency improvements is the fallacy that it erodes the value of the home investment; in fact, the home becomes more valuable, and it does not undermine the mortgage. This meaningless debate has kept congress from doing it nationwide.
Other option is decoupling, and allowing utilities to finance the improvements directly. Twenty states allow it, and there's some evidence that it's becoming more popular. We would have a "just say yes" system that would apply to homes, businesses, and larger buildings, and it would make a big difference. They cut your utility bill and add the financing of the retrofit to your utility bill, and they put the two together so you see that the bill is less than before retrofit.
If you're looking for a way to generate jobs in a hurry while getting on to the technology developments...we are making some progress.
We are really paying a price for postponing the large scale lower hanging things we know we can do while we finance things and find the silver bullets.
He's very optimistic about this. He's gratified by the fact that the President, administration and DOD are on the cutting edge. No matter what has happened with subsidies, we have this incredible venture capital network that continues to believe in it.
Once people know the facts, no one's against it. There are still too few who understand what a huge impact this could be on their future; people need to know, then they can understand and participate.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit - Another Fireside
Notes from the fireside chat with Ursula Burns, Xerox CEO, and Susan Hockfield, MIT President.(Please note: any grammatical and spelling errors are those of the note taker.)
We need to be impatient with the status quo; we need to worry about the ambition deficit.
Susan Hockfield is asked: what keeps you up at night in regards to innovation in America? It's a long list, but it includes importance of impatience and ambition deficit, making sure we have enough money to make research thrive. There's a real problem for the youth of America: we need to pull them - they'll go where there's opportunity and things that they can do. These cycles of funding/enthusiasm/opportunity are dangerous, we lose 3-4 years of funding, that's 3-4 years of kids that we're missing. We need longer term solutions, and large, but not outrageously large investments, so we're strong in 10 years, with a growing economy, by using the power of the young people.
Ursala Burns is asked: In meetings with the President, what do you emphasize to him? There's no doubt of the importance of this issue to the administration and they are aware of the timeliness. The two areas she decided to get involved in are education and energy; if we don't solve these problems, we don't have any options as a nation. We are underutilizing the capabilities of Washington, including the funding and getting people together. We just have to make it faster and clearer.
Susan Hockfield: The worldview of the nation has changed. US was THE place to be, and it still is in come cases and educational programs. Now innovation centers are springing up around the world, including about energy, and there are more options for people, places to go, for inventing the future, and our immigration policy is still the same, so people don't have to put up with the indignity of it anymore. We need the best minds to solve problems, and places like MIT and Xerox are making connections with the global innovation system. But US policies "prohibit us from competing with the ferocity" that's needed in this new climate.
Ursula Burns is asked: With your background, what would you say to people out there today? The whole idea was that she had to find the opportunities and go after them. Her mother pushed them very hard and expected them to over-take advantage of the opportunities that would be found. The idea of the ambition deficit/impatience; it's not the economic issue only, it's embodied in the issue of lack of hope. The path to a better life is to have a better mind, that's been true since the beginning of time. You have to engage yourself in solving problems. We need an economy that makes things and solves complex problems, but we have to take the least wealthy person and give them the foundation, and push children hard, have high expectations, even if parents aren't around.
Susan Hockfield is asked: Do you have confidence now that this time around, there is seriousness, resolve, and capacity to make investments in the right place?
In this room, yes, we're ready. There are many factors in the equation as to where we invent and make stuff, and a big part of all that is the cost of energy. Manufacturing jobs have decreased, but in regards to the manufacturing productivity dollar, US and China are even. If you look at the number of people employed for the same dollar output, we have 10% of the workforce but the same productivity. We make things faster with fewer people and more economically. She hears positive things from business leaders that it makes sense to manufacture some things in the US. She loves it that there are R&D centers coming up in Rio, Shanghai and all of these different areas where millions of people will be able to come out of poverty. The US can't sit back and use a 1960's model.
Ursula Burns is asked: What are the characteristics of the 1960's model that have to be demolished?
Ursula Burns: We need a more symbiotic relationship between industry and government. Policies drive business cycles; cooperation drives business in a positive way. There's no reason for things not to be made here except for the financial/cycle issues. We need to align policies that are long-term and with shorter cycles. If you look at the landscape of the issues, for example the R&D tax credit. It's not a bad thing, everybody thinks it's the right thing, and we still can't figure out a way to do the right thing, or more of the right thing. We shouldn't settle down, and we need to narrow our focus to the most important things. Having a system that drives creation and innovation is fundamental to our history and our future.
Ursula Burns is asked: Do you think we need a smart industrial policy? We need a set of public/private collaborations that drive sustained growth over cycles, over elections.
Susan Hockfield: We've had a set of policies that have fostered innovation and successful companies. Building blocks have to do with education; it's not that we're doing less than we were before, it's just that other nations are stepping up. Infrastructure: Other nations e.g. China made fantastic investments in infrastructure, and/or are taking better care of them than we are (e.g. Europe). So for industrial policy, it needs to lead to a successful society where people feel that by working hard they can get something done for themselves and for the nation and the world. It's not rocket science but it's hard when you come to Washington and try to get things done. Who is articulating a big agenda for the country? We don't seem to agree on a direction for the nation. There are many countries around the world coming into a more mature form of government, and we should be a model. We had a good model, and we need to get back to it.
Can America pull itself together? What are the most important things to change expectations?
Ursula Burns: Education with a focus on science and technology, have high expectations.
Susan: We have been a leader, now we have to decide where we want to be: what will inspire our people to work harder? We need national ambition.
We need to be impatient with the status quo; we need to worry about the ambition deficit.
Susan Hockfield is asked: what keeps you up at night in regards to innovation in America? It's a long list, but it includes importance of impatience and ambition deficit, making sure we have enough money to make research thrive. There's a real problem for the youth of America: we need to pull them - they'll go where there's opportunity and things that they can do. These cycles of funding/enthusiasm/opportunity are dangerous, we lose 3-4 years of funding, that's 3-4 years of kids that we're missing. We need longer term solutions, and large, but not outrageously large investments, so we're strong in 10 years, with a growing economy, by using the power of the young people.
Ursala Burns is asked: In meetings with the President, what do you emphasize to him? There's no doubt of the importance of this issue to the administration and they are aware of the timeliness. The two areas she decided to get involved in are education and energy; if we don't solve these problems, we don't have any options as a nation. We are underutilizing the capabilities of Washington, including the funding and getting people together. We just have to make it faster and clearer.
Susan Hockfield: The worldview of the nation has changed. US was THE place to be, and it still is in come cases and educational programs. Now innovation centers are springing up around the world, including about energy, and there are more options for people, places to go, for inventing the future, and our immigration policy is still the same, so people don't have to put up with the indignity of it anymore. We need the best minds to solve problems, and places like MIT and Xerox are making connections with the global innovation system. But US policies "prohibit us from competing with the ferocity" that's needed in this new climate.
Ursula Burns is asked: With your background, what would you say to people out there today? The whole idea was that she had to find the opportunities and go after them. Her mother pushed them very hard and expected them to over-take advantage of the opportunities that would be found. The idea of the ambition deficit/impatience; it's not the economic issue only, it's embodied in the issue of lack of hope. The path to a better life is to have a better mind, that's been true since the beginning of time. You have to engage yourself in solving problems. We need an economy that makes things and solves complex problems, but we have to take the least wealthy person and give them the foundation, and push children hard, have high expectations, even if parents aren't around.
Susan Hockfield is asked: Do you have confidence now that this time around, there is seriousness, resolve, and capacity to make investments in the right place?
In this room, yes, we're ready. There are many factors in the equation as to where we invent and make stuff, and a big part of all that is the cost of energy. Manufacturing jobs have decreased, but in regards to the manufacturing productivity dollar, US and China are even. If you look at the number of people employed for the same dollar output, we have 10% of the workforce but the same productivity. We make things faster with fewer people and more economically. She hears positive things from business leaders that it makes sense to manufacture some things in the US. She loves it that there are R&D centers coming up in Rio, Shanghai and all of these different areas where millions of people will be able to come out of poverty. The US can't sit back and use a 1960's model.
Ursula Burns is asked: What are the characteristics of the 1960's model that have to be demolished?
Ursula Burns: We need a more symbiotic relationship between industry and government. Policies drive business cycles; cooperation drives business in a positive way. There's no reason for things not to be made here except for the financial/cycle issues. We need to align policies that are long-term and with shorter cycles. If you look at the landscape of the issues, for example the R&D tax credit. It's not a bad thing, everybody thinks it's the right thing, and we still can't figure out a way to do the right thing, or more of the right thing. We shouldn't settle down, and we need to narrow our focus to the most important things. Having a system that drives creation and innovation is fundamental to our history and our future.
Ursula Burns is asked: Do you think we need a smart industrial policy? We need a set of public/private collaborations that drive sustained growth over cycles, over elections.
Susan Hockfield: We've had a set of policies that have fostered innovation and successful companies. Building blocks have to do with education; it's not that we're doing less than we were before, it's just that other nations are stepping up. Infrastructure: Other nations e.g. China made fantastic investments in infrastructure, and/or are taking better care of them than we are (e.g. Europe). So for industrial policy, it needs to lead to a successful society where people feel that by working hard they can get something done for themselves and for the nation and the world. It's not rocket science but it's hard when you come to Washington and try to get things done. Who is articulating a big agenda for the country? We don't seem to agree on a direction for the nation. There are many countries around the world coming into a more mature form of government, and we should be a model. We had a good model, and we need to get back to it.
Can America pull itself together? What are the most important things to change expectations?
Ursula Burns: Education with a focus on science and technology, have high expectations.
Susan: We have been a leader, now we have to decide where we want to be: what will inspire our people to work harder? We need national ambition.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The coal debate on the SIU Carbondale campus continues
The Daily Egyptian:
Switching from coal is not an option yet
ARPA-E: Energy Innovation Summit, Arun Majumdar
Director - ARPA-E (Note: grammatical and spelling errors are those of the note-taker.)
We went from punch cards to smart phones in 30 years. It all happened here in the US. We invented the future and enabled the rest of the world.
The point is: in the history of humankind, the 20th century will be rememberd as American century.We used our ingenuity to create new technologies based on science and tech, new businesses based on entrepreneurship and created all these new enterprises to change the world. Looking ahead:
He believes energy offers the biggest challenges and opportunities. $1 billion a day is what we spend on oil, and more than half is imported. We are not the only one. This offers the biggest economic opportunity of our lifetime. With the population growing from 7 billion to 10 billion by the end of the century, if we don't change the way we use energy, we will have an environmental catastrophe on our hands. A global race is going on, and we have to act now, and seize this opportunity. We will ensure national, economic and environmental security for our children and grandchildren. At ARPA-E they want to invent the future.
Biofuels: current biofules are less than 1% efficient. They need a lot of land and water, and this makes it expensive. We need research to reduce the cost. None of these plants were ever designed for energy. Could we engineer plants to directly make oil? What would they look like? At University of Florida, researchers are working with Lob lolly pines, and genetically engineering them to dramatically increase production of turpenes by factor of six at less than $3/gallon. An area the size of Washington DC would produce 20 billion barrels of oil per year.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab: algae. A team is taking the metabolic pathway and inserting it into a plant like tobacco that grows fast and in bad soil. If they're successful, you have big oil and big tobacco coming together to save the world! (audience laughter)
Do we really need plants to make oil? Could we use biology in a new way that is ten times more efficient to make oil? A new approach was created two years ago: electrofuels. Non-photosynthetic microbes by OPX Biotechnologies: bug takes carbon dioxide and hydrogen to make oil. If they can keep up their growth trajectory, they will create an industry that never existed. Feedstock can come from natural gas and we have the most natural gas in the world.
Another option is the use of natural gas, electrification (batteries). Envia has created a lithium ion battery 400Wh/kg, double the density of today's lithium ion batteries, and would cut cost by half. Polyplus is shooting to create a battery at 500+Wh/kg. Electricity has to be affordable and sustainable.
Most of electricity comes from coal today and we have the largest reserves in the world, and we should be able to use it in a sustainable way. Today the cost of carbon capture is $70-80/ton. The price of carbon dioxide is at roughly $35/ton. This is a non-started for business, so we're trying to get carbon down to $25/ton. Codexis is looking at an enzyme that captures carbon dioxide and is applying it to coal plants.
Soon solar and wind will be cost competitive with natural gas at cost of $0.05/kWh. The gap is storage at the gigawatt hour level. The best way to store that amount of energy at this time is to pump water up a dam. We need new technology. A team at MIT is trying to combine and hybridize a lithium ion battery with a fuel cell. They will have a scalable, modular, affordable solution for intermittent electricity.
Grid: we have about $1trillion of assets; this is massive but aging. We can't leave this legacy for our children and grandchildren. The average age of transformers is 2 years past expected life, they're 8,000 pounds, same technology we've been using for decades, and they're manufactured overseas. Cree has inveted a transitstor that can handle a megawatt of electrical power, a single carbide transistor that fits on the end of your thumb. It will decrease the size of 8,000 pound transformer to 100lbs. US is the biggest manufacturer of silicon carbide in the world, so we could become an exporter.
Efficiency. Could we invent the future of cooling tech? Sheetak - build refrigerator with no moving parts, size of a credit card, made of semiconductors, now affordable worldwide. Put in coolers. Make locally, sell globally, people will be enabled who couldn't use refrigerators before.
Just a few chapers of the ARPA-E story: this is real. There are 180 other chapters being showcased at the summit. This is the American story. The future prosperity of our nation depends on these people, and ARPA-E will continue to find them and invest in them. There's a global race going on, and if we don't act now, many of these innovations will go overseas and get manufactured there. We must act now to
1. create the demand for these technologies in the US
2. manufacture here
3. finance: give entreprenurs access to low cost long term funding in private and public capital markets.
Invent, make and sell locally.
This is our time, our moment in history: let us invent the future together.
We went from punch cards to smart phones in 30 years. It all happened here in the US. We invented the future and enabled the rest of the world.
The point is: in the history of humankind, the 20th century will be rememberd as American century.We used our ingenuity to create new technologies based on science and tech, new businesses based on entrepreneurship and created all these new enterprises to change the world. Looking ahead:
He believes energy offers the biggest challenges and opportunities. $1 billion a day is what we spend on oil, and more than half is imported. We are not the only one. This offers the biggest economic opportunity of our lifetime. With the population growing from 7 billion to 10 billion by the end of the century, if we don't change the way we use energy, we will have an environmental catastrophe on our hands. A global race is going on, and we have to act now, and seize this opportunity. We will ensure national, economic and environmental security for our children and grandchildren. At ARPA-E they want to invent the future.
Biofuels: current biofules are less than 1% efficient. They need a lot of land and water, and this makes it expensive. We need research to reduce the cost. None of these plants were ever designed for energy. Could we engineer plants to directly make oil? What would they look like? At University of Florida, researchers are working with Lob lolly pines, and genetically engineering them to dramatically increase production of turpenes by factor of six at less than $3/gallon. An area the size of Washington DC would produce 20 billion barrels of oil per year.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab: algae. A team is taking the metabolic pathway and inserting it into a plant like tobacco that grows fast and in bad soil. If they're successful, you have big oil and big tobacco coming together to save the world! (audience laughter)
Do we really need plants to make oil? Could we use biology in a new way that is ten times more efficient to make oil? A new approach was created two years ago: electrofuels. Non-photosynthetic microbes by OPX Biotechnologies: bug takes carbon dioxide and hydrogen to make oil. If they can keep up their growth trajectory, they will create an industry that never existed. Feedstock can come from natural gas and we have the most natural gas in the world.
Another option is the use of natural gas, electrification (batteries). Envia has created a lithium ion battery 400Wh/kg, double the density of today's lithium ion batteries, and would cut cost by half. Polyplus is shooting to create a battery at 500+Wh/kg. Electricity has to be affordable and sustainable.
Most of electricity comes from coal today and we have the largest reserves in the world, and we should be able to use it in a sustainable way. Today the cost of carbon capture is $70-80/ton. The price of carbon dioxide is at roughly $35/ton. This is a non-started for business, so we're trying to get carbon down to $25/ton. Codexis is looking at an enzyme that captures carbon dioxide and is applying it to coal plants.
Soon solar and wind will be cost competitive with natural gas at cost of $0.05/kWh. The gap is storage at the gigawatt hour level. The best way to store that amount of energy at this time is to pump water up a dam. We need new technology. A team at MIT is trying to combine and hybridize a lithium ion battery with a fuel cell. They will have a scalable, modular, affordable solution for intermittent electricity.
Grid: we have about $1trillion of assets; this is massive but aging. We can't leave this legacy for our children and grandchildren. The average age of transformers is 2 years past expected life, they're 8,000 pounds, same technology we've been using for decades, and they're manufactured overseas. Cree has inveted a transitstor that can handle a megawatt of electrical power, a single carbide transistor that fits on the end of your thumb. It will decrease the size of 8,000 pound transformer to 100lbs. US is the biggest manufacturer of silicon carbide in the world, so we could become an exporter.
Efficiency. Could we invent the future of cooling tech? Sheetak - build refrigerator with no moving parts, size of a credit card, made of semiconductors, now affordable worldwide. Put in coolers. Make locally, sell globally, people will be enabled who couldn't use refrigerators before.
Just a few chapers of the ARPA-E story: this is real. There are 180 other chapters being showcased at the summit. This is the American story. The future prosperity of our nation depends on these people, and ARPA-E will continue to find them and invest in them. There's a global race going on, and if we don't act now, many of these innovations will go overseas and get manufactured there. We must act now to
1. create the demand for these technologies in the US
2. manufacture here
3. finance: give entreprenurs access to low cost long term funding in private and public capital markets.
Invent, make and sell locally.
This is our time, our moment in history: let us invent the future together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)