Smart Grid -Smart Hires

One great, if not obvious, way to follow the stimulus funds is to see where the government is hiring. We talked earlier about where the Energy stimulus money is going - $11 Billion for the development of the Smart Grid. Well, wouldn't you know it, the Department of Energy is now hiring 14, yes 14, new positions to work on this initiative. See USAJobs for the details. They are hiring engineers, program analysts, and budget analysts. This in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.

The Mission of the U.S. Department of Energy

Yesterday the New York Times published the op-ed, "A Nuclear Waste," by Stephanie Cooke. Cooke posits that the government's new dedication to clean and efficient energy would be far better served by divorcing the Department of Energy from all things nuclear. As she says,

if Mr. Chu [Secretary of Energy] wishes to avoid getting dragged down by the nuclear undertow, the Energy Department must be relieved of duties that aren’t related to energy.

Ms. Cooke is correct in noting that many of DOE's responsibilities supercede the mere production of nuclear energy. In fact, DOE also houses the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), not to be confused with the NSA, National Security Agency. The mission of NNSA is to:

Strengthen national security through the military application of nuclear energy and by reducing the global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction

Ms. Cooke rightly points out that only about 15% of the Department's annual budget of roughly $27 Billion is allocated to energy projects outside of NNSA. Therefore, she argues, it is fundamentally unequipped to focus it's efforts on developing solutions to the energy problems of the 21st century. She urges that NNSA either be transformed into a stand-alone agency or put under the management of the Defense Department.

There are several points to argue with Ms. Cooke. First, the proportion of the budget spent on NNSA is not dependent upon DOE itself, but on congress. Activists should recognize that nuclear stewardship is a necessity for this country, and rather than trying to cut that entirely, they should focus on increasing other energy funding. The two are not mutually exclusive whatsoever. Thus, it is perhaps more recommendable that DOE expand rather than contract.

Secondly, as to why sending NNSA to DOD is a horrible idea. Most of the Department of Energy's work is not centered in Washington, but at its National Laboratories. These labs work on every topic from nuclear weapons to solar panels. Transferring them to the Department of Defense would be deleterious to their non-defense work, precisely that which Ms. Cooke is trying to expand. On top of that, DOD does not have the best record of maintaining control over weapons and weapons components, the Air Force recent record being a case in point. Finally, there is the argument that ownership and custodianship of nuclear weapons should be in purely civilian hands and that many of the foreign counterparts with whom NNSA does much of its work would feel more comfortable cooperating with DOE than with DOD. These are not small matters.

Ms. Cooke is correct: the United States and the Department of Energy need to step up their work on clean and efficient energy. This should not come, however, at the expense of our nuclear work or the national labs. In the 21st century, the Department of Energy, once threatened with extinction by Ronald Reagan, must, in fact, rise to the importance and prestige of the Departments of State and Defense. Only then will it be equipped to lead the country into a greener era.

Energy in the 2009 Recovery Act

As promised, below is a detailed breakdown of the Energy money in the recovery act. See where you can be affected.

Tax Incentives:

• $ 14 B - Renewable Energy Facilities
• $ 2 B - Residential Energy Efficiency Credits
• $ 2 B - Alternative Vehicle Credit
• $ 1.6 B - Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit
• $ .54B - Alernative Fuel Pump Incentive
• $ .27B - Residential Renewable Energy Credits

Energy Efficiency:

• $ 11 B - Smart Grid
• $ 6.3 B - Local Government Energy Efficiency
• $ 5 B - Individual Home Weatherizing Financing
• $ 4.5 B - Federal Buildings' Energy Efficiency
• $ 4 B - Public Housing Energy Efficiency
• $ .51B - Native American Land Energy Efficiency
• $ .3 B - Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate
• $ .25B - Energy Efficiency in Government Sponsored Housing

Education and Research:

• $ 2.5 B - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research
• $ 2 B - Department of Energy R&D
• $ .5 B - Worker Training for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy fields

Electric Vehicles:

• $ 2 B - Advanced Battery Manufacturing
• $ .4 B - State Government Electric Vehicles and infrastructure
• $ .3 B - Federal Government Hyrbid Vehicle purchase

Etc:

• $ 6 B - Innovative Energy Loan Guarantee
• $ 3.4 B - Fossil Fuel Generation
• $ 1.4 B - State and Local Energy Bonds

2009 Stimulus Package

As you can see from the chart above, only $65 billion, or 8.25% of the American Recovery and Investment Act is going towards Energy. Of that $65 billion, $22 billion is in tax incentives, so in fact, only $43 billion is actually being actively invested in Energy. What exactly are we getting with this investment? See the next post.

In addition, tomorrow we will have a review of Matthew Rogers', Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Energy, testimony before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Committee on Science and Technology on DOE's actions to ensure accountability and transparency in Recovery Act funding, including its efforts to promote science and technology.

Smart Grid Seminar at MIT

Readers should know that the Obama Stimulus package has allocated $11 Billion for the development of a Smart Grid. For those unfamiliar with the concept, in a nutshell, scientists hope to be able to maximize energy efficiency by helping consumers to squeeze every bit of extra energy out of their household appliances, heating and cooling, etc, and to eventually be able to sell energy back to the grid as well. More information on the government's vision of, and research into, the smart grid can be found at http://www.oe.energy.gov/smartgrid.htm

Last Friday, March 3rd, M.I.T. sponsored a conference on the Smart Grid: Challenges and Opportunities.Presenters at the seminar were Massoud Amin of the University of Minnesota, David Cohen of Infotility, Inc., Peter Kelly-Detwiller of Constellation NewEnergy, and Howard Shrobe of MIT CSAIL.

Similar to what I was referring to in my last post, Dr. Amin confirmed that the U.S. electric system has only 43% efficiency, and that the biggest source of inefficiency in the system is the transportation of energy. Part of the reason our system has not been improved is that out of all our industries, we invest the 3rd smallest amount of R&D money in electricity! Purina Dog chow invests more in R&D than our electric system. And yet, engineers still voted that the greatest engineering accomplishment of the 20th century was the creation of networks of electrification!

However crucial, Dr. Amin's main point was not that we need to invest more in electricity R&D. Rather, that the grid must be not only more efficient, but more secure. That is, a grid that will be self-healing in small cases like blackouts, as well as large cases like terrorism. While each of us having a little black box or computer program where we can plan our entire energy consumption and production is the wave of the future, it opens many avenues for IT energy terrorism. Dr. Amin has been working on this issue since 2001. Those interested in his research and ideas can check them out at http://cdtlnet.cdtl.umn.edu/amin.html.

Mr. Cohen and Infotility, Inc are currently working with ConEdison and PGE in Manhattan and elsewhere to develop a GridAgents, devices that will enable the entire grid to become semi-autonomous and semi-intelligent.

Mr. Kelly-Detwiler had less of a technical and more of a behavioral management perspective on the smart grid. Aside from the years ahead of us to develop this technology to it's maximum benefit, he posited it will take years just to get companies to fully adopt it and utilities and their partners to make a profit from it. His hypothesis was that any building manager will be reluctant to adopt any new technology that will disrupt the system he has put in place for his building. It will take utilities up to a year to convince the manager that this is a good idea, a year to help him sort out all the kinks of initial installation, and a year for the person to really become convinced of the benefits of the new technology. These kind of behavioral questions are essential in changing thought patterns and behaviors regarding energy use across the board. We are already seeing organizations such as the Consortium for Energy Efficiency hiring researchers to look into factors to motivate behavioral change.

I was not able to stay for Dr. Shrobe's presentation, but you can find more about his research at http://people.csail.mit.edu/hes/

Green Grid Follies

According to Breitbart Harry Reid is proposing a bill to develop more power lines to bring green power to end users. Reid admits that this would also benefit his home state of Nevada which is planning to install massive solar projects.

More details are needed on this, but it is Energy 101 that siting renewable energy facilities far from demand centers is actually pretty wasteful. Case in point: North Dakota - with the highest wind capacity in the country, or even Picken's project in Texas. Energy is lost transporting the output to market.

I am attending a smart grid seminar at MIT today, so I should be able to get an update on this topic soon.

Obama's Economic Address

Listening to Obama's economic address last night was almost surreal. To have a president actually facing real problems instead of tilting windmills. To hear actual logic instead of double speak. It's a whole new country. Of course, the Obama administration will make more than their fair share of mistakes ahead, but at least they are attacking issues head on with full brain capacity.

Obama's budget will focus on four major areas: energy, healthcare, education, and reducing the debt. As he said, "[it] reflects the harsh reality of what we've inherited."

On energy, Obama would like government to take up a role that has been denied for the past 8 years, that of "catalyz[ing] opportunity" for businesses and individuals to be successful. As he said, the country that "harnesses the power of clean renewable energy will rule the future," and as crazy as it sounds, China is actually moving at a faster velocity than we are at the moment.

Obama proposes doubling the supply of renewable energy in the U.S. in the next three years, investing unprecedented funds into basic research, building thousands of miles of power lines for new energy sources, and stimulating energy efficiency. Moreover, he would like to stimlate the business side of energy by creating a market-based cap and trade system for carbon-based energy. Overall, he will invest $15 billion/ year in renewable programs and technologies. That said, he will not allow the collapse of the American auto industry.

The rest of the address was also extremely interesting, but I will keep this short since we are energy and environment focused here.


Obama's energy/environment proposals are all essential, except perhaps the bailout of the auto industry. We will have to keep close tabs on that development.

Stay tuned for deeper analysis into what his inspiring speech actually translates to on the ground.

Clinton in China

Hillary Clinton is in China this week, debuting as Secretary of State, and taking a new tone on foreign policy. While agreeing to mention traditional human rights concerns, Clinton was eager to embark upon a joint China-U.S. effort on Climate.

Human rights are important, however, without a drastic change in environmental practices, there will be far worse crises in store. I say this as a human rights advocate. In addition, diplomacy includes the art of finding areas of mutual interest rather than perpetually hammering away at issues where neither side is likely to submit.

Climate change is an excellent area to start. As China continues its incredible growth, it is vital that the country finds a newer, cleaner way to grow. Rather than adopting old technologies, the Chinese should leap-frog into a Green Era, providing a model to the rest of the world. Even a dictatorial country can see the beauty in this prospect. Meanwhile, in our dilapidated state, perhaps the U.S. can get green investment from China - reducing competition for natural resources!

Myth: Energy Independence is Good ?

Mother Jones recent article, The Seven Myths of Energy Independence, starts with the premise that energy independence is far too expensive and time consuming to actually be a good thing. What authors neglect to analyze is the long term geopolitical consequences of energy dependence.

Independence may be expensive and difficult, but our current policy is much more destructive long term. We are putting money directly into the hands of one of the most repressive, anti-democratic governments in the world - Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is funding the spread of ultra-conservative Wahhabi Islam across the globe. Despite its alliance with the United States, the KSA continues to export thousands of textbooks each year teaching young children to "Hate unbelievers," aka Christians, Jews, Shiias, and anyone else who is against their brand of Islam...basically the entire U.S. population. The propagation of religious, ethnic, and gender inequality by concerted effort is being funded by our own hands and will cost far more than energy independence in the long term. Saudi is just one example...oil money has also hampered democracy in Russia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. We will be posting more on those countries in the future.

More on Mother Jones' myths in posts to come...