Looking for Energy in all the Right Places

Editor's Note

December 2006 / January 2007 By: Bob Cochnar Volume 4 Number 6

Print this Article

E-mail this Article

Ray Orbach, the under secretary for science in the Department of Energy, poses a two-pronged question that demands an answer [page 10]:

"Where will this new energy come from and how can we provide energy that is environmentally friendly?"

And he adds, "Solving this problem will—and should—challenge the scientific community. Current fossil energy sources, energy production methods and technology will be unable to meet this challenge and incremental changes in technology will not suffice. To meet these energy and environmental needs, we need transformational discoveries in basic science and truly disruptive technologies. Electricity was not discovered by perfecting the candle."

The energy laboratories that Dr. Orbach oversees are, of course, deeply involved. In this issue of Innovation, you'll find a number of encouraging reports on progress being made on alternative forms of energy that is moving such forms closer to the marketplace. Some notable examples:

—At DOE's Joint Genome Institute, researchers are learning that trees, notably the common poplar, can be a renewable resource from which ethanol can be economically derived.
— At Argonne National Laboratory, researchers are working with Archer Daniel Midland to optimize a bioreactor that would convert sugar from corn into chemicals to replace petroleum-derived chemicals.
— At Sandia National Laboratories, researchers believe geothermal energy could supply as much as 20 percent of the nation's total electrical energy needs. Additional funding, however, is in jeopardy.
— At Los Alamos National Laboratory, plasma assisted combustion, or PAC, is being developed to achieve cleaner combustion and better fuel efficiency for turbine and internal combustion engines.

The laboratories are clearly cognizant of the potential effects of climate change and are taking appropriate steps. These steps are among the many that a new British study on global warming (page 13) says had better be taken to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The report is the result of work commenced by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank.
He warns:

"The task is urgent. Delaying action, even by a decade or two, will take us into dangerous territory. We must not let this window of opportunity close."

The report calculates that the cost of unabated climate change would be equivalent to at least 5 percent of global GDP every year, whereas the cost of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can be limited to about 1 percent of GDP a year. Is this a no-brainer, or what?

The recent mid-term election is bringing new players, Democrats all, to the various House and Senate committees concerned with science, energy, natural resources, environment and commerce, among other matters. The priorities, reports Tom Michael, our Washington correspondent (see story on the opposite page), will change and greater effort is going to be placed on renewable fuels and environmental issues. Despite looming budget restraints, the new leaders want to spend more money on basic science and on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The new congressional session should be interesting.