In this blog, we (Garrett Fitzgerald & Rob van Haaren, two Columbia University Engineering PhD students) will post updates of progress on a project about the implementation of innovations in Sustainable Energy Technologies (SET). Endless discussions during parties and breaks from school have shown our shared interest in this subject. Often times, a technological innovation can be so good and cool that it is amazing how it is not adopted by people. This phenomena is described in the book "Diffusion of Innovations" by Everett M. Rogers [1], which forms the backbone of our project. It explains how innovations in general (products, but also ideas) are implemented into a society and what speeds up or slows down the progress. Graphing the implementation over time results in a typical logistic curve that shows exponential growth in the take-off phase that levels off at the maximum adoption. We'd like to depict "The Curve" for all the technologies we assess and we see our own project as the start of a new idea that will follow a similar trend.
The theory of diffusion is especially interesting in the energy world: the production of electricity and extraction of fossil fuels are multi-trillion dollar industries, but there is a big concensus amongst the people that the world should refrain from using these sources. How can those industries with all their investments relying on these sources (momentum), survive the whole climate change and environment problem? Will they turn into wind turbine companies, solar PV? Or will they just go bankrupt and disappear? Preferrably, they want to keep on going the way they were before: Drill oil, mine coal, then sell it or burn it to sell the electricity. Governments now stand between powerful profit-maximizing companies and nagging green minds like many of us. "We want a feed-in tariff!" and "We want to stop off-shore oil drilling because of the environmental hazards", but at the same time: "We want cheap electricity and cheap gas". It is clear that there is a problem here: stakeholders have contrasting opinions, and in the mean time Earth is suffering.
In the Eighties and Nineties, people became aware of the effect humans have on the planet and more measures were taken by governments to incentivize clean technologies and prohibit the emissions of the very worst compounds. Some measures appeared to be very effective, like the 1990 Clean Air Act to prevent acid rain from the SO2 emissions caused by (coal fired) power plants. Emissions with effects on human health got priority before the ones that had global effects (ozone depletion and global warming). Still, the transition from fossil fuels to other sources of energy has not progressed to an extent that 50% of our energy demand is met by renewable energy sources. Why? What is keeping us from making the change if there is such a critical need for it?
Our plan is to look closer into the implementation of some SET's: What are the historical milestones that have led to a higher rate of adoption? And what are the roadblocks that these technologies are facing? Our geographical focus is on the United States, although we do look at other countries to show successes and issues with the integration of technologies. The technologies we will work on are: Windpower, Solar PV, Solar Thermal, Waste-to-Energy, Geothermal, Nuclear, Hydropower, Tidal power and also Electric Cars.
If you're interested or like to share your opinion, please post a comment to our pages. Your participation is very much appreciated!
[1] Rogers, E.M., 2003. "Diffusion of Innovations", 5th Edition, Free Press, New York.
I don't think that the statements "we want to stop off-shore oil drilling because of the environmental hazards" and "we want cheap electricity and cheap gas" are mutually exclusive. (well maybe the cheap gas part is). What people really want is cheap energy in general; both for electricity, transportation and heating/cooling.
ReplyDeleteI submit the claim that cheap electricity, and cheap energy in general can go hand in hand with stopping off-shore drilling and the end of the horrible fossil-fuel paradigm in general. Tapping into the greatest energy resource available on our planet (the sun) we can avoid the myriad environmental issues associated with the current energy generation schema and have room for tremendous growth in energy consumption concurrent with rising global populations and the technological intensification of our societies.
The reason why fossil technologies appear to be cheaper at first glance--and why policy has not been changed as fast as it should be is because of;
1) Technological entrenchment; We've become entrenched and have built up a technological infrastructure expressly tied to fossil fuels over the past 200 years. 200 years of efficiency gains across all interrellated industries has allowed the cost of these fuels to decrease.
2) Political Short-sightedness; Politicians are afraid of changing laws that affect their short-term ability to be re-elected. Enacting a law against coal for example will put "a bunch of my constituents out of jobs"... if your constituents are in the coal belt of america. Not to mention that if they vote against big business, esp. in their constituency, they risk drying up campaign and political contributions not only for themselves but for their entire party!
2) Vested interests; The profiteers from the public and corporations that are involved in our energy generation schema not only don't want to lose money themselves, but--in the case of public companies--have an OBLIGATION to provide ever increasing profits to their shareholders. They can do this only by maximizing profits and perpetuating our fossil addiction.
3) Uninclusion of external costs; Costs to societal health, ecosystem biodiversity, even costs of human lives due to conflicts surrounding extraction and trade of finite energy resources are absolutely NOT included in the price of these goods. We pay for these externalities elsewhere. The fact is, if we included all of these costs into the price of fossil fuels, they would likely already be more expensive than renewables.
Fascinating and worthy discussions -- congratulations on starting this conversation. If we didn't already know about the impossibility of continuing on our current path, the horror of what we're seeing with the BP disaster is certain to focus our attention on alternative ways of dealing with energy needs.
ReplyDeleteCarry on!
Hey Fellas,
ReplyDeleteI like your blog, and I think you are spot on in your arguments. One thing I think you could touch on: creating cost-competitive renewable energy in a deregulated energy market. Essentially, a free market legislative position has been in place for regions such as California (which began in 1996) with the ultimate goal to drive down the per unit cost of energy (electricity). As many traditional fuel sources are heavily subsidized, this created a whole host of problems, but ultimately the idea is that the cheapest energy sources win out. It is a sad fact that a necessary condition for widespread renewable energy implementation is that it is not only economically feasible, but that it is profitable. Along with altering current energy distribution infrastructure there are a number of barriers stalling renewable energy's growth, the most critical I would suggest is energy policy. If it is within the scope of your blog, it would be nice to see you guys explore energy legislation reform as a catalyst for clean energy technology growth. By the way, great work guys!
Nice work guys.
ReplyDeleteNothing short of societal change is required for this massive transition to renewable energy, and that change will only happen with public education - which this blog contributes to. Keep up the good work.
Although less efficient, I feel the ultimate answer is distributed energy generation and storage created through private investment. Things like solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal, local grown produce and energy storage (ie. the electric car) at every home.
I'm looking forward to calling you "Dr."!