Musings on Energy, Technology and Policy

A colleague of mine recently forwarded an article from The Atlantic that focused on resolving the climate crisis via technological advancements in energy production and emissions control (the article can be found here http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/tech-will-solve-the-climate-crisis-faster-than-laws/66696/). Like so many of our contemporary discussions the author frames the energy/climate debate as a simple dichotomy, wherein we must adopt one of two positions:

1. support for availability and adoption of technology as a more expedient and effective way to address the issue.

2. support for heavy-handed top-down legislation that prescribes acceptable pollution levels and the appropriate means to achieve them.

Here is the response I made to the author's blog:

While the author above makes several good points there are key pieces missing from the conversation. First, a substantial part of the problem, demand, is only tangentially related to technology. One of the key issues in the energy "debate" is how to meet current demand, but that question skips an important first step in any comprehensive energy analysis, which is how to reduce demand to the greatest extent possible at lowest cost. So far our society and its' leaders appear to be focused on asking how we can maintain the status quo, where the average American household consumes approximately 10,000 KwH annually. This figure represents a significant amount of wasted energy, which coincidentally can be said about energy generation, energy storage, and energy transport systems as well. We can't even begin to have a reasonable discussion about how to meet demand until we determine how much we actually NEED.

An example of this comes from LEED certified buildings which are certified at various levels to meet energy and environmental performance standards that go beyond (in some cases well beyond) state and federal code. Recent analyses conducted by the National Renewable Energy Lab (and others) on actual performance of LEED certified buildings has clearly demonstrated that buildings often under-perform in comparison to their projected savings and installed technologies. One of the key reasons for this low performance has nothing to do with the technology installed but rather HOW PEOPLE USE IT. Individuals can use technologies designed to be more energy efficient in inefficient ways, based largely on societal norms, perceptions of energy abundance and ingrained behavior patterns.

I agree with the author's main premise here: that technology, and specifically technology that originates in the private sector, will likely result in faster change than top-down regulatory approaches. But while availability and adoption of new energy technologies is a necessary component of resolving the energy/climate crisis it is not sufficient for resolving those issues alone. In fact, it is likely that widespread adoption of new technologies in the absence of significant behavioral change will cause as many problems as it "resolves".

End response.

In my view the correct characterization of this debate is not "technology first" versus "technology only", but rather a logical stepwise progression involving:

1. An honest assessment of why energy demand is so high. Where is energy being used, and more importantly where (and how much) is energy being wasted?

2. Examination of the most cost-effective ways to reduce demand and accurate assessment of demand reduction potential.

3. Reduce demand to the greatest extent possible. In some cases this may involve adoption of energy-saving technologies, but that should be secondary to CHANGING A CULTURE OF OVERUSE.

4. Recalculate energy demand and determine which technologies are best for achieving a sustainable (economically, environmentally and socially) energy supply.

The question then becomes what role government should play in this process. Is it an appropriate role of government to develop programs designed to educate citizens about energy use and conservation? If not, who should spearhead this effort and in what ways?

It turns out that the current debate is simply a modern-day extension of an old debate that has gone unresolved (like so many in politics). Although there is disagreement about the exact date of this address, approximately 100 years ago Theodore Roosevelt had this to say to the Deep Waterway Convention ( Memphis, TN, October 4, 1907):

"The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental
problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us
little to solve all others."


Roosevelt's mind was on issues other than energy when he gave this address, but the message has bearing on the topic of energy today. Specifically, until we learn to use resources more wisely we will simply compound our problems by focusing on other solutions. The national discourse on energy would be greatly improved if we could get all Americans, citizens and leaders alike, on the same page when it comes to energy supply and energy demand. If we could somehow develop an American awareness today of what Roosevelt knew a century ago, namely that our resources are not inexhaustable, we could begin a more informed discussion of what to do about it.