Changes in energy R&D needed to combat climate change

Oct 25, 2010
Past and current investments into developing climate-friendly technologies (R&D, right) versus uture technology needs (min/mean/max across scenarios, left) by technology category.

A new assessment of future scenarios that limit the extent of global warming cautions that unless current imbalances in R&D portfolios for the development of new, efficient, and clean energy technologies are redressed, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets are unlikely to be met, or met only at considerable costs.

The study identifies as the single most important option for achieving significant and long-term reductions in GHG emissions, accounting for up to 50 percent of the reduction potential across the wide range of scenarios analyzed. However, investment in energy efficiency R&D has typically been less than 10 percent of the overall public sector R&D budget in the countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA). Conversely, although nuclear energy accounts for less than 10 percent of the GHG emission reduction potentials across all scenarios, it has received some 50 percent of the total public investment in energy technology R&D.

The analysis, conducted by Drs' Arnulf Grubler and Keywan Riahi from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria, and published in the inaugural issue of the journal Carbon Management (2010 1(1):79-87), compared historical and current government spending on R&D by the 28 member countries of the International Energy Agency, with a "needs"-based analysis of the technologies required to achieve long-term climate stabilization. The assessment is based on the analysis of a wide range of scenarios of future technology deployment rates under a range of future uncertainties and climate constraints.

"Current investments in energy technology R&D by the public sector, in all industrialized countries, are heavily biased in favor of nuclear energy, to the detriment of energy efficiency research," says IIASA energy expert, Dr Keywan Riahi. "Given their respective importance for future climate mitigation this is a significant imbalance. Based on current investments, we estimate that a five-fold increase in investment in energy efficiency is needed to address this imbalance. Importantly, if the current rate and allocation of investment in energy R&D is maintained there is a high chance that technology development will be insufficient to meet stringent GHG reduction targets."

While technological development is critical the authors also emphasize the need for accompanying market deployment incentives for an aligned and consistent technology policy framework.

"The drastic emission cuts required to limit climate change will only be possible if we can achieve a major a transformation of the energy system," adds IIASA co-author Arnulf Grubler. "This will require the adoption of a range of policies and measures beyond an expanded and restructured energy technology R&D portfolio to include incentives for niche market applications and the large-scale deployment of climate-friendly technologies."

Because the future is inherently uncertain, the study uses a range of scenarios -22 in total - to examine what successful, or unsuccessful adoption of different technologies (such as nuclear or carbon capture and sequestration) might achieve for reducing GHG emissions. The scenarios include a "do nothing" or business-as-usual scenario, where, for example, R&D policies remain uncoordinated and market incentives for new technologies to minimize emissions remain unchanged. The study concludes that a business-as-usual approach to energy technology R&D will make combating climate change very difficult and more costly, reducing both the likelihood of success and the political and social acceptability of a transition to climate-friendly, energy-efficient technologies.

Based on the scenarios the authors outline a forward looking energy R&D 'portfolio' that they propose would provide the best hedging strategy for making sure future GHG emissions can be actually reduced and at reasonable costs. In order to achieve this goal currently unbalanced energy technology R&D portfolios need to change, reflecting the respective "option value" for future GHG mitigation of different options, which are particularly large for energy efficiency.

The study focused primarily on public or government-funded, R&D but the authors say the findings in terms of energy technology investment is similar to that of private sector investment, where there is a similar preference for large-scale supply-side energy technology investments, to the detriment of energy efficiency.

Explore further: Grouse moor burning causes widespread environmental changes

More information: Grubler A. and Riahi K., Do Governments have the right mix in their energy R&D portfolios? Carbon Management 2010 1(1):79-87.

Provided by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

3.3 /5 (4 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Fuel emissions from marine vessels remain a global concern

Sep 09, 2008

The forecast for clear skies and smooth sailing for oceanic vessels has been impeded by worldwide concerns of their significant contributions to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions that impact the Earth's climate.

Energy efficiency technologies offer major savings

Dec 09, 2009

Energy efficiency technologies that exist today or that are likely to be developed in the near future could save considerable money as well as energy, says a new report from the National Research Council. Fully adopting ...

Recommended for you

Rating the planet's oceans

9 hours ago

The most comprehensive assessment conducted by the Ocean Health Index rates the Earth's oceans at 67 out of 100 in overall health. In addition, for the first time, the report assessed the Antarctic and the ...

Feds to unveil cleanup plan for nuke waste dump

12 hours ago

After nearly eight months, the U.S. Department of Energy has formalized a plan for cleaning up the federal government's troubled nuclear waste dump in southeastern New Mexico.

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

4 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2010
"The study focused primarily on public or government-funded, R&D but the authors say the findings in terms of energy technology investment is similar to that of private sector investment"

That's not explicitly true. I'd like to see the evidence they use to support that statement. Consumer electronics research to reduce power consumption and improve battery efficiency (cell phones, laptops, home appliances, cars, etc.) is huge and is largely privately funded. Without a quantitative analysis, I don't think thier statement holds much weight. It's an educated guess at best, and perhaps even wishful thinking at worst.

This doesn't qualify as very good science in my book. The initial assumptions are based on fictional scenarios and may not reflect reality in any way. Predictions of the future of technology have never been very good. A breakthrough in super capacitors or conductors, thermoelectrodynamics, photovoltaics, etc. would change the landscape overnight.
not rated yet Oct 26, 2010
Subtitle: Give us researchers money or you are doomed.
1 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2010
I should say that I fully support focused research towards energy efficiency and power generation. As I have discussed on this site with other commenters, I think a national program towards these ends, on the scale of the Manhattan Project, would pay for itself many times over. Oddly enough, I was listening to talk radio yesterday evening and caught an interview with my Senator, Lindsey Graham. Towards the end of the interview, he actually used those exact words to describe what he would like to see in stead of the proposed cap and trade legislation. I couldn't believe it when I heard him use the words "Manhattan Project", just as I and others on this site have done before. From what I've learned by talking to people, it seems that people on every side of the environmental issue would support such a plan. Well, Al Gore probably wouldn't support it because it would spoil the billions he plans to make from carbon trading, but any honest person should love the idea.