Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 25 February 2009 | Nature 457, 1068-1069 (2009) | doi:10.1038/4571068b
News
Energy agency scrambles to spend stimulus money
Nobel laureate struggles to prioritize projects.
Weeks into the most high-profile job of his career, US energy secretary Steven Chu is trying to convert pieces of a sprawling research complex into engines of technology-driven economic development.
New to Washington and honest about the challenges ahead, Chu has already developed a self-deprecating demeanour.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
The issue of prioritizing research projects (Nature 457, 1068; 2009)1 and wise investments in energy and carbon sequestration sector with a sudden stimulus of 40$ billion seems to be a titanic task and seems to have very many challenges to address. With the slew of existing legislations (Energy Policy Act (EPA) of 2005, Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, Farm Bill 2008) along with other recent legislative initiatives such as Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) are lining up fast, concerns are arising about the proper co-ordination of all these policy efforts to really address the real challenge- ?a meaningful energy independence strategy? beyond the much hackneyed ?energy independence is good and investment is needed? argument. One of the main drawbacks of these policy legislations is the broader nature of the research and development projects proposed via many initiatives by the frame work of legislations. For example, much of the biomass for biofuel roadmap lay out as per the legislations such as Farm bill2 are much broader in nature and tries to encompass a spectrum of feed stocks such as soybeans, corn, and switch grass, wood. While this broader vision might lead to basic and scientific knowledge, it might not address the challenge of the time: sustainable and feasible industrial production of befoul for the US market. It is high time for policy planners to step up and delineate policy frame work for specific task rather than a ?broad-legislative-box? with provision to study ?all possible science? without focused vision which will hamper technological innovations of much feasible feed stocks. After identifying the best viable feedstock-fuel combinations, careful analysis to critically prioritize one or two feedstock for the future development should have to be made as a high priority. One critical question which might be helpful in prioritization process would be: Is it economically, socially, and environmentally feasible for industrial level-production of biofuel from a particular feedstock according to the present scientific knowledge and technology? Many cogent studies have shown convincingly that corn-bioethanol is economically and energetically unfeasible as it need more fossil energy to produce and also sustainability issues such as competing land usage, increasing food prices also exists (Hill et al., 20063, Pimental and Patzek, 20054 Pimental and Patzek, 20075). The recent road map (National Biofuels Action Plan 2008)6 has given much importance to 1st and 2nd generation feed stocks, but if already convincing studies have shown that corn-ethanol isn?t feasible why there should be policy push. Soybean biodiesel is somewhat feasible as net energy gain is better than corn-bioethanol, but sustainability issues such as competing land usage, increasing food prices are also applies here. If you consider algal biomass based biofuel, there is no competing use of land in production process and the process is economically (more oil production) and environmentally feasible via CO2 sequestration (Nature 450, 478; 20077, Nature 454, 841; 20088). These facts tell us to give less priority to corn-bioethanol and gave more emphasis to the soybean and algae based biofuel. Thanks to US venture capitalist world who seems to really realized the scientific scope of algal biofuel and invested heavily in algal-based business ventures in 20089. One thing for sure, Dr. Steven Chu might not only need to weave great dialogues between state governments and other governmental agencies to initiate structuring, re-tooling and unifying meaningful policy and research consortiums to address the energy independent vision of the new administration but also need to specifically prioritize research and investment port folio for the future energy challenges in order to have significant and far reaching benefits for the nation. Bobban Subhadra Department of Internal Medicine School of Medicine, HSC University of New Mexico Albuquerque 87131 References 1. Jeff Tollefson. Energy agency scrambles to spend stimulus money. 2009. Nature 457, 1068-1069. 2. Farmbill, 2008. Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 http://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/. 3. Hill, J. et al. Environmental, economic and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. 2006. PNAS 103, 11206-11210. 4. Pimentel, D. and Patzek, T.W. 2005. Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood: Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower. Natural Resources Research 14, 65-76. 5. Pimentel, D. and Patzek, T.W. 2007. Ethanol Production: Energy, Economics, and Environmental Losses. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 189, 25-41. 6. National Biofuel Action Plan. 2008. http://www.usda.gov/documents/NBAP081208.pdf 7. Williams, P.J. Algae bloom again. 2007. Nature 447, 520-521. 8. Rubin, E.M. Genomics of cellulosic biofuels. 2008. Nature 454, 841-845. 9. Cleantech Investment Monitor 2008. Annual Review & 4Q08 Quarterly Investment Monitor 7, 16-19.