EDITOR'S PAGE
A commitment to energy R&D Bernard S. Lee is president of the Institute of Gas Technology in Chicago. He gave the keynote address at a recent energy R&D forum in Japan. The following are excerpts from his prepared text. In the U.S., [there are] tremendous domestic [energy] resources—oil, gas, coal, shale—each of which can supply the U.S. needs for many years. But until they are developed to the point of commercially viable operations, they remain potentials only. In the meantime, current energy needs are having to be met by increasing reliance on oil imports. It can be argued that the U.S. has too many options to choose from, and what it must do soon is set a long-term plan. Although the U.S., as a nation, believes in free enterprise, we, with the lessons learned from the several oil shocks, must understand that energy is not a commodity but a national priority. We must recognize that provision of adequate energy is a long-term problem and a sustained national effort extending over decades will be required to solve the problem. The new technologies needed to offset imported energy cannot be provided by turning energy R&D on and off like a spigot in response to short-term fluctuations in world oil supplies and prices. All successful R&D requires discipline and commitment. But in energy R&D, these are needed in the greatest measure. The reasons are: • The huge scale and, therefore, the cost of energy facilities. • The modest return on the large investment typically allowed a regulated utility, which inhibits risk-taking on new technologies. • The high degree of reliability and availability required of the facilities. Thus, if left to the private sector, it is readily understandable that technology advancement will be slow. New technologies must be first proven in the laboratory and then tested through pilot and demonstration plants, until they can be operated on full commercial scale. The private sector can then take the risk of replication of the proven commercial unit and of making small incremental changes and improvements on the operating units. I strongly support participation by private enterprise to the maximum extent possible in the development of new energy technologies, but we must be realistic about the need for government support of high-risk new technologies where the costs of commercial demonstration are higher than the private sector is able to support. Such technology development can easily take a decade. For that, we need commitment long before any crisis is upon us. Again, when viewed on the same basis as health, environment, and defense, the funding commitment required is entirely reasonable relative to the long-term national benefit. A generous estimate puts worldwide spending on energy R&D, both public and private, at about $15 billion per year (U.S.)—about 6% of total world R&D expenditures and equivalent to less than 2% of worldwide military spending. If OPEC has learned the lessons of excessive swings in oil prices and can today follow a disciplined pricing policy to its collective best advantage, we must show that same sense of discipline by planning for future curtailments through a solid R&D program. Commitment refers to the funding that has to be provided. It is then up to the R&D community to translate that commitment into action. And this requires discipline. Discipline means the orderly execution of the development plan. Disciplined commitment to energy R&D is the only way to succeed. Otherwise, we will see the repetition of the swings in energy R&D from indifference to crash programs, as the short-term energy supply is manipulated by shifting national interests. D
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
June 29, 1987 C&EN
5
