About the Institute

Open Source Economic Networks

CivicForums

Engagement

Our Process

Civic Initiatives

Publications

Tools

Contact Us

WebMenu

I-Open Visuals: David Moss

Ed Morrison: This Energy Round table is a starting point; hopefully to become an international forum to bring together international forces for sustainable energy. Even if you don’t believe in the environmental or sociological issues of a petroleum economy, just from the standpoints of trade imbalance or health costs, alternative energy sources represent an issue of which it is essential to address. Ed asked Phil Lane to begin by outlining what this group could be; how do we use this group and Weatherhead to impact our energy futures?
Phil Lane: The structure of a round table is to start a dialogue on alternative energy; this discussion taking place around the world. The US doesn’t have an energy program yet. If just local conversation occurs, with no general policy changes, we will not have effected important changes in the oil economy. We need the collaboration of voices from a number or regions and around the world in opposition to oil economy. In collaboration; ideas will come up that won’t happen otherwise.People, such as the author, Huber, who has proposed there is no shortage of oil, need to be present to debate these scenarios, conventional wisdom is often obsolete in the current energy landscape. In essence, the knowledge base on alternative energy updates every 30 days.We are interested in going forward with the Third Frontier network and Universities Collaborative. Petroleum geologists should also be present. Every effort in the direction of alternative energy should be respected as a step in the right direction. Jeeps from Toledo have a 5% fill of Biodiesel in their tanks. Such factory support is critical.If this were only an issue about sustainability, then why are we resisting changes that are highly important? If we could take ideas pigeonholed as an industry initiative into a more general initiative and create the critical mass required to indicate how we can improve knowledge assets in the region, this would be beneficial.
Ed: Let’s talk about the difficulty of getting the fuel cell message across to people.
Ken: I am an economist by trade and I believe in a free market. We don’t really have an optimal market for fuel cells. People do not recognize the environmental or health costs in purchasing oil based fuels. There was a political movement to impose a carbon tax years ago; this could provide an advantage to alternative, non-carbon based fuels to get them to be priced fairly. Industries incur costs based on current conventional energy usage. Relatively enlightened economists have supported ideas such as a fuel tax. Bob Rose, the head of the National Fuel Cell Conference said we need a carbon tax (didn’t really call it a “carbon tax”).We need a project of Manhattan Project scale to address this problem. Every politician alive shies away from anything dealing with the imposition of taxes.
Ed: As an economic development person, I think in 20 year cycles. If we invested a significant effort with our colleges and universities as a base, an alternative energy policy could be introduced in phases over a long time. The debate on alternative fuels has gone on for many years, but has gone up and down in terms of interest over the years. Jim Halloran calls this the $2 problem. The key issue is that the price of oil based fuel was artificially set at a high level by the Saudi princes in the 70’s.
Phil: There is a tremendous amount of resistance to CO2? greenhouse gas measures. Opponents of such measures rationalize that there have been extreme disturbances in the climate in the past, so while our CO2? level has increased substantially in the last 50 years, there is still lots of debate on the contribution of CO2? to climate change and the need for a carbon tax.
Gary Murphy: A forum that tries to convince the ardent objectors is not necessarily a good use of our time. Over the next four years trying to convince the administration about imposing a new tax is not a good use of our time. How do we spur on the developments going on as more palatable alternatives by proving how these infant markets offer potential economic gains in the future. We should focus on the fact that alternative energy development work can lead to building jobs, knowledge, and communities around alternative energies.
Ed: At the end of 20 years, could I look back and see Ohio as a center of alternative energy sources. Not just the technology aspects of this, but lots of local policy options can accelerate through a multi-county economic development authority that imposes a tax to fund research. Thus, we could locally fund research in much the same fashion as California has supported stem cell research.
Gary Murphy: It would be highly beneficial to establish a training college for the wind power industry. Alternative energy tech schools could be built. The adaptation of a small scale alternative energy operation in the city of Cleveland would provide a significant boost.
Ken: There are already regional educational initiatives taking place. Stark State College of Technology implemented a Fuel Cell Technician program via a NSF grant. There are a number of initiatives at the high school and college levels working in this direction on fuel cells. It would certainly be worthwhile to expand these initiatives.
Matt: Where is the critical mass of activity? We have heard of many different types of alternative energy; one has to define a community that creates a critical mass around the issue. We need to enhance the activities that are already going on. We need to articulate a message to the public creating a dialogue about the abundance of opportunity that is offered by the alternative fuel industry. We must communicate across the silos of alternative energy technologies, such as wind power, alternative fuels, and fuel cells.
Ed: We should frame our discussion around a set of technology platforms. Does it make sense to talk of it in these terms? An enabling technology provides many economic growth opportunities; without it the technology wouldn’t exist. Cell phones became generally available and people’s minds went wild with what they could do with them. This came about because the technology was available. If we can find an application that makes people take notice, we will have gained an advantage.
Phil Jenkins/NASA Photo Voltaic: I am by nature a pessimist; we have a crisis-driven energy policy in the US. The historical view is that in the Middle East, they have a spigot that sets the price of oil. During the last Gulf War, the Arab Oil Ministers promised to keep the oil price at $25 per barrel during Iraq war and they couldn’t do it. The amount of reserves actually available in Middle East is not well known. Third world development is rapidly increasing and no one is going to stop it. This will generate a crisis.
If REI and area universities will host a debate, we can stress that the regions that have prepared for alternative energies will be better off once we “hit the wall” on the supply of oil. We need to get out of the technology silo mindset. This can cause confusion. The common denominator is rising above the technical vocabulary.
Think downstream ahead of the crisis. Having just a few counties effect an alternative energy capability and economy would be a victory creating a coherent strength that would benefit any of the individual alternative energy technologies. Where are the sweet spots for development? Which of the alternatives are the top 2-3 energy sources?
At a relatively high level of abstraction, you end up losing touch with the common person. A deliverable is to deliver a mission to the nation and world to articulate why they need a comprehensive alternative energy policy. We are seeing a combination of the $2 problem and public awareness. We can’t see the forest for the trees. In terms of the “Average Joe”, we are all drivers.
Mainstream cohesive vision is needed in public communities, under the coordination of public government support. We must communicate that the real cost is of oil based fuel is $15 per gallon.
Herb: There is a hidden alternative energy community; we need to bring them together into a larger community to achieve one success in developing alternative fuel skills. We have photo voltaic, but haven’t transferred the lessons learned from this technology group on to other groups to help them know how to navigate to success. We need to do an inventory to learn who the key people are in the various alternative technology groups.
Ken: I have a list of who’s who in fuel cells.
Phil: One challenge is to deliver the message from alternative energy groups to the common Joe. Utilize all the combined knowledge assets of the groups. Create messages that get more support, so that public dollars go into solving these problems. Generate a master list around enabling technologies. Support the emerging communities evolving around alternative fuels. What are the common themes? Bring together users of the technology to find out the target audience of users.
We need to create a database Marcus Stanley (?). Biofuels and crop fuels will impact agricultural commodities we will need to develop a new branch of economic models. There is a strong need to use the Third Frontier network to forward new ideas.
A National conversation, a quality dialogue, must be created around the country and around the world. There is currently almost a zero interest in trying to tackle the alternative energy policy issue or to develop an initiative.
Ed:The lack of any real substantive business leadership in this region is frustrating. Should our conversation be part of the Nortech conversation? Walk into the Nortek annual meeting and 90% are white males from Cleveland having a narrow conversation. Nortech has traditionally been holding their cards close to their vest. They have been talking about expanding their circle.We must create a unified conversation that integrates national or regional conversation.

Phil:The Clean Air Proposal is a NSF $1M grant to create environmental field facilities around watershed systems for 2 years. If we seized such money, we would gain financial strength. We must track grants for potential funding. Water injection reduces NOX in Adiabatic engines, but to learn of such benefits, it is necessary to establish communities of dialogue that can “build a brain”. Can/should Nortech be at the next round table? Is there a role for the Universities Collaborative to host a forum that will stimulate and bring together the alternative fuels groups or sustainability fuels communities? We need to pull out the energy technology information in their mindset and put them in a room together.
Ed: The whole notion of a state wide collaborative dialogue on alternative fuels took place in Texas. We can follow that model. NorTech? is going to adopt a process from March to July of scenario planning. Having applied scenario planning developed by Shell Oil, I have used scenario planning in a couple of places and it works better when applied to an energy issue than in a broader field such as the NorTech? initiatives. This method requires a closed system to be effective. NorTech? will be developing a technology roadmap for the region. Would it make sense to collaborate with Nortech to promote awareness of the benefits of alternative energy development?
Phil: It will be most helpful if the transition to alternative fuels is seamless to the final consumer. Whatever the price, the issue of metering power back to the power grid can strongly affect the cost savings of some technologies. The photo voltaic peak production period occurs during the day, which is also the peak time for energy use. Thus, if you can get noon rate for electricity you place on the grid, it can place an incentive for installing the PVA capability. Plugging a hybrid car into electricity at night provides extra value by using electricity at non-peak times; thereby, further enhancing the efficiency.
We have a bunch of enabling technologies and we need to stimulate collaboration among groups related to alternative energy. Nortech may be able to assist once they have gone through their scenario planning this spring. It is relatively easy to go back to the Universities Collaborative to obtain support for group collaboration. All the grand visions that we have run on energy. Energy is so fundamental to us and yet we have the Hallaron $2 problem. Energy has to be the underlying fact of every conversation. The costs in terms of economic development and health care need to be a part of such conversations.
ED(?)or Phil?: REI has put together a collective database. We need to formulate what this round table will do and what is the value proposition. Who is funding what, who is on the board. We need to get down to the local community levels within the region to achieve the potential for moving needles around. We see long-term trends that are troublesome and we need to build flexibility into our energy systems and policies. We must consider state utility regulations and take into account the fact that the current regime may be inhibiting the development of alternative energy initiatives. We need to collaborate with people who have had to fight lobbies and articulate reasonable energy futures. We must articulate the first order impact and higher effects. We must push for a sustainable energy law.Andy Thomas, etc., Can we get all the key people to work together and to come up with a policy paper advising leaders on sustainable energy policy. We are stumbling toward achieving a consensus. Can’t Cleveland Public Power provide an idea for this initiative?
Betsy: When should we have a follow-up meeting; should this go every week?