Cross posted here at DailyKos.

As Jerome just posted, Energize America is alive and well and looking to update the policy proposals we have come up with so far. In some email discussion with A Siegel, devilstower, Jerome and the others one area that seemed missing from the original plan was an energy research component. There are enough renewable and efficiency solutions available to make a lot of progress right away - there's no reason for any further delay in answering the call for leadership that just came out today from the UN and IPCC. But meeting the Step it Up goal of an 80% reduction by 2050 is going to be tough and potentially costly, without technological advances to help us along. Read on for our initial thoughts on ways to think about prioritizing research funding for the future of energy, and share your thoughts and insights on how different options could meet the challenges we face.

Research and development are the lifeblood of American innovation. Our research universities are the envy of the world, and our most vital industries spend tens of billions every year developing new ideas for semiconductors, aircraft, pharmaceuticals, communications equipment and more. Of those industries that perform substantial R&D, the level is roughly 4% of sales, and government-funded applied and basic research in our universities and other research centers adds to that number and provides a common ground of innovation for all.

There is some real R&D going on in energy as well, but the scale is tiny compared to the over $1 trillion spent every year in the US on oil, electricity, and other forms of energy. Most of you probably saw devilstower's post the other day, "Possibly the Longest Post Ever on Energy", which compared Iraq war spending to the federal energy R&D budget. Clearly we should be looking at raising those numbers. But we probably also don't want the money to go mainly to coal and nuclear R&D. So what should our priorities be?

After some prompting from A Siegel, bikemom and I started an email discussion trying to put together some basic ideas on where to start. The following is our first cut at a framework for deciding how to set priorities in energy R&D for an eventual EnergizeAmerica legislative proposal. Your comments will be vital to helping us move this forward, thanks in advance!

First, as far as the targets of the R&D funding go, we propose a 50/50 split between applied and basic research, generally fund and reward novel research, provide special grants for young researchers in renewable energy (including high school students and undergraduates). The topics listed here are generally applied research topics, but elements of each (ie superconductors) would fall under basic research. Because of the broad nature of basic research it is difficult to develop a list specifically for renewable energy.

First the goals of the overall R&D program, to enable the 80% by 2050 cuts:

• Enable a minimum energy from new/renewable/alternative sources of thermal 5 kW per person (equivalent to 50% of current US energy use per person), with the remainder of present energy use made up for by efficiency improvements and a small amount of fossil fuel use.
• Emit no more than 0.2 lbs/kWhr (less than 10% of the CO2 emitted by coal burning)
• Require no petroleum or petroleum products
• Be inherently safe (ie emit negligible amounts of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) materials or EM fields), or the technology to neutralize potentially harmful emissions must be in place before use.

Then, the things we want to see the potential for within each research topic area. For each potential technology area, the idea is to see how likely it is to meet these "wanted" criteria within the constraints of the overall goals, and then try to prioritize funding based on the degree to which a technology matches the things we want to do.

• positive return on investment
• not increase other pollutants related to smog, acid rain, and harmful health effects
• limit the growth of or ensure the safety of potentially catastrophic waste streams (nuclear, carbon sequestration)
• preserve biological diversity, stop species loss and loss of natural habitats (land and water use constraints?)
• sustain economic growth and prosperity worldwide (IPCC uses a range of economic/energy models we could adopt on this)
• avoid resource-constrained energy sources that necessitate military action to secure supplies
• allow greater local control of energy supply; independence from large corporations and regional cartels

If you have additional ideas for "wanted" criteria of this sort, or constraints on the overall research agenda, please post in comments below!

Looking through recent posts and some other background material, we then came up with the following possible research topic areas.

• cellulosic ethanol
• biodiesel (algae, other forms?)
• biomass thermal
• wind
• solar photovoltaic (cost savings/green chemistry/materials)
• solar thermal
• batteries/fuel cells/ ultracapacitors (energy storage generally)
• improved transmission, electric grid
• electric vehicles
• energy generation and transmission efficiency (ie superconductors
• direct thermal energy conversion (Seebeck effect)
• clean coal and diesel (sequestration)
• clean coal (improved efficiency and lower non-CO2 pollutants)
• nuclear fission (improved efficiency, reprocessing, thorium/other novel reactors, waste management/storage)
• nuclear fusion
• space solar power
• geothermal (close to surface, location-dependent)
• enhanced geothermal (heat from deep down)
• tides/waves
• hydrologic cycle (tapping the energy that powers hurricanes – "atmospheric vortex engine"?)
• hydrogen extraction (non-electrochemical – solar, nuclear, etc)

What we are hoping for next is an evaluation of each of these relative to the "wanted" criteria above, in this context. Your comments here could be a big help, we'll read them all.