Energy, Security, and Climate

For seventy years, Argonne has hosted cutting-edge scientific research. The first national laboratory in the United States, Argonne was created in 1946 as an extension of the Manhattan Project to develop nuclear technology. Today, its research spans high-energy physics, supercomputing, and advanced materials, but I paid a visit to Argonne last month for one reason in particular: the Laboratory has established itself as a thriving hub for research on battery energy storage. To write his 2015 book, The Powerhouse: Inside the Invention of a Battery to Save the World, Quartz reporter Steve Levine spent two years embedded in Argonne’s battery laboratories, documenting a thrilling race to develop the next-generation lithium-ion battery. I was particularly fascinated by the central but confusing role that Argonne found itself. As a national laboratory, its core competency is basic science research and development, at which its scientists excel. But on top of that, the Lab has developed external partnerships with the private sector, for example, by licensing technology to General Motors to build the battery for its Volt electric vehicle (Argonne technology may soon emerge in next year’s 238-mile-range Chevy Bolt). And it found itself under intense pressure to deliver results after the Department of Energy designated it as the U.S. energy innovation hub for energy storage. Arguably, a transformative advance in energy storage is the most important clean energy technology need in the quest to confront climate change and secure energy independence. But Argonne, along with a swathe of Silicon Valley start-ups, has struggled to commercialize breakthrough battery technologies. Today, it remains unclear whether a credible challenger can unseat the formidable lithium-ion battery, which Asian firms (and more recently, Tesla) are churning out en masse. Still, on my visit I encountered healthy doses of optimism—tempered by experience with research dead-ends—and a trove of lessons for how to commercialize emerging technologies. Here are four of them: 1. Lithium-sulfur batteries are the best bet to succeed lithium-ion Researchers at Argonne’s Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR) are racing to deliver an electric-vehicle battery prototype that will pack more energy per pound, at a lower price point, than anything on the market. Lithium-ion batteries currently dominate energy storage, encompassing mobile phones, electric vehicles, and power grids, but their performance is approaching theoretical limits (figure 1). JCESR researchers—after chasing a dead-end in hyped but finicky lithium-air technology—now believe lithium-sulfur will enable cheaper and longer-range electric vehicles that strike the right balance between feasibility of commercialization and better performance. Still, the challenges facing an energy-dense, cost-effective lithium-sulfur battery are formidable. Making it will probably require replacing all of the major components of the lithium-ion battery. Scientists are struggling to prevent the sulfur in the positive electrode, or cathode, from dissolving. And making a required change to the negative electrode or anode—from graphite in lithium-ion batteries to solid lithium metal—has resulted in the electrode developing weird growths (“dendrites”) that can short circuit the battery. Furthermore, researchers are looking for solid materials with which to replace the liquid electrolyte that shuttles ions between the anode and cathode. Still, if they succeed, batteries could store more energy, discharge power more rapidly, and pose fewer safety risks (read: no more fires on planes). Figure 1: Energy densities of standard lithium-ion batteries. Source: Janek, J., and Zeier, W.G. Nature Energy 1 (2016). 2. R&D is needed not only to invent new materials, but also to scale up manufacturing processes Argonne’s Materials Engineering Research Facility (MERF) focuses on an often-overlooked aspect of battery innovation—figuring out how to manufacture new materials at commercial scale. Researchers explained to me their rigorous process flow, which includes vetting new materials to see if they can in theory be scaled up, and making larger and larger quantities of the materials. They might modify the chemical composition to synthesize a material invented in the lab to make it easier to manufacture, but if it fails to deliver the same performance on a large scale, researchers must go back to the drawing board. Importantly, researchers use industrial-scale equipment, which differs substantially from lab tools used to make very small quantities of new materials (figure 2). The logic behind MERF is sound and badly needed. Still, Argonne has a long way to go. So far, MERF has only focused on new materials for lithium-ion batteries, whereas brand new battery technologies are arguably even more in need of such a facility to make up for the industry’s apathy toward emerging battery architectures. And even within the lithium-ion battery space, MERF has struggled to produce a game-changing new material at a scale that battery manufacturers are willing to license. Still, MERF has had some limited examples of successful licensing arrangements. And I’m positive that it will take many more MERF-like facilities—scaling up the manufacturing of batteries as well as other clean energy technologies—to realize the potential of national laboratory discoveries. Figure 2: An industrial-scale reaction chamber (50 liters) for scaling up synthesis of new lithium-ion electrolyte materials (Varun Sivaram) 3. International R&D cooperation is about much more than technology development Recently, the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC) was renewed for another five-year collaboration, and Argonne was chosen to lead the Clean Vehicle Consortium (CVC) from the U.S. side. I was struck by the CVC’s range of goals—over and above developing new technologies in the lab. The collaboration could be a vehicle (pun intended) for U.S. firms to bring advanced battery and vehicle technologies to the Chinese market. And it could offer a venue for senior U.S. and Chinese officials to meet with each other and discuss not only CERC’s progress but also completely unrelated diplomatic priorities. Amazingly, clean energy technology (along with climate change—though friction remains on aspects of climate negotiations) has emerged as the brightest spot in U.S.-China relations, uplifting a relationship that has been otherwise marred by tensions around the South China Sea, cybersecurity, and more. The downside may be that genuine technology development could become a casualty of the pressure on CERC to deliver on broader diplomatic goals. Joint patenting of technology with China has been rare, as U.S. companies in particular remain wary of China’s intellectual property protections. Still, I got the sense that CVC’s collaboration on driverless, networked vehicles is an effort where both the U.S. and Chinese sides are committed to jointly developing new technologies in a largely unexplored area. 4. National laboratories and entrepreneurs could be natural partners Building on a model pioneered at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory called “Cyclotron Road,” Argonne is preparing to kick off its own incubator for clean energy technology entrepreneurs to take advantage of the extensive resources at the Lab. Dubbed “Chain Reaction Innovations” (CRI), the program is about to announce its inaugural class of entrepreneurs, pairing them with veteran Argonne researchers to develop their technologies on campus. I’ve argued before that this model is crucial for entrepreneurs to get their start without venture capitalists hanging a Sword of Damocles over their heads by infusing their start-ups with capital but expecting speedy and lucrative payouts. Now, national labs around the country are looking into hosting their own classes of entrepreneurs, and it will likely take many such programs to boost clean energy technology in the wake of the start-up bubble collapse. But in this area as in others, I came away from my visit reassured that Argonne is looking ahead to play a vital role in bringing clean energy breakthroughs to market. I am very grateful to my hosts at Argonne National Laboratory, including Peter Littlewood, Greg Morin, Dave Hooper, Julie Wulf-Knoerzer, Don Hillebrand, Kris Pupek, Norm Peterson, Suresh Sunderajan, Andreas Roelofs, Kevin Gallagher, Brad Ullrick, and Devin Hodge.

This post is co-authored by Sagatom Saha, research associate for energy and U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. When policymakers mandate adoption of a particular technology, they run the risk that the technology may not yet exist or is too expensive for consumers. Similarly, when the government funds research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of new technologies, it can’t be sure that any advances it underwrites will get picked up by the private sector and successfully taken to market. Even if the government pursues both activities separately—“pulling” technologies into the market through mandates or standards and “pushing” the development of new technologies through RD&D funding—these risks don’t go away. But the strategy embodied in the Obama administration’s recent push to clean up emissions from large vehicles could address both of these risks in one fell swoop. Last month, the administration released new rules limiting emissions from heavy-duty vehicles like vans, trucks, tractors, and buses. Alongside the standards, it also announced $140 million in new funding for innovative technologies to improve the efficiency of both light and heavy vehicles. Pairing these pull- and push-policies has already proven effective at making sure the right technologies are developed to achieve ambitious standards. This strategy could work to commercialize other energy technologies as well. Indeed, tight coordination of push and pull policies is a staple in other fields, like defense and global health, and should be applied more broadly to energy innovation. That will be tougher politically, however, requiring institutions to cooperate in ways that weren’t envisioned when they were set up. Who’s A-Freight of Efficiency Standards? Under the recent Obama administration standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), heavy trucks must reduce their carbon emissions by 25 percent. Although these vehicles only account for 5 percent of vehicles on the highway, they guzzle 20 percent of the fuel. And because carbon emissions from the transportation sector recently overtook those from the power sector, curbing heavy truck emissions could be crucial to meeting U.S. obligations under the Paris Agreement to reduce its emissions by 26–28 percent by 2025. Although the administration can’t guarantee that manufacturers will be able to meet the mandate, it has strong evidence suggesting they will. Under the Supertruck I program from 2010 to 2015, the Department of Energy funded truck manufacturers and suppliers to improve trucks’ “freight efficiency,” or the amount of freight hauled per gallon of fuel used. All but one manufacturer successfully beat the target of a 50 percent increase in freight efficiency over that of 2009 trucks (the last firm is expected to meet the goal this year). Moving forward, the administration believes manufacturers can match the previous improvement so that the freight efficiency of trucks in 2021 is 100 percent higher than those in 2009. But not only is the administration betting that manufacturers are capable of meeting the new standards—they’re supplying resources to ensure they do. Along with pulling up vehicle performance through regulatory emission standards, the administration is pushing technology improvements through the newly announced Supertruck II program, which will spend $80 million on RD&D programs. The program will aim to build on its predecessor’s progress in commercializing technologies like lighter materials, more aerodynamic designs, and lower-resistance tires. Together, the standards and RD&D funding compose a coordinated push-pull approach that has a better chance of succeeding than either component alone. And we’ve seen examples of orphaned push or pull policies for clean energy before. For example, in 2007 Congress enacted the Renewable Fuels Standard, a pull policy that set mandates more than a decade into the future for the quantities of advanced biofuels that oil refineries would need to blend into gasoline. But few manufacturers have been able to make such advanced fuels, so the federal government is forced to relax the standards year after year. And a memorable example of a failed push policy is the notorious Synthetic Fuels Corporation, into which the federal government poured billions of dollars but cancelled when falling oil prices erased any market demand for oil substitutes. Together, these examples demonstrate that push without pull, or vice versa, can doom policies promoting technological change. Finally, a push-pull approach could overcome political barriers that obstruct pull approaches in particular. When it came time to create the heavy truck standards, the Obama administration had already provided RD&D funding to manufacturers and suppliers like Freightliner and Cummins; these firms were then willing participants in helping set ambitious but achievable efficiency standards. Contrast this collegiality to the simmering tensions between the administration and the auto industry as the two sides spar over the future of light-duty vehicle fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Perhaps a compromise to maintain stringent CAFE standards, paired with additional RD&D support for automakers to meet them, would be mutually acceptable. Extending the Pipeline In their book, Technological Change in Legacy Sectors, Chuck Weiss and Bill Bonvillian argue that the military has adeptly combined push and pull policies, creating an “extended pipeline” to fund innovation from basic research all the way through commercial deployment. For example, institutions like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded the development of drone prototypes and precision strike capabilities, and the military services later procured these technologies at the other end of the pipeline. Despite some bureaucratic wrinkles, this model worked well to identify a need, specify a desired technology, and acquire the resulting product to guarantee a market to private sector partners. More recently, the U.S. Navy collaborated with the DOE and the Department of Agriculture to create an extended pipeline for advanced biofuels to run military ships and planes--the partnership includes funding for biorefineries to produce military-spec fuels that (presumably) the Navy will then procure. Elsewhere in the global health field, coordination of push and pull policies is common. Indeed, Doctors Without Borders has expanded this paradigm to develop drugs to fight tuberculosis, coining a “Push, Pull, and Pool” model. As before, this model would provide RD&D “push” funding, and it would “pull” new drugs by offering a prize or advanced commitment to purchase a substantial quantity upon development of an effective and affordable drug. On top of this, to be eligible for funding or prizes, private firms would have to agree to submit their chemical discoveries into a pool to enable collaborative research and technology licensing. These models hold lessons for clean energy, and the Obama administration’s coordinated clean truck policies are a step in the right direction. But broadening this approach will require some heavy institutional lifting. Currently, energy R&D is funded in the United States largely by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the DOE. Demonstration—the middle of the extended pipeline—is funded somewhat haphazardly by DOE. And then deployment standards and support emanate from various other agencies (for example, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA set light-duty vehicle fuel economy standards). Getting all of these organizations to coordinate with one another is a tall order, and in the long run an institutional reorganization akin to what the United Kingdom undertook in recent decades may be necessary. In the meantime, President Obama has left his successor with a modest but effective blueprint to push and pull energy innovation at the same time.