Reforming U.S. Energy Innovation Institutions: Maximizing the Return on Investment

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107338890.003

3 - Reforming U.S. Energy Innovation Institutions: Maximizing the Return on Investment

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2014

Nathaniel Logar ,

Venkatesh Narayanamurti and

Laura Diaz Anadon

Edited by

Laura Diaz Anadon ,

Matthew Bunn and

Venkatesh Narayanamurti

Show author details

Venkatesh Narayanamurti: Affiliation:
John F. Kennedy School of Government, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Department of Physics, Harvard University
Laura Diaz Anadon: Affiliation:
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Laura Diaz Anadon: Affiliation:
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Massachusetts
Matthew Bunn: Affiliation:
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Massachusetts
Venkatesh Narayanamurti: Affiliation:
John F. Kennedy School of Government, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Department of Physics, Harvard University, Massachusetts

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction and Motivations

The large new investments in energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) recommended in the last chapter will not be justified or sustainable unless they are managed in a way that maximizes the effectiveness of the investment. Hence, the U.S. government must ensure that its energy innovation institutions are as efficient and effective as they can be.

The Bush and Obama administrations have seen substantial innovation and reform in U.S. energy innovation institutions, with the creation of the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), the Energy Innovation Hubs, the energy frontier research centers, and strengthened connections between Basic Energy Sciences and the applied R&D offices at the Department of Energy (DOE). But as we will outline in this chapter, there is a great deal more to be done to ensure that DOE's energy innovation institutions are as effective as they can be.

DOE's national laboratories, in particular, are a core element of DOE's science and innovation system. In addition to goals of nuclear security and scientific exploration, DOE also aims to contribute to new discoveries and inventions in energy technologies. DOE itself is part of a larger innovation regime in the United States and globally that includes different actors and institutional models for conducting research. For energy innovation, a successful national laboratory outcome is often the commercialization of a technology product. Whether a laboratory's research is fundamental inquiry or it sits on the applied end of the research spectrum, it must contribute to knowledge or technologies that can eventually find use and enhance the energy system's impact on national security, the environment, and the market.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Transforming US Energy Innovation , pp. 81 - 124

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338890.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anadon, L.D. (2012). “Missions-oriented RD&D institutions in energy between 2000 and 2010: A comparative analysis of China, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” Research Policy, 41(10):1742–56.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anadon, L.D., & Nemet, G.F. (2013). “The U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation: Policy consistency, flexibility, and the long-term consequences of perceived failures.” In Energy Technology Innovation: Learning from Successes and from Failures, pp. 257–74, edited by Gruebler, A. and Wilson, C.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Apte, P., & Scalise, G. (2009). “The recession's silver lining.” IEEE Spectrum, 46(10):46–51.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bonvillian, W., & van Atta, R. (2011). “ARPA-E and DARPA: Applying the DARPA model to energy innovation.” The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(5):469–513.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bozeman, B. (2000). “Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory.” Research Policy, 29:627–55.CrossRef Google Scholar

BP Press Release. (2006, June 14). “BP pledges $500 million for energy biosciences institute and plans new business to exploit research.” London: BP.

Brown, G. (1992). “Guest comment: The objectivity crisis.” American Journal of Physics, 60(9):779–81.CrossRef Google Scholar

Burger, R.M. (2000). Cooperative Research: The New Paradigm. Semiconductor Research Corporation. Unpublished manuscript.

Cash, D.W, Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., & Jager, J. (2002), Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment, and Decision Making. Cambridge, Mass.: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Chu, S. (2009). Testimony of Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, FY 2010 appropriations hearing: 1–12.

DOE. (2008). “DOE selects ASE to manage and operate its National Renewable Energy Laboratory.” Retrieved from (Accessed February 25, 2014).

Duderstadt, J., Was, G., McGrath, R., Muro, M., Corradini, M., Katehi, L., Shangraw, R., & Sarzynkski, A. (2009). Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes: A Step Toward America's Energy Sustainability. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution; 78 pp. retrieved from (Accessed July 25, 2013).Google Scholar

EBI. (2007). Master Agreement, Dated November 9, 2007, Between BP Technology Ventures, Inc. and the Regents of the University of California, Energy Biosciences Institute, Berkeley.

EERE. (2006a). Performance evaluation of the Midwest Research Institute for the management and operation of the national renewable energy laboratory; October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 performance period. 2006:1–34.

EERE. (2006b). “President Bush promotes the advanced energy initiative.” Solar Energy Technology Program News, February 22, 2006.

EERE. (2011). “Entrepreneur in residence program.” Retrieved from . (Accessed July 17, 2011).

First Solar. (2003). First Solar's breakthrough technology wins R&D 100 award. First Solar Press Release. September 9, 2003.

Funtowicz, S.O., & Ravetz, J.R. (1993). “Science for the post-normal age.” Futures, 25(7):735–55.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gertner, J. (2012). The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Guinnessy, P. (2009). “U.S. weapons labs determined to retain funding.” Physics Today. Retrieved from blogs.physicstoday.org/politics/2009/08/us-weapons-labs-determinedto.html (Accessed May 5, 2011).

Kim, H. (2011). Commercializing Low-Carbon Energy Technologies from Research Laboratories through Start-Ups. Unpublished MS dissertation, Oxford University.Google Scholar

Laird, F.N. (2001). Solar Energy, Technology Policy, and Institutional Values. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Logar, N. (2009). “Towards a culture of application: Science and decision making at the national institute of standards & technology.” Minerva, 47:345–66.CrossRef Google Scholar

Logar, N., & R. Conant, R. (2007). “Reconciling the supply and demand for carbon cycle science in the U.S. agricultural sector.” Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1):75–84.CrossRef Google Scholar

Marburger, J.H. (2005). “Wanted: Better benchmarks.” Science, 308(5725):1087.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Marczewski, R. (1995). Testimony of Richard Marczewski, manager, technology transfer office, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, for the House of Representatives Science, Space, and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Technology and Subcommittee on Basic Research. House Report 104-390 – National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, pp. 151–62.

Moniz, E., & Savitz, M. (2010). Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy. PCAST report, September 2, 2010. Washington, D.C.: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.Google Scholar

Narayanamurti, V., Anadon, L.D., Breetz, H., Bunn, M., Lee, H., & Mielke, E. (2011, February). Transforming the Energy Economy: Options for Accelerating the Commercialization of Advanced Energy Technologies. Cambridge, Mass.: Report for Energy Technology Innovation Policy Research Group, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Narayanamurti, V., Anadon, L.D., & Sagar, A.D. (2009). “Transforming energy innovation.” Issues in Science and Technology, 26(1):57–64.Google Scholar

Narayanamurti, V., Odumosu, T., & Vinsel, L. (2013). “Rip: The basic-applied research dichotomy.” Issues in Science and Technology, XXIX.2, Winter.Google Scholar

NREL. (1995). “NREL funding reductions to further impact lab's workforce.” NREL News Releases.

NREL. (2009). “Recovery act money invested at NREL.” NREL Feature News, May 1, 2009.

NREL. (2010). “NREL's clean energy forum attracts nearly 500 participants from investment community.” NREL News Releases, October 21, 2010.

OSTP. (1983). Report of the White House Science Council Federal Laboratory Review Panel, pp. 1–36. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Packard, D. (1983). “Packard report urges more autonomy without change.” Nature, 304:199.Google Scholar

PCAST. (2010). Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy. Washington, D.C.: President's Council of Advisors on Science & Technology.Google Scholar

Pielke, R.A. (1995). “Usable information for policy: An appraisal of the U.S. global change research program.” Policy Sciences, 38:39–77.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pielke, R.A., & Byerly, R. (1998). “Beyond basic and applied.” Physics Today, 51(2):42–6.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pielke, R.A., & Sarewitz, D. (2003). “Wanted: Scientific leadership on climate change.” Issues in Science and Technology, Winter: 27–30.Google Scholar

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Sarewitz, D., & PielkeJr., R.A. (2007). “The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science.” Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1):5–16.CrossRef Google Scholar

Serface, J. (2009). “My year as NREL's entrepreneur in residence.” Cleantech Blog.

Shapley, D., & Roy, R. (1985). Lost at the Frontier: U.S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift. Philadelphia: ISI Press.Google Scholar

SRC. (2011a). “SRC vision, mission, charter and values.” Retrieved from (Accessed July 17, 2011).

SRC. (2011b).“ERI mission and objectives.” Retrieved from (Accessed July 17, 2011).

Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Tennenhouse, D. (2004). “Intel's open collaborative model of industry – university research.” Research-Technology Management, (July-August):19–25.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2005). “The national medal of technology and innovation recipients.” Retrieved from (Accessed July 24, 2011).

Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., & Barbose, G. (2007). “Using the federal production tax credit to build a durable market for wind power in the United States.” The Electricity Journal, 20:77–88.CrossRef Google Scholar

Vance, A., & Miller, C.C. (2010). “6 months, $90,000 and (maybe) a great idea.” The New York Times, February 27, 2010.

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.