According to the Pew Research Center’s survey results, while Republicans were more likely to support the Keystone XL project than Democrats, there is still significant support from moderate Democrats. According to the report:

“Among those who have heard at least a little [about the project], there is strong public support for building the pipeline. About two-thirds (66%) think the government should approve the building of the pipeline, while 23% say it should not be approved.

Republicans overwhelmingly support the building of the pipeline. Fully 84% say the government should approve the Keystone XL pipeline, including 88% of conservative Republicans.

Even among Democrats who have heard about the issue, a 49% plurality support the government approving the pipeline while 33% say it should not be approved. But there is a strong ideological division among Democrats; 63% of conservative and moderate Democrats support the building of the pipeline, compared with just 30% of liberal Democrats. A plurality of liberal Democrats (49%) say the pipeline should not be approved.”

To review the full results of the Pew Research Center’s survey, see the full report here. Below is the chart presented by the Pew Center, which summarizes their main findings surrounding public support for the Keystone XL pipeline project.

Photo Credit:

1. Chart of Pew Research Center survey results produced by the center.

H/T to Sheril Kirshenbaum at Culture of Science for bringing this report to the author’s attention.

[originally published on 3/5/12 on Scientific American's blog, Plugged In]

In the face of limited financial resources, research and development activities can quickly become the first cut. Some of the reasons behind the choice to eliminate R&D funding stem from the difficulty that one encounters when trying to quantify the impacts of these programs. The combination of their relatively long timescales (many years or decades) and their indirect impacts (for examples, see the “10 NASA Inventions That You Might Use Every Day“) create a challenge when one tries to establish a consistent methodology for quantifying the effectiveness of R&D programs. Further, attempts to compare R&D programs that are vastly different from a topic and impact area point of view can lead to philosophical discussions that further inhibit the quantitative process.

Despite of these challenges, three main quantitative measures are still frequently used to assess the “success” or impact of R&D investments, including.

1. Return on Investment (ROI)

2. Patent Counts

3. Bibliometrics

While each of these can give a sense of the effectiveness of R&D investments, the system that surrounds research and development projects makes it difficult to consistently apply these methods in a useful manner. It is therefore quite challenging to make links between investment and resulting gains.

Return on Investment (ROI)

The Return on Investment (ROI) measure tries to link R&D activities with profits or other monetary gains. If this link can be identified effectively, the ROI can provide a measure of investment vs. profits ($ vs. $). But, measuring the profits resulting from R&D investments is not a simple task, in particular in the public sector. Many factors inhibit the calculation of “returns,” including the relatively long timescale associated with R&D projects compared to same-year capital projects, and the non-linear nature of the innovation process. Often, these inovations cannot be directly linked to a root R&D investment, which might have been funded several decades (and from several different pots) prior to the resulting profitable activity.

Further, the frequently complex pathway from lab to shelf can make it difficult to come to consensus on a methodology for adding together dollars to determine investments and profits. These problems increase in the public sector, where it becomes increasingly difficult to identify returns on investment (profits) – specifically, which returns should be included. A common example can be found in the nation’s national labs where technology is frequently licensed to private entities for commercialization. In these scenarios, there can be much debate as to what profits should “count.” Should returns be limited to the licensing fees, or should all profits by the private sector entity be included? In the 1970s and early 1980s, both the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) and NASA abandoned ROI calculation project in part because of serious methodological problems and disagreements.

Despite these limitations, many still attempt to use ROI to determine the “success” of their R&D programs. These attempts appear to generally be more successful in cases of private R&D, with shorter time scale projects (a few years). One older (1993) study for private (industrial) investment in research and development calculated that the annual ROI for these projects was between 20% and 30%.

Patent Counts

The number of patents linked to an original R&D investment can be used as another indicator of the “success” of that investment. But, the number of patents issued varies greatly by topic area, making it difficult to compare the relative effectiveness of unrelated programs with any degree of granularity and, arguably, link to causation. Further, patent counts do not generally distinguish between those patents focused on minor system improvements vs. major leaps in innovation.

Bibliometrics

Bibliometrics, broadly speaking, refers to citation counts, where one determines the total number of publications (for example, scientific journal articles or conference papers) that are released by a particular research group or research program. These counts are then linked to funding sources, to determine the overall “success” of that funding based on its perceived impact in the field. Using bibliometrics, one can establish a quantitative measure that is arguably related to the impacts of R&D funding. But, as with patent counting, bibliometrics struggle to incorporate the value of these citations (for example, how much more/less is a journal paper “worth” compared to a conference paper? 2 times? 10 times?). In other words, it is difficult to interpret the level of research innovation and impact that has occurred as the result of a single R&D grant.

Option 4 – Consulting the “Experts”

In response to the limitations of using these three measures – ROI, patents and bibliometrics – to measure the “success” of R&D programs investments, some groups have turned to subject matter experts and peer review. For example, in 2009 the U.S. Department of Energy published a report on their Geothermal Technology Program that drew conclusions from the feedback they received from industry experts. Using a risk analysis process on their geothermal research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) portfolio, the authors gathered feedback from industry experts as well as national lab researchers and subcontractors to estimate RD&D impacts. Presumably, this study was conducted in order to assess the advisability of continued funding, and funding level, for this group.

But, even when consulting the “experts,” the authors of this 2009 report encountered limitations. (2) Specifically, these types of modified peer review processes, due to their reliance on individual judgements, can become subject to bias resulting from the expertise and opinions of the “expert” themselves. And, because of the labor intensity of this process, peer review can become quite expensive, which can result in fewer individuals being consulted in order to tease out this bias in the system.

More Questions Than Answers

So, how can one measure the “success” of R&D investment? In the private sector, ROI might be a good option for shorter term projects. But, the bottom line appears to be that current methods aren’t quite enough. Each has limitations, often rooting back to how to consistently apply methodologies across programs and sectors. As a result, one is frequently left with more questions than answers.

References:

(1) Nemet, et al “U.S. Energy Research and Development: Declining Investment, Increasing Need, and the Feasibility of Expansion” available online here

(2) Young and Augustine “Report on the U.S> Geothermal Technologies Program’s 2009 Risk Analysis” available online here

Photo Credit:

1. Photo of toxicology research laboratory by CAMIOKC and used under this Creative Commons License.

H/T to MG-H for his thoughtful comments in our discussion on this topic.

[This post was originally published on 12/29/11 on Scientific American's blog, Plugged In]

Today, when society speaks of oil cartels, one generally expects to hear about activities in the Middle East, Venezuela, or parts of Africa.

But, the world’s first oil cartel did not hail from Caracas or Baghdad. Instead, it developed its roots in the United States.

On April 3, 1891 the Railroad Commission of Texas (now the Texas Railroad Commission) was established by the state Legislature under Governor James Stephen (“Big Jim”) Hogg. Initially, the Railroad Commission was given jurisdiction over rates and operations of railroads, terminals, wharves and express companies. But, in less than a decade it began enforcing regulations aimed at the new oil and gas industry that was developing in the state.

When the Railroad Commission was established, it was just one example of state and local level regulation of the railroad industry. Throughout the United States at the time, governments were mobilizing to regulate the power of one of the country’s first big national industries – the railroad. This transportation system had revolutionized the nation’s marketplace, creating a link between east and west, rural and urban markets.

In Texas, the state’s railroad system expanded to link rural Texas cattle ranchers to the state’s markets. As a result, towns appeared along the rail lines seemingly overnight and many communities far from the rails quickly relocated to take advantage of the advantages offered through being connected. Later, the railroad would be the impetus for creating the Texas Railroad Commission, in order to regulate the fair use of this service. The Commission’s jurisdiction would later grow to oversee oil and gas operations in the state, becoming the world’s first oil cartel.

This role development actually began before Spindletop blew in 1901. Two years earlier the Texas Legislature had declared that all gas wells in the state had to be shut-in (plugged) within ten days of completion until a time when the gas could be sold. The Railroad Commission was tasked with making sure that gas-drilling operations complied with this new rule. This seemingly small role would soon lead to expansive Commission control over the price of oil and gas in the marketplace.

In 1919, the Texas state Legislature enacted a statute that required the conservation of oil and gas and forbid wasting these resources. The Texas Railroad Commission was assigned jurisdiction to enforce the new statute and it soon published rules regulating the industry. Texas quickly became the first state to adopt a well spacing rule to reduce fire hazards.

By the summer of 1920, the Railroad Commission had also been given the ability to regulate the production and sale of natural gas. This would quickly be expanded to an ability to regulate oil production. By 1930, the Commission had issued its first statewide proration order – limiting oil production in the state to 750,000 barrels per day, beginning their reign as the world’s first oil cartel as they artificially reduced demand to maintain higher market prices for oil.

In 1930, the famous East Texas Oil Field was discovered. Covering 140,000 acres over five Texas counties, this field would become the largest oil field in the continental United States. After its discovery, production from this field was quickly regulated by the Railroad Commission to prevent another dip in the market price for oil. Martial law was used to ensure compliance with conservation regulation and production limits in the face of this massive oil discovery and to bring stability to the industry.

This control over production would set into motion a flurry of activity through the Texas Legislature, with dozens of amendments and pieces of new legislation passing through the Texas Capitol over the next several decades. The Railroad Commission’s right to regulate oil and gas production in the state would be challenged, and upheld, in the Texas and U.S. Supreme Courts. And, by 1934, the Railroad Commission’s jurisdiction would expand to include refined petroleum products and by-products.

With this added power to control the state’s petroleum industry, the Railroad Commission soon transitioned into its role as the world’s first modern oil cartel. From the 1940s through the 1960s, the Texas Railroad Commission not only regulated Texas oil and gas production, but also coordinated with other high-production states through the Interstate Oil Compact Commission (IOCC) to ensure that oil prices stayed high. At the same time, the Commission supported restrictions on foreign oil resources to prevent an influx of cheap oil into the U.S. market, similarly to what one sees today with tariffs on imported biofuels.

In this role, the Texas Railroad Commission became the world’s first oil cartel, effectively controlling all U.S. domestic oil transactions. Until the formation of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in 1972, the Commission was able to effectively set the market price of oil, making their Commissioners some of the most powerful government officials in the world.

Today, the Texas Railroad Commission continues to oversee portions of the oil and gas industry in the state. And, as the state’s energy industry continues to evolve, so are the Commission’s responsibilities. In addition to implementing rules to further conserve the state’s natural resources (for example, by requiring frequent natural gas pipeline inspections to reduce leaks), the Commission has also recently been given jurisdiction over the extraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and is likely to oversee any carbon capture and storage activities…

Photo credit:

1. Photo of oil derrick in east Texas by roy.luck and used under this Creative Commons License.
2. Map of OPEC member countries by Bougeois and used under this Creative Commons License.
3. Photo of railroad tracks in Texas by Wesley Fryer and used under this Creative Commons License.

The arm wrestling match over job creation and environmental conservation continues.

One example is the recent announcement regarding new uranium mining near the world’s most famous gorge. According to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the U.S. federal government will implement a 20-year ban on new mining claims in areas surrounding the Grand Canyon. In his announcement, Salazar explained that the Grand Canyon’s “priceless landscape” deserved protection from uranium mining, to the applause of environmental groups and eco-tourists.

The embargo extends a 2009 interim ban by the Interior Department that’s almost expired.

“A withdrawal is the right approach for this priceless American landscape,” said Salazar. “People from all over the country and around the world come to visit the Grand Canyon. Numerous American Indian tribes regard this magnificent icon as a sacred place and millions of people in the Colorado River Basin depend on the river for drinking water, irrigation, industrial and environmental use.”

The lands are located in Mohave and Coconino Counties of Northern Arizona and encompass one million acres. The area is already home to about 3,000 mining claims, which will not be impacted by this new ban.

While the Canyon’s fragile ecosystem and $3.5 billion tourist industry are now more secure under the moratorium, opposition to the ban, including Arizona Senator John McCain, lament its impact on uranium production and in turn, job creation. In a state suffering from an 8.7% unemployment rate (the nation’s average is 8.5%), the land surrounding the Grand Canyon represents a rich potential job resource.  All told, this area holds about 40 percent of the country’s uranium, valued to be in the billions of dollars.

Uranium, the primary fuel source for nuclear power plants, could be used to produce fuel for the nation’s more than 100 gigawatt nuclear power plant fleet.

But, to Taylor McKinnon, the public lands campaign director at the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity “…the real economic engine in northern Arizona is not uranium mining. It’s tourism… to jeopardize our economic engine with more toxic uranium is unacceptable.”

Questions exist about the validity of possible uranium contamination to the environment, and more specifically the Colorado River, underscoring the difficult nature of the ensuring both environmental protection and employment. But, for now, caution is the name of the game – and the ban on mining near the world’s most famous gorge will stay in effect.

Photo Credit:

1. Photo of Mohave Point in Grand Canyon by Tony Wasserman and used under this Creative Commons License.

[This post was originally published on 1/23/12 on Scientific American's blog, Plugged In]

Thirty (two) years ago, this region of the world represented 20% of the world’s crude oil production. But, according to a recent report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, North America has been slowly losing its market share. In 2010, the region represented just 15% of the world’s crude oil production, with a significant portion of its share shifting to Asia, Africa, and the Former Soviet Union.

In fact, North America was the only region in the world that had a net production decrease over these three decades.

In total, North America’s crude oil production decreased by about 1 million barrels per day in this timeframe, while global crude oil and lease condensate production increased by 24%. But, as the result of increased production in North Dakota and Texas, the United States has seen overall gains in crude oil production in recent years. Between 2008-2010 these two states realized an11% increase in production levels (barrels/day). But, these recent gains have not (according to these numbers) been enough to negate the overall losses since 1980.

H/T to Ed Crooks at the Financial Times for his comments on this post.

[This post was originally published on 1/29/12 on Scientific American's blog, Plugged In]

While the interface can get a bit tricky at times – in particular, when you zoom in beyond the county level or try to quickly identify resources by their color – the interface provides an interesting tool for visualizing the nation’s clean energy resources.

Subsequent to the release of these spot price data, the EIA released its projections related to natural gas supply, stating that increasing supply and relatively low demand has also led to a glut of natural gas in the U.S. marketplace. According to the EIA, US natural gas inventories at the end of the winter heating season are expected to be at their highest level since 1983. In their February Short-Term Energy Outlook, the EIA projects that the amount of gas in underground storage at the end of next month will be up 31% from the previous year.

According to the EIA report, natural gas production within the Marcellus shale region likely had a significant impact on natural gas inventories. EIA recently stated that production in this area “likely contributed to lower storage withdrawals as more gas supply in the Northeast reduced the need to bring up stored gas from the Gulf Coast.”

[This post was originally published on 2/13/12 on Scientific American's blog, Plugged In]

In the energy sphere, the message was clear – 1) National Security (nuclear), 2) Innovation, 3) Clean Energy

After the President’s announcement, Secretary of Energy Dr. Steve Chu releasedinformation specific to the President’s budget request for his Department. With a top line of $27.2 billion (about a 3% increase over last year’s budget), this budget proposal included funding for basic science and research, clean energy, and national security. And, while much of the fanfare surrounding this budget is focused on energy investments, the bottom line reveals that, similar to past years, almost 2/3 of the of the Department of Energy’s funding actually will be spent on nuclear – and we are not talking about power plants.

Out of the $27.2 billion request, 42% ($11.5 billion) is dedicated to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). These funds will be used to not only maintain the nation’s “nuclear deterrence capabilities” but also to reduce international concerns related to nuclear stockpiles (think megatons to megawatts), and providing for the Navy’s nuclear propulsion needs. Within this $11.5 billion is $2.5 billion for the NNSA’s Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program, an important component in reaching the President’s goal of securing the world’s vulnerable nuclear material within four years.

Nuclear Cleanup (environmental and legacy management) represents another $5.8 billion (21%) of the budget.

In comparison, the $770 million that the President requested for nuclear energy (3% of the total budget) – including $60 million for nuclear waste R&D in response to a report by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future – seems like pocket change.

Also in the budget:

• $5 billion for basic science research
• $350 million for ARPA-E
• $60 million for energy storage
• $276 million for advanced fossil fuel power systems and CCUS (carbon capture, utilization, and storage) technologies
• $140 million for the existing Energy Innovation Hubs and to establish a new hub that will be focused on grid systems (including the tie between transmission and distribution systems)

The Department of Energy has released an interactive budget online, with links to all of the associated Congressional Justification documentation that is submitted each year with the President’s proposal.

Photo Credit:

1. Photo of President Barack Obama as he delivered remarks to students on the FY 2013 Budget at the Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA), Annandale, Va., campus, Feb. 13, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson

2. Graphic of FY13 Department of Energy budget U.S. Department of Energy – Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of Budget

[This post was originally published on 2/13/12 on Scientific American's blog, Plugged In.]

Recently, MIT released the Future of the Electric Grid after a two year study on the current state and future needs of this critical infrastructure. This latest “Future of…” report included a discussion of grid reliability. In this discussion, the reliability metric was introduced and then quickly followed by a discussion of the lack of usable data regarding outages. Specifically, the report’s authors stated that:

“…customers in the U.S. can expect to experience between 1.5 and 2 power interruptions per year and between 2 and 8 hours without power. This is on par with most European countries…”

But, they quickly insert the caveat that:

“Data on outages are neither comprehensive nor consistent, however. Most outages occur within distribution systems, but only 35 U.S. States require utilities to report data on [distribution outages]… it is accordingly impossible to make comprehensive comparisons across space or over time.”

This lack of comprehensive, usable data ties the hands of analysts wishing to provide a data-based evaluation of the current health of the nation’s electric grid. While available resources are certainly valuable, they could provide an inaccurate picture of the grid’s health. And, without an accurate picture, it is difficult to confidently identify where grid investments should be made.

[To download the new MIT report and see video from its launch, visit this website.]

Photo Credit:

1. Photo of power lines in Florida by timl2k11 and used under this Creative Commons License.

In order to move cutting edge research from labs to markets, these research institutions agree to let their discoveries leave the nest undertechnology transfer agreements. The general process for a technology transfer from the lab to a commercial organization is pretty straightforward:

1. Department of Energy (DOE) National Lab (or, more specifically, their research staff) discover something new and are issued a patent for their invention.
2. This patent is identified as a potential candidate for a technology transfer and so its information is placed in the DOEpatents database.
3. Companies that are interested in commercializing a technology from within the DOEpatents database.
4. An agreement is reached between the patent holder (normally DOE or, at times, the individual laboratory) that allows the company to license the technology for commercialization purposes.
5. Typically, proceeds from the licensing fees are then used to fund further research at DOE laboratories.

Lets take an example -

Northern California’s Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) recently licensed the rights to an aerosol technology that could revolutionize building energy efficiency retrofit programs by making leaky ducts a thing of the past. Under a transfer agreement, between LBNL and Auroseal, the latter will be able to develop an aerosol technology that can disperse a sealant throughout a building’s existing ductwork, effectively sealing any leaks. This technology, developed by LBNL researchers, could vastly improve the energy efficiency of buildings by reducing energy losses due to inefficient distribution of air through the system.

This aerosol technology is just one case of discoveries from within the national laboratory system moving into society’s wider sphere. Over more than 7 decades, researchers within these national labs have developed technologies to harness nuclear power (both electric and geopolitical). They have discovered the foundational components for advanced battery technologies (think Lithium Ion), and how to make car airbags an economical option for all Americans (with MEMS technology).

Last year, during the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, scientists and engineers from around the world analyzed technologies that could have the potential to help stop the oil leak and also assist in the cleanup the oil that has already escaped. One of the technologies that received significant attention was a large device capable of effectively separating oil and water using centrifugal acceleration. Owned by actor Kevin Costner’s company (Ocean Therapy Solutions), this technology was licensed to Costner for commercialization purposes through the tech transfer process.

The technology transfer program allows the discoveries resulting from basic science research to have significant impact outside of the laboratory. Through the technology transfer process, inventions funded by federal research dollars can be used to create new companies within the U.S. economy. And, with the funds received from licensing these technologies, the national lab system can help ensure its continued ability to fund cutting edge research.

Photo credit:

1. Map of DOE laboratory locations courtesy of the Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

This power was originally published on Scientific American’s Plugged In.