This year, the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit was held just outside Washington DC. It brought together some of today’s most innovative innovators who are working on everything from next generation batteries to plants which can mine metals. Researchers who have received funding for their projects from ARPA-E, a part of the US Department of Energy, gather to share their results with investors and journalists. For more information on some of the coolest stuff I saw, please read this story.
But this year, there was a elephant in the room. It’s the state of the US federal governments. Maybe it’s the climate change? The vibes were strange.
Two years ago, when I attended this conference, climate change was a common theme on stage and during conversations. The central question was: How can we decarbonize and generate energy without relying upon polluting fossils fuels to run our lives?
I heard the phrase “climate changes” only once this time during the opening session. This included speeches by US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and acting ARPA E director Daniel Cunningham. The focus was on American dominance in energy–how we can get more, more, and more energy to meet the growing demand.
Wright spoke last week at an energy conference held in Houston. He had a lot of things to say about the climate, calling it a “ He said that climate policies were irrational, quasi-religious, and side effects of building the modern world. I expected similar talking points to be discussed at the summit. However, this week climate change barely got a mention.
I noticed that Wright’s speech, as well as the programming of the entire conference, showed that some technologies were clearly more prominent than others. Nuclear power and fusion technologies were on the “in-list”. In the opening session there was a panel on nuclear energy. Wright praised Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Zap Energy in his remarks. He also praised the small modular reactors.
Renewables, including wind and solar, were mentioned only in the context of their inconsistency–Wright dwelled on that, rather than on other facts I’d argue are just as important, like that they are among the cheapest methods of generating electricity today. Wright, given his position in the administration, seemed to be appropriately excited about energy. “Call it biased, but there’s no better place to work than energy,” Wright said in his opening remarks during the first morning of summit. He praised energy innovation and called it a tool that drives progress. He also outlined his long-standing career in the industry.
All of this comes after a chaotic few months for the federal governments that are undoubtedly impacting the industry. Federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy, have been hit by mass layoffs. President Donald Trump tried to freeze the Inflation Reduction Act (19459018) which includes tax credits and support for EVs, power plants and other forms of EVs.
I heard many different reactions and feelings from experts as I walked through the showcase and sat down for coffee with them. I was able to hear a variety of opinions about the opening session, and the current state of the energy sector.
People who work in industries that the Trump administration appears to favor, such as nuclear energy, tend to be more positive. Some academics who depend on federal grants for funding their work were especially nervous about what would happen next. One researcher refused to speak to me after I told him I was a reporter. When I asked why they couldn’t discuss the technology at their booth, a member of the same project replied that it was a wild time.
To make progress in energy technology, we don’t have to agree on the exact reasons we’re doing it. In a time when we need to use all the low-carbon technology we can to combat climate change, a problem that scientists agree is a serious threat to our planet (19459018]), I find it frustrating how politics can have such a chilling impact in certain sectors.
I listened to the smart researchers speak about their work at the conference. I saw some fascinating products and demonstrations and I am still optimistic about the future of energy. I’m also concerned that the uncertainty surrounding the future of government support and research for emerging technologies could leave some valuable innovations behind. This article is taken from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’sweekly climate newsletter. Sign up to receive it every Wednesday by clicking orhere.
