Hope climate summit results in a global technology volunteers – TU

The figures showing how much, or rather small, money authorities soil over spending on research and development in renewable sector, is to be found in a UK report.

Behind release stands a forum led by Professor who was science adviser to Prime Ministers Blair and Brown.

– When the climate crisis is here, and less than two percent of the world public research resources go to technologies that will give society more renewable energy, it is something that is raving about wrong, says SINTEF research director Nils A. Røkke, even accredited for this autumn’s climate summit in Paris.

There hopes Røkke a decision which will be the seeds of a global technological volunteer: a research and development program for climate technology world countries allocate money to over its budget, and that through various mechanisms will be funded also by private players.

Hope to open some eyes

– Do you get that accredited participant the opportunity to influence some of the climate summit?

– I hope so. Under a so-called “side event” under EU auspices inside the main hall, I will lead a panel discussion and even hold a post in another panel. So I hope to help someone sees the disparity between size of the problem and the efforts the international community manifest. For me, the summit also an important arena for dialogue with decision makers in the industry, people from our domestic department and Norwegian and European politicians.

The real moon landing

Røkke. Photo: SINTEF

– Why do you think it is realistic that the Paris meeting will go for a global climate-tech volunteer?

– Firstly because many leaders in the world have been inspired by the initiators of the British-born “Global Apollo Programme two Combat Climate Change”, and by Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs of Columbia University. These burns all the same idea: the use of powerful public pools of money a la Kennedys moon landing project to develop effective climate technology.

– Second, because the Paris meeting has a form of technology protocol. It is taken strict intended technology transfer to low-income countries. But it will be possible to expand it in the direction of a joint effort for the development of new technologies. It’s either nothing in the way of that world leaders could suggest a new mechanism which is concrete and which will show the world’s population that they take the need for climate technology seriously.

Prices must fall

– Why do you like that believe that just technological research and development can make a difference?

– Because research and development can make renewable energy cheap enough to pass the ball in the proper scale. Should such acceptance be, must be green energy as cheap as coal. And fossil fuels are capturing and storing CO2 – CCS – absolutely necessary.

A Incitement for the best

– How should such voluntary performed purely practical?

– Much like when research and industrial groups in Europe seeking EU framework program for research. The voluntary work with its associated pot of money could be an incentive for the best research groups in the world to go along. Those who are the best people to develop solar materials, for example, including Norwegian experts, could apply jointly for calls within their field. Similarly, international clusters would then pop up in area after area.

– It is extremely important that the industry be included in this. There are those firms that captures ideas at the right stage that can develop these products to market demand lavutslippskraft and products.

The real moon landing. Use of powerful public pools of money a la Kennedys lunar project, is something SINTEF Røkke hope in the field of climate technology. Here exults NASA personnel as the spaceship Apollo 11 in 1969 embarks on history’s first moon mission. Photo: Nasa

Will add the shelf on the table

– What can Norway put on the table in Paris to stimulate the effort that you want?

– First and foremost the Norwegian continental shelf in the North Sea at the disposal of storing CO2 from large emission sources throughout Europe. We sit on the largest given greatest possible storage for CO2. And both the IEA and the IPCC are bell clear that the two-degree target is not possible now without capture and storage of CO2.

– What about Norway’s role as an oil and gas producer ? We must signal that we are willing to let resources be left in the ground? Or tell us willing to take a greater share of the bill for climate measures, given that we utilize resources that contribute to CO emissions?

– We must get on the offensive again. The climate summit is the greatest chance to take leadership and show that we can do the most important export our products more sustainable and attractive. Imagine if we make hydrogen by natural gas, sells this green energy carrier to Europe instead of gas, and then store the CO2 from hydrogen production under the North Sea. Or we can start by storing CO2 from Europe in quantities equivalent to the emissions we cause.

Germans and Danes have shown the way

– What makes you so firmly in the belief that technology can mitigate climate crisis?

– Not least it Germany has got to solar cells. The Germans have succeeded with the all-time deployment of solar cells, by allowing collective pay for it. By stepping subsidies gradually, the country has helped to force increasingly cheaper solar power. Also Norway has part in the solar adventure, and here there is still a lot to gain.

– I am also impressed that Denmark has got the wind power sector. Just look at the supply industry land holding. It all resulting from an investment in the public account. The two countries have shown that it is possible to reach far by making offensive strategies and afterwards stick to them.

– At the time where all think such plans are a good idea, it’s too late. It’s not that you have to sit and wait for the market. A country’s actions within a field can create a market and a consequent snowball effect. But traditional economic theory can not deal with such mechanisms.

Plan Economy of finance capital

– So few nations are willing to pay for climate costs everything today, and not just topple them over the future?

– Just look at Britain. Where the state has made a guarantee. Whatever the future price of electricity is, so are manufacturers of renewable energy guaranteed a predetermined amount for each kilowatt hour they deliver. About the market price of electricity would be lower than this amount, then the public will therefore pay out the difference.

– This is pure planned economy. Prepared in the country that houses the financial industry’s heart!

– You put your trust in research and development – activities which, by their nature do not always manage to reach the goals defined in advance?

– I say that entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley: It is allowed to fail, but not to give up. About as 90 percent of the research in a global climate volunteer would not get a goal, so I trust that the ten percent who are successful enough to make a significant difference.

Says SINTEF research director Nils A. Røkke – and urgency to today’s next interview.

‘); }}); was cX = cX || {}; cX.callQueue = cX.callQueue || []; function myOnImpressionResult (event) {console.log (“Matched ads:” + event.matchedAdCount); if (event.matchedAdCount