Trump wages “war” on energy research. Is he helping China?

For more than 70 years, the United States government has been the strongest driver of scientific progress in energy. These are the words of one of the world’s most respected energy analysts, Daniel Yergin, in his book The Quest. Today, voices are increasingly being heard saying that the Trump administration will put an end to this and significantly reduce spending on energy research.

According to his fiercest critics, President Donald Trump has even declared a “war on science”, also an allusion to his earlier claims that he would end the “war on coal”. What is certain is that America now faces major wrangling over the future research budget – especially energy research. While the administration has proposed major cuts (in the case of energy research, $3.1 billion, or 18 percent), the House of Representatives advocates a smaller reduction, while the Senate is the most generous towards US scientists in this respect and is pushing for a modest budget increase.

Moreover, this is not just about the future budget: federal research spending is already actually declining. During the first seven months of this year, it fell by 16 percent overall compared with the same period last year.

In addition to the proposed overall cuts in research spending, the term “war on science” also relates to doubts among the current rulers in Washington about the need to confront global climate change. This is in turn having a negative impact primarily on research related to “green” technologies, renewable sources and energy savings. Paradoxically, however, the proposed cuts also affect research into nuclear power and fossil fuels, albeit to a lesser extent. Budget savings appear to be the priority, with scepticism over the state’s role in supporting research and development in the background.

Czech interest, Chinese hopes

The outcome of the battle over US government funding for energy research may also matter from a Czech perspective. Energy is among the most important areas of Czech-US cooperation in research and development. Particularly promising, for example, is cooperation on developing small modular reactors between the Research Centre Řež and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a leading US laboratory which, like 16 others, falls under the US Department of Energy.

While Donald Trump speaks of the need to strengthen US dominance in global energy (in his view, mainly through producing and exporting oil, gas and coal), his critics fear that he is doing precisely the opposite. They say his approach to energy research is effectively playing into China’s hands. Chinese companies and universities are reportedly already circling US research projects and start-ups, offering to provide them with the funding they need.

According to The Washington Post, Alexander Girau, the founder and CEO of Advano, a company developing silicon-based materials, has received similar offers. These materials could significantly improve battery performance. Advano lost a US Department of Energy grant despite its partnership with a national laboratory and a university. And Chinese investors are offering to buy a stake in the company. Girau himself is convinced that China is now making enormous progress in research and innovation.

Laboratories’ secret weapon

The hope of energy research advocates may now be that Chinese interest will awaken many people in America. Donald Trump himself has repeatedly made clear that he wants to counter China’s increasingly strong influence.

Daniel Yergin, cited above, also says that energy has always been a matter of science and technology. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander says: “Our new president talks about wanting to make America great. I think a key part of such an effort is to harness the secret weapons of our research universities and national laboratories”.

Bill Gates’ warning

Of course, far from everything can be blamed on Donald Trump. One example is the fourth-generation nuclear reactor project TerraPower, in which Bill Gates has also invested. The project is based on US research, yet under President Barack Obama, Americans had already accepted that the first such reactor would be built in China.

This is also related to the overall situation of US nuclear power, which is being squeezed out by cheap gas. Another Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, speaks of a triumph of US design in the form of Westinghouse’s AP1000, currently the most advanced reactor. But the senator immediately adds the bad news: these reactors will generate energy in China, while their construction has been halted in South Carolina. And it is unclear what will happen in Georgia.

What can be done about all this? Bill Gates, mentioned above, has in the past called on governments to invest far more in research into new energy technologies instead of subsidies for renewables. In his view, only new breakthrough technologies can deliver more favourable energy prices and protect the atmosphere from greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the nuclear energy mentioned above, Gates himself has focused on investments in unconventional renewables and even technology for capturing carbon from the air (air carbon capture).

Crossing the valley of death

For example, the well-known US economist Jeffrey Sachs recently responded to the bad news concerning US nuclear power. He proposes a fundamental review of nuclear research and development as a whole. The goal should be newer technologies – safer and less costly ones.

Such research is indeed being carried out in US laboratories, as demonstrated by the above example of cooperation between Research Centre Řež and the US laboratory in Tennessee. The issue now is ensuring that the US economy ultimately benefits from this research.

And the approach of the US executive branch is unclear. According to some assessments, the Trump administration intends in future to support only basic research.

Advocates of a strong role for the Department of Energy (which is to a considerable extent also a research ministry with a broader remit beyond energy) point out that, alongside basic research, the purpose of public support is also to overcome so-called “valleys of death” – that is, to ensure new technologies actually move into the commercial phase.

An incubator at risk

It was precisely to support high-risk innovation that the former Obama administration created a kind of “incubator” under the Department of Energy: ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy). Its model was the similar and already famous DARPA institution at the Department of Defense. Incidentally, defence is the only area in which no one is proposing any budget cuts.

If a budget in line with the Trump administration’s or the House of Representatives’ plans were approved, ARPA-E would cease to exist entirely. By contrast, the proposal from the Republican-majority Senate would help the institution, with senators even advocating a modest increase in its budget.

The differing positions of the three branches of US executive and legislative power are clearly visible in the proposed spending on research into energy efficiency and renewable energy (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy). While the Trump administration proposes cuts of $1.45 billion (70 percent) compared with 2017, the House of Representatives proposes $986 million (47 percent), and the Senate “only” $153 million (8 percent).

A clash of philosophies

Numbers, whose final form remains to be seen, are one thing; the overall philosophy that will prevail in future debates is another. Greater or lesser resistance to the Trump administration’s approach can be expected among both Republicans and Democrats. Put simply, many Democrats will defend support for “green” energy, while many Republicans will defend research spending as such, with an emphasis on national security.

Criticism that Americans are surrendering the initiative to China emerged after Donald Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. Beijing thus has an opportunity to present itself as the leading champion of such initiatives. (Under the Obama administration, Washington and Beijing formed a tandem of countries which, as the largest polluters to date, jointly took on a leading role in global efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.) There is also a threat that cuts in research spending will strengthen China technologically.

Czech perspective

From a Czech perspective, it will be interesting to follow developments not only concerning the nuclear energy mentioned above. According to Czech science diplomat in the United States Luděk Moravec, US partners may be interested, for example, in the research programme of the Czech Technical University’s University Centre for Energy Efficient Buildings, or in the well-known domestic development of batteries connected with the anticipated growth of electric mobility. The same applies to research concerning the environment or sustainable development, pursued among others by CzechGlobe – the Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences.

As for nuclear power, Moravec also considers joint research into the storage or further use of spent fuel, nuclear reactor operational safety and radiation monitoring to be promising.

The author works as a consultant and energy projects specialist for the HATcom agency.