Situated on the scenic banks of the Oslo fjord in southern Norway, the world’s first prototype osmotic power station came online this week. The new plant generates electricity using osmosis, which occurs whenever two solutions of different concentrations meet a semi-permeable membrane. The spontaneous passage of water from dilute to concentrated solutions through the membrane generates a pressure difference that can be manipulated to generate power.

The prototype plant uses salt and fresh water, which are siphoned from near the point where they meet at the mouth of the fjord. The two liquids are pumped to either side of the membrane, where osmosis creates the pressure used to drive a turbine and generate electricity.

Statkraft, the renewable-energy giant running the project, estimates the total global potential of osmotic power to be in the realm of 1700 terawatt-hours per year – roughly 10 percent of the world’s total current electricity consumption.

Many of the world’s major cities sit on river estuaries, which could potentially make osmotic generation an ideal power source. Unlike solar power and wind, osmosis can provide a continuous source of power, although seasonal river-level changes do cause some fluctuations.

With the Copenhagen climate summit rapidly approaching, the hunt is on for ways of producing electricity that do not emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. In theory at least, osmotic power seems to fit the bill. It is renewable, emission-free, and works in any weather. One major issue is coming up with a membrane of exactly the right thickness, capable of withstanding huge pressures that does not constantly get clogged up with salt.

Advocates say that osmotic technology has virtually unlimited potential, but skeptics question the feasibility of this type of power generation due to its extraordinary expense. Some experts say that tidal power is more promising as a possible solution to the world’s energy crisis.

The project has been under development since 1997, and Starkraft hopes to achieve commercial status with the osmosis generator between 2015 and 2020. The test project has taken a total of 100 million crowns (10.7 million U.S.) in the project since its inception, in addition to 50 million crowns it received from Norwegian and EU funds.

View a previously written post by Mouli Cohen about energy

The short answer is yes. Bloomberg reports that with the existing infrastructure, most cities wouldn’t be able to tap into these alternative sources. This problem is a function of distance – much of the power would be generated in remote locations – and capacity – the current grid isn’t built to handle the increased load which could lead to frequent blackouts.

The country’s electrical network is a patchwork of 211,000 miles of of high-voltage power lines, connecting substations and transformers owned by utilities and federal agencies. Under the current stimulus, $6 billion has been allocated to expand and upgrade the transmission system over the next two years, a figure that represents only 5 percent of the $130 billion that the US Energy Department, among others, say is needed. “By contrast, China is spending 23 percent of its 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) in stimulus to make its grid ready for alternative sources.”

So why is the government continuing to fund alternative energy projects – recent loan guarantees from the Dept. of Energy show “as much as $30 billion for renewable projects, compared with $750 million to increase the reliability of the nation’s power network” - without the infrastructure to back it up?

Part of the reason, is that the government is hoping that private utilities and transmission developers will step up to the plate to complement their investment, but even if they do, we shouldn’t fall under the illusion that they’d contribute out of any sense of national pride. In fact, their willingness or lack thereof, will fall primarily on the backs of consumers.

Under the current plan, the Obama administration “targets 25 percent renewables by 2025, more than five times the current amount, excluding hydroelectric, the Energy Department says. That would add about 272,000 megawatts to the grid’s capacity of 830,000, further straining a transmission system largely built more than five decades ago.”

While I applaud this bold strategy, without seeing significant improvements to the energy grid first, this strikes me as a perfect example of putting the cart before the horse.

The pair explain what’s at stake by noting that each year, energy expenditures in the US cost more than $1 trillion. Compare that with the $250 billion are government spends in funding research and development in this space and we’re able to see the huge disparity in terms of short term remedies – importing energy from afar – versus the kind of long term fixes required – promoting homegrown innovation.

In order to reverse this trend, they argue that fundamental change is needed in our country’s approach and policies, one that begins with a signal from our government that clean energy is valuable. As we see at every level, the way to accomplish this is by monetizing the intangibles, namely putting a price on carbon. By then following this up with a cap on emissions that grows steadily stronger over time and the country is presented with a solution that leaves little room for anything but greater efficiencies.

And while private industry – from corporations to entrepreneurs – will have to improve or be left behind, the government needs to show its support by backing their efforts with better incentive programs. This is especially important for America’s utilities, which are positioned as the driving force of the country’s infrastructure and able to innovation on a large-scale. This means they will potentially face greater challenges from the outset, if they’re smart about how they leverage the pre-existing energy grid, the benefits will be enormous.

As important as it is to approach these solutions on the home front, Doerr and Immelt point to the necessity for the US to once again assert itself as a big player in the global marketplace by creating a robust trade policy with other nations. This not only benefits our economy, but shifts the planet from a diet of dwindling resources to a feast of renewable energy with America once again leading the way.

What’s especially remarkable about the initiative is that the government will be issuing direct payments – instead of tax credits – to qualified companies that build and start clean energy operations beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The funding, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will be critical to boosting the fortunes of limping green industries like wind power, where total installations in 2009 will likely fall 40% below last year as a result of the broad economic downturn.

From 2006-2008, big investment firms like Goldman Sachs and the now-defunct Lehman Brothers paid for green energy projects in return for 30% federal tax credits. Since damaged banks won’t be paying taxes for years to come, institutional investing has essentially abandoned the renewable energy field. And for small producers, making enough revenue to even reach the taxation stage is a struggle. 

Forbes predicts that these grants “could boost the fortunes of companies like turbine manufacturers General Electric, Vestas and Siemens, while solar module makers SunPower and First Solar could also gain business.” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner predicts that more than 5,000 renewable businesses will partake in the incentives. The government’s commitment to clean energy development sets a powerful precedent for the public and private sector alike. The kind of forward thinking we need to ensure continued innovation in our energy infrastructure.