Author Archives: Shreya Dave

Thoughts about geoengineering

Posted on by

I like this New York Times piece describing a scientific experiment and its clashes with regulation about geoengineering because it highlights the unavoidable relationship of policy, scientific exploration, the economy, and the environment.  “Mitigating climate change” has traditionally been separated into two tracks: finding less polluting sources of energy and fixing the negative effects we are witnessing.  I would argue that the latter is treating the symptoms while the former is treating the cause, but a combined approach is likely where we will end up (think treating diseases in medicine).  Both, however, sit at the intersection of technology development, economic benefits, environmental externalities and government regulation and while “clean energy” has traditionally received the majority of the media and political attention, I think geoengineering will begin to play a bigger role in the future.

In a summary of the article, entrepreneur Russ George claims he was conducting a scientific inquiry while simultaneously helping fishermen from an island off British Columbia.  He added about 100 tons of iron to the ocean and studied the increased growth of plankton which is hoped to subsequently improve the salmon population for the fishermen.  He did this with no government oversight and may have breached regulation regarding geoengineering.

What strikes me about this article is the following:

(1)   George’s actions have disrupted an ecosystem that people may assume was previously in its natural state.  I think (though I don’t know for a fact) that the region is probably suffering from the effects of overfishing, reduced fish population and a disruption of the local food chain.  Can he argue that he is just helping restore the ecosystem to its initial balance?

(2)   100 tons sounds like a whole lot of iron, but let’s put this in context of the ocean.  A quick Google search tells me that iron powder has a density of about 3 grams per cubic centimeter, or 187 pounds per cubic foot.  That means that George dumped about 1070 square feet of iron.  That might sound like a lot, but now let’s say that George and his team scattered iron in square region that is a quarter mile by quarter mile and one mile deep (to be conservative).  That space has a volume of 9,199,872,000 square feet of water.  The iron is less than 0.000000116th of the volume of water.

(3)   Despite being such a small fraction of the water volume, it is going to have an effect on the ecosystems (remember, the whole point was to spur plankton growth).  Though studies of eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) definitely exist, I would argue that we know only a small fraction of the ultimate effect of this action.  Recall that there was time when we did not know that smoking cigarettes was bad for health or that CFCs contributed to ozone depletion.

(4)   Of course, it is not even the 100 tons of iron that is the problem but the matter of an entity making changes to the environment that have future implications for all inhabitants that we do not fully understand.  George claims he is helping a group of fisherman, but is this a slippery slope where the next “necessary” thing we do (to spur economic growth, etc) hurts the planet more than it helps?  I am suddenly and startlingly reminded of the current political debate about air emission regulation for power plants.

So in full disclosure, I don’t know very much about geoengineering yet, but I plan to post more as I learn more.  In the meantime, I am excited to read this book, Hack the Planet by Eli Kintisch, which explores the argument of geoengineering.

Climate Change under President Obama – worth getting heated about?

Posted on by

The Obama administration is keeping quiet about climate policy leading up to the election, refusing to answer whether it will pursue a cap and trade policy if re-elected and remaining startlingly silent about global climate change.  The Romney campaign believes that actions by President Obama have slowed economic growth, is not certain “what the nature of the threat of climate change is” and claims that energy efficiency is a clever ploy by the Democrats to enact expensive policy.  I’ll leave it to the reader to decide, but I think it’s worth talking about what climate policy we do have and how the standards for both stationary and mobile sources came about in Washington.

To take a step back and put the recent rulings and debate in the context of the United States climate policy, I am going to provide a bit of history, a brief lesson in congressional legislation, and some personal commentary about what it all means.  I welcome your opinions, feedback, and questions about this discussion in the comments section of this post.

Continue reading →

Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future

Posted on by

I return this week with a summary of an article written by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and former director of ARPA-E Arun Majumdar, both from the current administration’s Department of Energy.  This article was published as a Perspective in Nature earlier this month, and provides an overview of the state-of-the-nation in terms of energy technologies (opportunities and challenges).  A couple points that I found particularly interesting are highlighted here:

  • The IEA projects that the world’s energy demand will increase to 17 billion tonne oil equivalents under “new policies” and 18 billion tonne oil equivalents under “current policies” scenarios (from 12 billion tonne oil equivalents in 2009).  While 1 billion tonne of oil equivalents is a substantial amount, the difference between new policies and current policies strikes me as a relatively small fraction of total demand.  So if demand is projected to increase so drastically, efforts towards sustainable generating sources are hugely important. 
  • “In 2011, about 2.690 billion tonnes of oil were consumed; of this, 1.895 billion tonnes of crude oil and 0.791 billion tonnes of refined products crossed national borders.” (Kennedy School of Government).  This speaks to my earlier point that oil is a global commodity and that increasing domestic oil production is a matter of market participation, not of national security.
  • The potential for reducing the weight of vehicles by an additional 20-40% in the next 10-20 years without sacrificing safety is possible.  For every 10% weight reduction of a vehicle, an improvement in fuel consumption of 6-8% is expected (NREL).  This strikes me as a huge opportunity!  A car that achieves 25 miles per gallon could get about 33 miles per gallon simply by weight reduction?  That’s 116 gallons of gasoline saved per year (12,000 miles driven per year), or nearly 2000 gallons of gasoline saved over a car’s 15-year lifetime.  At $3.893/gallon (the average price of gas for Massachusetts this week), that’s a savings of $450 per year, or $6,773 over the car’s life.
  • Creating a nationwide infrastructure for CNG, comparable to the 160,000 gasoline stations in the United States, would be prohibitively expensive (NACS).  I think it is easy to forget just how ingrained in society gasoline is.  Talking to some colleagues last week, I was surprised at everyone’s quick judgment of electric car range, and how just a battery could not possible suffice for their needs.  In America, we live in a society where a vehicle is often a necessity and not a luxury, but for many thousands of people in the world, a vehicle even with a limited range could improve their ability to work, travel, and educate their families by a huge amount.  Is there a place in developing countries for lower-range vehicles?  Are the economics of batteries and the infrastructure of electricity in place for this to happen?
  • “The cost of retrofitting existing pulverized coal plants to achieve 90% CO2 capture with the technology available is estimated to require capital expenditures that approach those of the original plant (NAS).  In addition, 20-40% of the plant’s energy would be diverted.”  This, for me, succinctly puts CCS in perspective, at least for the near term.  Without a price on carbon, generators do not have incentive to scale CCS technologies.  If they did, the levelized cost of electricity for these generation sources would increase by more than a factor of two, seriously changing the game for renewable producers.
  • In 2009, nuclear energy accounted for about 14% of the world’s electricity generation.  This fraction dropped to 12% due to policies from Germany and Japan by 2011 (BP, NAS, IEA).  The events at Fukushima have played a significant role in the future of nuclear power, but it remains to be seen the long term political impact of the disaster.  Governments of countries such as South Africa continue to propose nuclear power plants and are succeeding in implementing this relatively inexpensive form of clean energy.  Safety concerns are valid, but completely writing off the potential of nuclear power is something that I believe governments should not be permitted to do.

Finally, a word of wisdom from Secretary Chu and Dr. Majumdar: “The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones; we transitioned to better solutions.  The same opportunity lies before us with energy efficiency and clean energy.”

Of course, the additional commentary in the above bullets is mine and I encourage you to check out the article for more great analysis. 

“You invest in research because it’s the right thing to do.”

Posted on by

Because I am working on a longer piece (sneak preview: rulemaking in the EPA and the new vehicle fuel efficiency standards), I am going to leave you with this well-informed Atlantic article about ARPA-E, the DOE funding agency born from the 2008 stimulus bill that enables funding of research, development, and innovation in energy technologies in a manner parallel to the Department of Defense’s DARPA.

Though liberal leaning, it is heartening to see evidence of continued support for energy technologies from both the Republicans and Democrats and for both to put investment in research in the context of long-term American viability rather than a short-sighted election stunts.

For more information about ARPA-E and its programs, I encourage you to check out its official website.

 

Tired of hearing about cheap natural gas yet?

Posted on by

In April 2012, natural gas caught up with coal as a fuel for electricity generation in the United States.  Natural gas and coal each contributed about 32% of the kilowatt hours produced (and subsequently consumed), at about 96 million megawatt hours.  One year before, in April 2011, natural gas contributed 71 million megawatt hours compared to coal’s 124 million megawatt hours.  The graph below shows the seasonal cyclic trend of fuel consumption for electric power generation in the United States, and the consumption of coal and natural gas converging right at the end (Source: EIA).

What does this mean for the United States?  Well, in some ways, this is great news for emissions.  We emitted 5 million tons CO2 fewer this April than we did last April while generating virtually the same amount of electricity (based on EPA reported emissions factors found here for coal and here for natural gas).

The reason for this fuel switch is not simply emissions, however.  The reason for this fuel switch, most simply, is rooted in the lifetime cost of electricity generation.  For the first time in history, it is cheaper to generate electricity from natural gas than from coal (equipment, fuel, maintenance included). This graph, from the Hamilton Project, shows how the price of electricity from natural gas is around 4 cents per kilowatt hour, whereas coal hovers above 6 cents per kilowatt hour.

So we know that it appears to be a smart business choice for generators to get into natural gas, but the game has suddenly changed for competing renewables.  As that graph also shows, wind, nuclear, and solar – with backup, to even the intermittency playing field – all cost significantly more than natural gas.  Achieving grid parity, a target that seemed almost reachable a year ago for wind and some solar technologies is practically out of sight.  (These graphs were both borrowed from this Technology Review article).

So with that introduction comes the question that I’ve been thinking about all week. Do I truly support natural gas?

I ask this question with a long-term perspective, not as a blanket comment against the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracking.  This inexpensive source of cleaner energy has hit the headlines over and over in the past twelve months, but I want to consider its role in a global energy ecosystem with a critical view as well.  At the end of the day, it is still a fossil fuel despite its superior emissions qualities.

So, after thinking about it, my answer is yes.   The right combination of technology readiness and market factors facilitated a transition that was fast, efficient, and game-changing.  Regulation may lag a little time-wise, but (hopefully) will ensure that environmental damage is considered and controlled.  This is a nicely packaged example of how we, as humans, continue to innovate ourselves in a direction that is sometimes difficult to predict, forward-thinking, and market-driven.  This op-ed from the New York Times shares some of my sentiments.

I also think back to the stories of different fuel sources (probably available in many places but I first read it and recall the version told in this book by Peter Tertzakian) and the cyclic nature of their existence.  Candles and lanterns were the primary consumer of fuel in the 18th century, bringing the onset of the 1751 great sperm whale rush which adversely affected the population of sperm wales significantly.  As the cost of sperm whale oil increased due to a greater demand and a more limited supply, it gave way to kerosene as a predominant fuel.  Kerosene is still used in many parts of India, African countries, and other developing economies, but was also replaced by electric light bulbs and electricity infrastructure.  Though this infrastructure is still moreorless the same, we have just witnessed a transition from coal to natural gas as the primary electricity-generating fuel in the United States.

And although regulation has a very important place in the operating practices of natural gas extraction, this transition was not achieved by a mandate to use natural gas or not use coal.  It was a result of a series of decisions that made sense for oil and gas companies, electricity generators, and everyone in between.  So while I hope to see even cleaner energy become widespread in my lifetime, natural gas is changing the face of energy today, and I am very happy about it.

Forward.Energy

Posted on by

Last week I brought some numbers to the energy plan proposed by the now-confirmed Republican nominee for President of the United States.  Today I take a look at President Obama’s energy claims and promises.

The fundamentals of Obama’s energy plan are as follows:

  • Encourage safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill by reevaluating the permitting process.
  • Develop domestic oil and gas production to increase America’s energy independence.
  • Provide consumers with more efficient cars and trucks to combat gasoline price volatility.
  • Improve the energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings.
  • Establish a Clean Energy Standard in order to double the share of electricity from clean energy sources.
  • Continue investment in clean energy technologies through programs such as ARPA-E, clean energy hubs, and encouraging federal organizations to become first adopters.

Pretty comprehensive, but it’s probably no surprise that I have some comments.  First, the Obama administration is quick to point out that the US domestic production of energy sources is the highest that it has been in more than a decade.  I would like to remind you that no Presidency acts entirely in isolation.  This is something that a campaign likes to remind you when hard times hit, but quietly forgets when good things happen.  It’s true that, according to the  Energy Information Administration, US crude oil production increased  in 2009 more than it had since 1955 (on a percentage basis), but the lead time between permitting and production for drilling and production can be anywhere between 3 months and 4 years.  That means, at least some, if not a fair bit, of the production that is occurring during the Obama’s administration is thanks to former-President George W. Bush.

US Production of Crude Oil. Source: EIA 2012.

Meanwhile, representatives from the oil and gas industries claim that regulations imparted by the Obama administration have discouraged the development of federally-owned lands.  They claim that the additional regulatory burdens are the reason that the number of new wells drilled in 2010 is less than half of the new wells begun on public land in any year in the past decade (Greenwire 2012).

And yet, the new wells drilled represent only one third of the total number of permits issued in 2010.  In previous years up to 75% of the permits issued were used, suggesting that there are other factors at play.  These factors include the cost of opening new wells, the low price of natural gas, and improvements in technology that make existing wells more productive.  Proponents of the Obama regulatory reform point to a lower price of oil as the main reason for this downturn.  (This excellent piece from Greenwire is my source and outlines these points in more detail.)  Permits are an integral part of domestic energy production and unnecessary regulation is burdensome on the economy, but the private companies that operate these wells make their decisions based market factors as well as long term strategy; it is a complex system.

Both candidates seem to think domestic production is a priority.  And while US production may be up now, new drilling appears to be going down.  No Presidency acts entirely in isolation, so who is going to take responsibility for what happens next?

Energy Independent by 2020?

Posted on by

If you’re anything like me, you may find that the claims made in an election year start to get a bit irrational by this point.  Still, they give us an opportunity to do a self-check on what is feasible and what is impractical.  Romney’s energy plan, released yesterday, aims to make the United States energy independent by 2020.  He proposes to do this with the following:

  • Streamline the regulatory procedures for coal-fired power plants to facilitate approval and recommissioning.
  • Explore and develop US oil and gas reserves to bring lower energy prices, greater reliability of supply, and jobs.
  • Reform nuclear regulation to issue more permits, begin construction on new plants, and add to existing infrastructure.
  • Overhaul the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act such that domestic energy companies are less burdened.
  • Invest in Canadian and Mexican sources of oil and gas.
  • Redirect clean energy funding towards basic energy research.

To say nothing of the fact that Canada and Mexico are not technically part of the United States, and to spare you some political rhetoric, I give you the following facts.

First, the United States imported 11.4 million barrels of oil per day in 2011 (EIA 2012).  Despite impressive advancements in technology and cost reductions for oil and gas extraction, can the Shale Gas Revolution really reverse the import trend shown below in as few as eight years?

US Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (thousand barrels). Source: EIA 2012

For more charts like these, visit the US Energy Information Administration’s website.

And second, there is an element of economics that is often forgotten when discussing oil prices, national security, and energy imports:  the price of oil is set in global markets.  Although increasing domestic production increases supply (and similarly, reducing dependence of oil by using domestically produced natural gas reduces demand), thereby having some impact on prices, the United States is still subject to global price fluctuations that are affected by both friendly and unfriendly countries restricting production or flooding the market.  At the end of the day, being one hundred percent energy independent can help, but is not guaranteed to eliminate the risk of price volatility because the United States is only producing a fraction of the world’s oil supply.

Oil production by region (MT). Source: 2012 BP Statistical Review

For more charts like this one, see the BP Statistical Review.

The United States accounted for just 8.8% of the world’s oil production in 2011.  The total North American oil production was about twice that, at 16.8%.  By contrast, the Middle East accounted for the greatest percentage of global oil production at 32.6%.  Furthermore, although the United States increased its oil production by 3% from 2010 to 2011, the countries in the Middle East increased oil production by 9.3% (BP Statistical Review 2012).  Remember this reality the next time you hear that domestic energy is a silver bullet solution to high energy prices, price volatility, and national security.

Next week, I will do a reality-check on the Obama energy proposal, both present and future.

Why We Need a Space Race to Face the Energy Challenge

Posted on by

In order to face up to our generation’s energy challenge, we need the excitement, inspiration, and awareness that a MoonShot-esque national focus can provide.

by Shreya Dave and Amanda Cuellar

Two weeks ago, Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson stood before the Senate Science Committee urging the continuation of funding for NASA, not because space exploration is a national security concern and not because we need to establish a moonbase for economic reasons.  He gave testimony before the Senate because we have a generation of future scientists in need of inspiration.  In lieu of the video (which I recommend everyone watch) here’s the CliffNotes version:  America’s space program turned children into dreamers; it turned dreamers into scientists, and its funding turned science into discoveries that we never saw coming.

Decisions about space funding revolve around more than inspiring future generations to pursue science, but Dr. DeGrasse’s point speaks to the importance of motivation and awareness.  Cliché as it may be, investing in the future provides returns over the long term and is also high risk, but its return is something we cannot sacrifice.

Not everyone who watches a space launch will become a rocket scientist but these momentous demonstrations of the power of technology and science affect people’s lives in different ways.  Today, innovation in sustainable energy is compared to the Apollo missions; my parents’ MoonShot is my generation’s SunShot (achieving cost-effective solar energy).  Energy and cleantech are buzz words, but I am continually shocked at the lack of awareness about energy issues. The energy challenge is present and requires new thinking, radical solutions, and an army of young scientists excited to make the next big energy discovery.

As our former President Bill Clinton stated eloquently:  “It’s about time that we start turning trendlines into headlines.”  Last week, a transformer in an NSTAR substation in Boston caught fire, sending billowing black smoke into the air and prematurely darkening the sunny evening.  Power was then cut to 20,000 customers in Boston’s Back Bay, Theatre District, Kenmore Square, and South End to control the damage.  These were the headlines.

For nearly 24 hours, traffic lights were on the fritz, residents could not charge their cell phones, and tourists were sleeping in hotel lobbies.  More importantly, the experience reminded all of us of our daily dependence on electricity and just how integral it is to nearly every aspect of our lives.  Many people for the first time thought about where their power came from, and, even more complex, which of their energy needs rely on electricity.  Some people may have even asked what role a transformer plays in the grid.  What didn’t make the headlines and may not have entered the national consciousness are the underlying interactions in the power system and their fragility. Increased consumption, dependence, and aging infrastructure – these are the trendlines that exist even after the power has been restored, yet they rarely make it into the national discussion on energy.

Whereas sustainable energy and power electronics may never be as cool as space exploration, I do not believe all hope is lost.  Last weekend, at the MIT Energy Conference, we ran a program for high school students to teach them about energy from an interdisciplinary, real-world perspective.  Given a little bit of prep time and a challenge with prizes, students were asking questions like “What are the costs of maintaining a natural gas power plant compared to that of coal?” and “How do we make widespread deployment of nuclear energy a reality?”  These students, hailing from Teach for America schools in the Boston area, knew little, if anything, about energy stepping into the room at 8am and were explaining to “the adults” the difference between fuels used for electricity and transportation by 4pm, and they were enjoying it. 

My conclusion:  it’s not that people don’t care about the challenges faced by our future energy demands, but that people have never been given the opportunity to become aware.

Astronauts return from space and engage in outreach: they share their stories, they show people their pictures, they visit planetariums to give talks, they Tweet.  These activities are not only required, they are embraced by the space community.  Kids want to be astronauts in part because they make their field accessible.  Where is the momentum, excitement, and urgency for the rest of science?

Last month at the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, a panel that was discussing educating tomorrow’s workforce touched upon this point.  In response to the question about its role in this ecosystem, ARPA-E simply said “inspiration.”

The energy challenge we face today and in the future requires the imagination, willingness and brain power of more than just an elite energy community. While ARPA-E does provide inspiration, we, as “energy people,” cannot sit back in our offices and labs and expect inspiration to spontaneously coalesce around the many pressing energy challenges. What we need, more than anything, though, is for players in the energy sphere to reach out to the public. Unlike the space race, facing the energy challenge depends on energy consumers to reconsider the value and use of our energy resources. It will require both changing perspectives as well as innovative technology. This is not a goal that scientists or the environmentally minded can reach alone, such shifts in the public’s awareness and mindset requires the engagement of the entire populace. This is why we need a space race to face the energy challenge. We need the excitement, inspiration, and awareness that a national focus on one goal can provide. We need for giants from the energy challenge to emerge as celebrities and drive excitement for the energy challenge. And we need the resulting public will to change our energy system in to a sustainable energy future.