What Matters: Time to fix the wiring

22 April 2010

Social enterprise: It takes a network

By Raj Kumar

In Social Entrepreneurs

22 April 2010

Teaching the world to change

By Dan Viederman

In Social Entrepreneurs

22 April 2010

Innovating at scale in the social sector

By Jonathan Bays and Marla Capozzi

In Social Entrepreneurs

13 April 2010

The economics of social progress

By Iqbal Z. Quadir

In Social Entrepreneurs

Previous: An electric plan for energy resilience

Next: Electron-democracy

Time to fix the wiring

By Steven Chu

26 February 2009

Imagine that your home suffers a small electrical fire. You call in a structural engineer, who tells you the wiring is shot; if you don’t replace it, there is a 50 percent chance that the house will burn down in the next few years. You get a second opinion, which agrees with the first. So does the third. You can go on until you find the one engineer in a thousand who is willing to give you the answer you want—“your family is not in danger”—or you can fix the wiring.

That is the situation we face today with global warming. We can either fix the wiring by accelerating our progress away from dependence on fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, or we can face a considerable risk of the planet heating up intolerably.

The need to act is urgent. As a start, governments, businesses, and individuals should harvest the lowest-hanging fruit: maximizing energy efficiency and minimizing energy use. We cannot conserve our way out of this crisis, but conservation has to be a part of any solution. Ultimately, though, we need sustainable, carbon-neutral sources of energy.

It’s important to understand where we are now. Existing energy technologies won’t provide the scale or cost efficiency required to meet the world’s energy and climate challenges. Corn ethanol is not a sustainable or scalable solution. Solar energy generated from existing technologies remains much more expensive than energy from fossil fuels. While wind energy is becoming economically competitive and could account for 10 to 15 percent of the electricity generated in the United States by the year 2030 (up from less than 1 percent now, according to the US Energy Information Administration), it is an intermittent energy source. Better long-distance electricity transmission systems and cost-effective energy storage methods are needed before we can rely on such a source to supply roughly 25 percent or more of base-load electricity generation (the minimum amount of electrical power that must be made available). Geothermal energy, however, can be produced on demand. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) report suggests that with the right R&D investments, it could supply 10 percent of US power needs by 2050 (up from about 0.5 percent now).

Coal has become a dirty word in many circles, but its abundance and economics will nonetheless make it a part of the energy future. The United States produces more than half of its power from coal; what’s more, it has 27 percent of the world’s known reserves and, together with China, India, and Russia, accounts for two-thirds of the global supply. The world is therefore unlikely to turn its back on coal, but we urgently need to develop cost-effective technologies to capture and store billions of tons of coal-related carbon emissions a year.

Looking ahead, aggressive support of energy science and technology, coupled with incentives to accelerate the development and deployment of innovative solutions, can transform energy demand and supply. What do I mean by such a transformation? In the 1920s and 1930s, AT&T Bell Laboratories focused on extending the life of vacuum tubes, which made transcontinental and transatlantic communications possible. A much smaller research program aimed to invent a completely new device based on breakthroughs in quantum physics. The result was the transistor, which transformed communications. We should be seeking similar quantum leaps for energy.

That will require sustained government support for research at universities and national labs. The development of the transistor, like virtually all 20th-century transformative technologies in electronics, medicine, and biotechnology, was led by people trained, nurtured, and embedded in a culture of fundamental research. At the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory—part of the US Department of Energy and home to 11 Nobel Laureates—scientists using synthetic biology are genetically engineering yeast and bacteria into organisms that can produce liquid transportation fuels from cellulosic biomass. In another project, scientists are trying to develop a new generation of nanotechnology-based polymer photovoltaic cells to reduce the cost of generating solar electricity by more than a factor of five, making it competitive with coal and natural gas. In collaboration with scientists from MIT and the California Institute of Technology, yet another Berkeley Lab research program is experimenting with artificial photosynthesis, which uses solar-generated electricity to produce economically competitive transportation fuels from water and carbon dioxide. If this approach works, it would address two major energy challenges: climate change and dependence on foreign oil producers.

In the next ten years, given proper funding, such research projects could significantly improve our ability to convert solar energy into power and store it and to convert cellulosic biomass or algae into advanced transportation fuels efficiently. Combined, this would mean a genuine transformation of the energy sector.

The world can and will meet its energy challenges. But the transformation must start with a simple thought: it’s time to fix the wiring.

Comment [12]

Agree? Disagree? Let us know what you think. Please include your full name with your comment. Comments may be edited.

I’m amazed to hear Dr Chu depending so heavily on coal for future power. If “clean coal” could be made to work it would take 20 years or so to rebuild the plants.
E-Coal is a practical way to immediately clean up the output of existing coal power plants worldwide. It is made from biofuel raised locally and torrefied by a simple device. Green jobs are created and coal plants are made green instantly. No modification is necessary to burn E-coal and it costs no more than dirty coal.
E-Coal link: www.newearth1.net

Posted 26 March 2009, 12:01 by Thomas Blakeslee
What Matters readers should also know that Secretary Chu was, until his appointment, a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, a group of 30 prominent leaders in business, science, and policy who have come together to create global awareness of the importance of the U.N. Climate Change Conference, COP15, in Copenhagen, in December 2009.

In an interview we published last year, Chu said humanity underestimates the risk posed by climate change and ignores the fact that the planet is threatened with “sudden, unpredictable, and irreversible disaster.”

Here’s the link: http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/get-informed/news/clear-and-present-danger-a-conversation-with-nobel-laureate-steve-chu-on-the-risks-of-climate-change.html

Posted 19 March 2009, 06:15 by Justin Gerdes
Secretary Chu seems out of touch with state of PV technology. First Solar installed a 12.6MW plant in Dec ’08 that is delivering power below that of local power from the grid.

Grid parity has been reached and multiple late stage technologies are poised to deliver additional low-cost PV solutions [Nanosolar, Heliovolt, Miasole, Ascent Solar etc]. We need to stimulate this area of technology by incentivizing rapid adoption and installation to keep the costs coming down.

Posted 10 March 2009, 10:04 by StevePluvia
andre szykier

Well said. Efficiency is by far the biggest bang for the buck. Californians use about half the energy per capita as the rest of the country, as a result of efficiency steps taken since the 70s.

I am a big proponent of CSP or solar thermal power in the southwest. The first time (maybe 18 months ago) that I read about concentrating solar and it’s ability to store heat energy for nighttime power generation, a big light went on in my mind. Renewable energy with it’s own highly efficient power storage built in is just what the doctor ordered. This is where we can get steady base load power day and night, to replace coal plants. Yes it sounds like a lot of land, but actually would use less land than now used for coal mining and coal plants, and with far less impact on the land. It will require build out of HVD lines to really get up to it’s potential scale. According to a study by the Western Governors Association, prices should fall to below 10 cents/kWh after 4 GW are installed and online. There are already 3 GW or more in the building and planning stages, which should be online in maybe 5 years. They projected prices to fall further to 5-8 cents/kWh when the industry gets up to scale. It would then be on a par with wind energy. The study also said there was enough suitable land near existing transmission lines for 300 GW of solar thermal.

Joseph Romm at Climate Progress has several articles on the benefits of solar thermal. Here’s one of them.

Chu’s comments about the price of PV generated electricity leave out the rapidly falling costs of PV. Grid parity should be reached in less than ten years nationwide. It’s already competitive during peak demand in some areas of high electric prices.

Arturo Velez Jiminez

You make some good points. Biochar also helps lock carbon in the soil, reducing GHG emissions.

I think Chu understands the problem with wasteful power generation. The essay was too short to cover all the bases.

Sol shapiro

If anything the projections of the IPCC have been overly optimistic. Even the 4th Assessment report of just two years ago is already proving to be far too conservative, based on current observations and data. The problem so far (last eight years ) has been one of global warming deniers with the full backing of the administration, preventing us from taking responsible steps, not the other way around.
The hysteria of those claiming a global warming hoax or conspiracy is what has been damaging. It’s an absurd accusation to begin with.

Geoengineering is a terrible idea. forget it.
Do you honestly think more tinkering with the atmosphere and ocean is a prudent idea?
How do you solve the ocean acidification problem, for instance? Only reduced CO2 emissions can do that. Adding aerosols to the atmosphere doesn’t help and would undo the efforts we have already implemented to reduce these emissions over the last 35 plus years . Remember acid rain?
These kinds of efforts might be the only options available if we don’t take more sensible steps now. They would be a last resort to stave off global warming, after having done nothing about it now. Let’s hope we are smarter than that.

The bottom line is that man can’t expect to speed up the natural short term carbon cycle a hundred fold and expect good results. We are releasing into the atmosphere, and thereby back into the short term carbon cycle, carbon that was removed from the carbon cycle and eventually deposited as coal, over a period of 60 million years. That 60 million year accumulation of carbon, which was locked out of the carbon cycle as coal, is now being reintroduced into the carbon cycle in the geological blink of an eye of a few hundred years. It can’t work, period. It is unprecedented in the history of the planet.

I strongly recommend reading the new book “The Carbon Age” by Eric Roston.

Posted 9 March 2009, 15:33 by Richard Mercer
Secretary Chu makes an excellent point about fixing the wiring. I believe we can also address the demand side immediately with technologies available today and reduce our energy usage significantly. As an example with the help of Governments around the world, we can make energy efficiency the ‘primary focus’ WW and enable companies commercialize technologies faster, energy companies promote adoption quicker and consumers embrace this now! There are clean technologies like LED lighting that can cut our energy usage in lighting by more than 60% and if we work together as parts of the same eco-system, I believe we can start the energy savings en masse by 3rd quarter this year! Governments can partner with industry, by offering incentives that will enable companies to make this technology affordable right away, thus enabling faster adoption.

Posted 8 March 2009, 23:03 by Govi Rao
The most important energy issue this nation faces is in fueling transportation with domestic supply.
The long term activity described by Dr. Chu is laudable – but has a very uncertain time frame.
The size of our auto fleet means that any process to change “fleet hardware” will probably take about 3 decades to be fully implemented. This takes into account the need to invent, build up production and then replace the hardware.
And so, we need a short term “bridge” which will be replaced by these long term solutions as they are “invented.”
Short term consists then of: – drill responsibly – use proven coal-to-liquid technology – use as much biofuel as technology and space allows – increase aute efficiency responsibly – engine improvements and hybrids, e.g.
Coal-to-liquid offers a real possibility which is being held back by several factors. The environmental community’s “tunnel vision” just won’t accept coal – even though current plant ideas mix coal with biomass and produce no more CO2 than conventional crude oil. Initial plants need loan guarantees. Baard Energy is seeking $2.3 billion for a loan guarantee for a plant to produce 50,000 barrels per day; this is being fought tooth-and-nail by the environmental community. And we also need a guaranteed market for this fuel at about $60 per barrel to protect against predatory pricing by international cartels; possibly tax credits tied to the price of crude.
Finally, there is the issue of the hysteria of climate change being used to frighten the politicians away from responsible actions. There is a short term solution to climate change termed “geoengineering,” one implementation of which is to emulate the cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions. Endorsed for study and deployment as needed by many prominent scientists over the past 30 years including the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC keeps it on the back burner and the environmental community won’t talk about it.
Comments appreciated: Somarl@msn.com

Posted 7 March 2009, 11:30 by Sol Shapiro
Secretary Chu is wrong. The wiring is not the problem: 70% of all energy losses occur at the power plant. Wiring is ONLY responsible for 9% of the losses. He should know better.

Also power plants are responsible for a very significant percentage of TOTAL GHG. Which, by the way, could be stored for thousands of years in the soil by converting biomass into biochar, enhancing soil performance and crop productivity dramatically, and biooil — a byproduct of biochar — could be used as fuel in power plants, making them CO2 neutral.

Why have Nobel Prize (expensive) fuel technology, if 70% of it will be wasted in power generation???

Posted 4 March 2009, 20:39 by ARTURO VELEZ JIMENEZ
The wiring, as Secy. Chu refers to it, was defective when it was installed a hundred years ago. Two significant mistakes were made at that time; rethinking both the car and the electric power generation process could do much to fix the problem. These mistakes did not matter much when fuel was more abundant and burning that fuel seemed more benign.

Before the car existed, when people wanted to seriously travel quickly they rode a horse, and even two people might have ridden that horse, riding in tandem. Putting an engine in the carriage part of the horse and carriage led to the family car. Though some recognized an advantage of a narrow car where people rode in tandem, the “cycle car” companies of 1915 that were working in this direction were defeated by mass production of a wider family car which was acceptable with gasoline made especially cheap by the oil depletion allowance. Even though most cars on the road today contain only one person, it still is a well established public expectation that a car must enable side by side seating of at least two people.

Important innovation possibilities could exist if we could re-examine basic requirements for an automobile and accordingly adjust our thinking to accept narrow cars with tandem seating arrangements. Such narrow vehicles open possibilities for aerodynamic advances that could cut need for energy by about 80%, whatever the form and fuel source of that energy. Thus, we could have automobiles that were truly highly efficient.

The other mistake was to accept the concept of large electric generating plants located far from population centers. This made it convenient to throw away about 2/3 of the heat from burning of fuel in these plants. This also was not important when fuel was so cheap. Now that fuel is a more critical factor, this arrangement leaves us stuck with a situation where it is impossible to improve the handling of the heat. Shifting to cogeneration of electricity and heat on a general scale using natural gas, where generators are located in a way that such cogeneration is a possibility, could enable a level of efficiency that comes close to competing with coal fired generation systems.

By combining high efficiency automobiles with households that could use discharged heat to make up a distributed cogeneration system, where that cogeneration system would operate in the context of our present utility grid is a complete system solution that could make a very important difference.

The cost of these innovations would be minimal given that the equipment involved would be only normal replacement or rearrangement of things already in existence.

Posted 4 March 2009, 16:57 by Jim Bullis
Your article title provided the answer but missed the point entirely: Fix the wiring.

Between using AC high voltage transmission lines, step down voltage substations, step down voltage pole transformers, the wiring in my house, and the AC to DC converter to my laptop, someone had to generate 100 watts of energy to deliver 50 watts to my computer so that I could post this response.

50% energy loss in transmission, conversion and delivery. No rocket science here.

Surprisingly, off the shelf solutions exist for all steps to improve energy transmission efficiency. Visit the NREL, National Renewable Energy Lab website to find out more. These approaches do not require covering thousands of square miles with solar panels, multi-megawatt wind turbines, and esoteric ways of CO2 sequestration from coal plant flue gases.

What’s the cost? I venture less than 15% of alternative energy solutions.

How long would it take? I venture the same time as we shift to alternative energy.

Solution? Do both since you would only be taking away 15% of renewable energy funds to fix a basic problem.

Posted 4 March 2009, 12:40 by andre szykier
I am glad a very strong efficiency proponent has become the DOE Secretary. In California, hardly an economically crippled state (current crisis notwithstanding), per capita energy use is half that of the US overall. The primary reason is efficiency measures put in place since the 1970s. Efficiency may not be the 80% reduction solution, but it can be a very dramatic lever that doesn’t need to harm our economy at all. Perhaps efficiency needs to be rebranded as energy productivity for those who don’t like the term. When productivity goes up, the economy grows!

Posted 4 March 2009, 00:27 by Uri Kogan