CO2 Capture Pilot Project in China

I heard a recent story on NPR about a pilot project capturing CO2 emissions from a coal plant in China. For those Reedies and HMC students that read the paper on the MOF for potential CO2 capture, this reminded me of some of the discussions we had within “our bubble” about how practical or effective CO2 capture would really be. What ultimately depressed me about this story was that less than 1% of the CO2 emissions were captured from this power plant. I guess it is only a pilot project.

If you want to learn more, here is the link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102920210

 

Energy use of the U.S. Chemical Industry

The chemical industry is a pretty important sector of our economy, not to mention the primary employer of chemists and chemical engineers.  Not too surprisingly, the chemical industry is also a major player in energy use.  Here is a link to a study that provides statistics on “Energy Use and Energy Intensity of the U.S. Chemical Industry.” I have to thank my colleague, Prof. Julie Fry, for providing this link.  Among other statistics, this study discusses the energy use of ethylene, ammonia, and chlorine production.

-Maggie

 

Reed College Op-Ed #9

The Public and Sustainable Energy

            For several years now, the nation’s attention has been increasingly focused on the problems of increasing fuel costs, decreasing fuel supply, and global climate change. In the online broadcast lecture “The Role of New Technologies in a Sustainable Energy Economy,” Professors Daniel Nocera and Angela Belcher help to shed more light on the cogs of the sustainable energy machine. While they initially talk about their scientific work – Nocera on splitting water and Belcher on bioengineering biocomposite materials – the conversation eventually turns to a broader query of the entire sustainable energy issue. Nocera appeals to the crowd by describing the relative ineffectiveness of non-solar alternative energy, knocking out big names like biofuels, nuclear energy, and wind energy. The crowd does not appeal back, unfortunately; instead, an array of repeated questions and hot-button issues only provides further proof that public knowledge of science is far behind the times.

            On the surface, I am thrilled that the audience is asking questions related to sustainable energy sources and the costs thereof. Some important topics were covered in Nocera’s and Belcher’s responses, such as the major types of alternative energy, the politics behind ethanol, and the prognosis of an alternative energy world. Each scientist even got a chance to describe their respective work as it pertains to global energy in a very thorough and user-friendly way. Educating the public in ways like this is critical in making smart energy choices; far too many voters are (sometimes willfully) ignorant of the effectiveness of each type of renewable energy. Even worse, as Nocera pointed out, big industries have the money and power to put scientists in their pocket, allowing the suppression of potentially unwanted innovations like solar energy and exaltation of things like the cash-crop fuel, ethanol. In the public eye, the scientist shouting “Go ethanol!” is indistinguishable from the one shouting “Go solar!” If any real progress is to be made with energy issues, the scientific community needs to come to a consensus on the path to take. Given President Obama’s objective in the executive branch returning to science, uniting under one plan of renewable energy seems more plausible than ever.

What disappointed me about this video, however, was the audience. The questions, so carefully crafted in their breakout groups, consistently examined and reexamined the same “hot button” issues of renewable energy. It appeared as though the participants were scrambling for any related topic they had heard about – solar roadways, ethanol, wave energy – which either Nocera or Belcher almost certainly had to explain to them before answering their question. In all fairness, some well-placed questions were raised, related to both conservation technology and using energy technology-producing microbes to assemble with materials normally toxic to the environment. However, if this ratio of informed vs. uninformed is representative of the entire population (and these people voluntarily went to an MIT lecture series), then there seems to be general misinformation and lack of education on renewable energy issues; the public is simply not on the same page, effectively inhibiting science from moving forward in renewable energy.

While this soap box lecture took place more than two years ago, the need for scientific discussion is still apparent in 2009. As a scientist researching a vein of renewable energy, I feel obligated and empowered to spread any knowledge I can on these issues. Similarly, I hope to see more people not only asking questions, but also doing their own investigations into this field, either online or otherwise.

 

Reed College Op-Ed #5

            My initial reaction to professors Nocera and Belcher was one of amazement for both the originality of their ideas as well as the comprehensive scope of their projects.   Yet reflecting upon their initial statements and the answers they gave to members of the audience, I see no thought given to the sources of the problems they try to solve.  Professor Nocera began his introduction with an assessment of the future energy requirements the world would need in fifty years; his overriding assumption was that the world was indeed headed towards overpopulation, and therefore in his opinion a revolution in science was needed to meet the demand.  I would not argue with him over his response to that future need.  It is astounding in its simplicity and beautiful for its seeming achievability.  However, I wonder what the end result of his and professor Belcher’s research will be.  In fifty years we may have learned how to harness the energy of the sun through water, and how to genetically program organisms not only to produce our food, but our batteries and maybe even our walls.  The unanswered, and more important, question that I see in their discussion of energy is that of cultural views upon energy use, consumption and production.  In fifty years it is quite likely that individuals within the world society will continue to consume energy at their present rate, if not more.  While Nocera’s and Belcher’s research may allow the energy demand to be met, the cultural values that ultimately create this demand will not have changed. 

            Professor Nocera’s figure for future energy requirements – 30 terawatts annually – is based off consumption averages for Equatorial Guinea.  Were it for the United States, Nocera predicts demand exceeding 100 terawatts per year.  Both are dauntingly high.  While science can be well applied to meeting these demands, as Nocera and Belcher have shown, it has thus far unfortunately dictated a system in which more consumption is the norm.  The Industrial Revolution is clear evidence of this, in the increased population as well as consumptive habits of the “industrialized” societies (ours being a notable example).  Science, for all its ability in solving humanity’s problems, is similarly culpable in creating the many that we face today.  In solutions to health problems, we have generated new diseases more effective in their ability to cause widespread deaths.  In the creation of technologies meant to ease the burden of life, we have established new dependences and formed new hardships to replace the old.  It seems that even with new scientific advances our society still is met with the same number of problems.

            By no means should that be seen as a reason to retard or stop either professor’s research.  By their scientific merit alone they are worthwhile – learning more about the natural world, and how humans can interact with it, is itself enough reason.  In other words, usually used by denigrators: science for science’s sake.  The goals of both professors not only lie in responding to a future human need, but in revolutionizing our understanding of the physical world.  Their projects demand new thinking from the subatomic to the molecular level.  Research like theirs paves the way for future innovation, future discoveries about the nature of matter and energy, that not only will allow humanity to continue its course but to shape global understandings of who we are.

            As Daniel Nocera pointed out (and seemed to have a habit of doing), the world is run by politicians, whose focus is not fifty years down the road but one.  As a result, problems such as energy consumption and production seem less pressing, and are not given their rightful attention.  So too are the root causes of these problems not addressed, overlooked as more “current” crises gain notice.  Perhaps, as I noted earlier, professors Nocera’s and Belcher’s research will only relieve one problem while another is created.  Fortunately, our society has evolved much since the time when scientific research began shaping the world in the early 19^th century.  We have enlarged the global conscious and become more aware of the repercussions of our actions both in nearby and distant communities.  We still, however, must continue to scrutinize the direction and progress of the global culture of consumption, to understand it more and perhaps augment its debilitating effect on the planet.  While I applaud the ingenuity of both researchers in their work and hope to see it achieve fruition, I must emphasize that we should not only focus on methods of consumption but the reasons for doing so.  A careful audit of them will reveal perhaps larger dilemmas for the world community to tackle.

 “’Energy,’ said William Blake, ‘is Eternal Delight.’  And the scientific prognosticators of our time have begun to speak of eventual opening, for human use, of ‘infinite’ sources of energy.  In speaking of the use of energy, then, we are speaking of an issue of religion, whether we like it or not.” – Wendell Berry, 1977

 

DePauw University Op-Ed #12

Response to

The Role of New Technologies in a Sustainable Energy Economy

            Little debate remains- human civilization is in the midst of a potentially catastrophic energy crisis. This requires not only immediate and focused action, but also consideration of environmental and social issues. I applaud the recent efforts of MIT in facilitating a discussion to this end and making it available to the public. Their guests, Daniel Nocera and Angela Belcher, made clear the problems facing our environment and our ever-increasing energy demands. What is not apparent are the answers, and the clock is ticking. Gathering the country’s best minds together to reflect on these challenges is exactly the type of forward thinking that this era in history requires. For the first time ever, our engineers, inventors and venture capitalists will have to create technologies not to address the problems of today, but the needs of a global population many years in the future. We must cease our negligent, contemporary thinking and immediately focus on how our actions have and will affect the future inhabitants of this planet.

            As a scientist I have seen the power and speed with which technology can move, and thus I am incredibly optimistic regarding the potential for new technologies to solve the energy crisis. Belcher revealed insightful ideas regarding the manufacturing of products such as batteries and solar cells using genetically engineered microorganisms. We must continue to look to nature for answers; clearly there are billions of organisms that have managed to utilize solar energy far more efficiently than we can artificially manage. Additionally, if Belcher’s theories are realized, this would enable a more communal style of living. If products are grown where they are needed, this will eliminate the wasteful transportation of goods around the globe.

            However, as a global citizen, I must remain a realist regarding the actual potency of the ideas described. All of these potential technologies must be made attractive to the consumer. We really only saw a legitimate leap in hybrid vehicle development and sales when oil prices soared and ethanol became subsidized. As Nocera suggests, the technologies of the future must be “economically viable.” If there is anything the destruction of our environment shows us, it is that clearly not everyone is committed to conservation. Thus, a real sustainable future will only be realized if it is accompanied by economic growth. Some of Belchers ideas may accomplish this. The mass production of products, potentially even plastics, which could be accomplished on a smaller scale, at lower temperatures, would certainly be attractive to the consumer. Additionally, Nocera’s theories on making “the sun the final energy source” not only align with a scientific reality, they make fiscal sense. After all, the sun does not charge by the hour.

            And yet, there seems to be a larger problem than what Nocera and Belcher address. If, as Nocera projects, we will require 30 terawatts of energy by 2050, then to me the question is not how to supply this energy, but rather, how do we lower energy demands? His logic eventually leads to a world where our energy demands outlast even the most efficient of our hypothetical energy sources. Furthermore, if there really are 9 billion people on this earth in 2050, then our energy and environmental problems will have gone beyond the realms of science. Nocera said he refuses to touch the area of social reform, but it seems clear that this is what is required. Science and innovation can only take us so far, eventually the future will require a drastic and potentially abrupt change in nearly everyone’s way of life. Nocera details the causal relationship between energy use and GDP, and to me this seems to be the greatest evil. How can we reduce energy needs without addressing the exponential growth of the global population? How can we form new technologies to provide sustainable energy without first finding means to efficiently conserve and reduce the energy we already use? Again, I applaud these discussions and reemphasize their need, but at some point we must move beyond theory and become committed to widespread, social, cultural and scientific change.

 

DePauw Op-Ed “A”

Mining Plants for Energy: Artificial Photosynthesis

“Mother Nature knows best” is an adage people are prone to forget; however, more and more scientists and entrepreneurs are looking to nature for a bit of motherly advice.  Want to build strong, light-weight cables?  Take a page from spiders: spider silk is a material with one of the highest strength to weight ratios on earth.  How about improving flight technology?  Do as the birds and bees do: scientists at top institutions are studying airborne organisms to optimize flight.  At a time when our dependence on oil and gas for fuel is harming the environment, “a little scientist at MIT” is turning to plants for the answer.  Daniel Nocera’s “magic bullet” is to develop and implement a stream-lined artificial photosynthesis technology that will use only light and water to generate inexpensive and sustainable energy.  Scientific advancements for this technology and the beneficial social implications of global application make stream-lined artificial photosynthesis a very bright idea.

As the name implies, Nocera’s emergent technology uses photosynthesis as a model.  Photosynthesis normally involves two stages: 1) a light-dependent stage in which energy from the sun splits water into hydrogen and oxygen and 2) a light-independent stage in which carbon is fixed to produce to glucose.  The plan is to stream-line the process by completing only step 1, storing the hydrogen and oxygen in fuel cells, and then converting them to electricity when needed.  Essentially, plentiful and low-cost materials, water and sunlight, are utilized to generate a highly valued commodity, electricity.

As far as the science goes, one has every reason to be optimistic about the feasibility of such a grand scheme.  Nocera was optimistic about his ideas at a 2006 meeting at MIT in which The Role of New Technologies in a Sustainable Energy Economy was discussed.  Just a couple of years later in 2008, he and colleague Matthew Kanan succeeded in developing an inexpensive and extremely efficient technique for electrolysis of water.

While this emergent technology’s scientific contribution is electrifying by itself, Nocera and advocates see its use of sunlight as a solution to the global communities’ energy-related economic and social problems.  Why?  First, sunlight is abundant:  the sun puts out enough energy in an hour to supply humans for a year.  Second, sunlight is free:  theoretically, a person living in the most impoverished region in India could get the same amount of the sun’s energy as a person living in Hollywood, California.  One could debate the equal distribution and accessibility of sunlight between two people living in rainy Seattle and sunny Orlando, but this is a climatic and not a social issue.  The equality inherent in using the sun as an energy source leads supporters to conclude that wars and conflicts associated with energy procurement will decrease and the world will be a more peaceful place. 

Although the scientific community has every reason to celebrate, getting this technology to be commercially viable is another issue.  Electromaterials science research being performed at Monash University in Australia, as well as others, is helping to drive down the cost of stream-lined artificial photosynthesis.  However, cost is not the only hindrance to the attainment of Nocera’s energy “nirvana”.  Those with vested interests in oil and gas, such as politicians and many Middle East countries, will most likely oppose the transition.  These stakeholders have the political savvy and power to pile on enough red tape to halt the process.

While there are major obstacles, the world probably has more reason to hope now than ever before that technology like the one proposed by Nocera will be implemented to address sustainable energy.  The everyday citizen can push the process along by refusing to put dialogues regarding alternative energy on the backburner.  Putting the pressure on policymakers holds them accountable.  Timing is everything and three key components are merging to make surmounting these political hurdles achievable: 1) the growing immediacy of the energy problem 2) increased awareness due to much media attention, and 3) the Obama presidency’s commitment to utilizing alternative forms of energy.  It is not a matter of if an alternative energy source will replace oil and gas; it is a matter of when.  Nocera’s nature-modeled technology appears to be an effective and feasible vehicle to help the global community make this transition.  With the world heating up on this matter, the sooner we do so the better. 

 

Claremont Colleges op-ed #7

In their recent town-hall style meeting, Dan Nocera and Angela Belcher present a very negative world outlook based on an ever-increasing demand for energy. Unfortunately, the future they put forth is alarmingly realistic. Third world populations are increasing exponentially and many of those same third world countries are also drastically improving the average standard of living. This increase in the standard of living almost always corresponds to increased energy consumption. Although reports do say that conventional energy sources have the reserves to feed this quickly growing energy demands for the next several decades, the fossil fuel based energy sources around the world are contributing to unparalleled increases in various greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that help contribute to new types of climates that endanger biodiversity and change the global landscape. In order to combat this ever increasing crisis, we need a combination of strong leadership from the top and newfound commitment from the top minds in science.

Economics, rather than moral imperative, still dominates the landscape when considering energy policy. This is evident in the current push for ethanol fuels to replace gasoline. This offers nothing in the way of energy savings, but it offers a great deal of wealth for those who exploit it. In order to make a concerted effort to change the way we power the world, we need a strong leader that can inspire people to bring about great change. Large-scale scientific advancement has not happened many times in recent history, as John F. Kennedy was the last president who channeled his charisma to the advancement of science with his creation of NASA. Despite the lack of a significant amount of research in the area, Kennedy simply proclaimed that we would get a man on the moon and we, in fact, did so in approximately a decade. Great scientists can come up with great ideas, but they mean nothing if they are not met with a leader who is committed to seeing them through. Although it is unlikely that any great change should happen that quickly again, the important idea to distill from that age is how a great leader like Kennedy was able to galvanize a nation to be so wholeheartedly committed to one area of research.

Although Obama might not be the savior people make him out to be, he has some politically revolutionary ideas concerning alternative energy. With his charisma and public speaking ability, he has the potential to make alternative energy a mainstream idea with widespread support. Much like Kennedy, Obama can make alternative energy a national security priority. Many people do not understand the impact of global climate change and a loss of biodiversity, but hearing the words “national security” makes the pursuit of alternative forms of energy a much more serious endeavor in many eyes. The areas under the most direct assault from changing climates are currently the arctic regions, which are too far away from most people, so the issue does not feel personal. However, if someone is able to get people to realize that new energy sources will prevent us from having to fight to defend fossil fuel reserves around the world, the challenge takes on a new meaning. When the public unites strongly behind an idea, the legislators are effectively forced to support and sponsor new measures to increase funding. The promise of increased funding is critical in luring the best minds to the field of alternative energy and sustainability related technologies.

Because there is so much promise for change in alternative energy policy, it makes the job of a scientist that much more important. While policy makers can appropriate funds, nothing is possible without great scientific minds pouring fourth innovative ideas. As a scientist-in-training, it is nice to know that my technical ideas have the possibility to bring about great changes to the way we obtain and use energy. Alternative energy is an area that encompasses many fields and thus can attract the great minds from all scientific disciplines. The opportunity to learn so much from so many different people makes the field very exciting and helps breed new ideas. Innovation comes from combining seemingly disparate fields, and bringing people together with different interests changes the way we look at problems. Having the knowledge to contribute to the sustainability challenge and moving into another field starts to feel irresponsible to a certain degree because it is simply a lost opportunity. This ties in to another excellent but controversial point that Nocera makes in his talk. He alleges that American are more interested in “not dying” than sacrificing oneself for a greater good. The sacrifice is not unthinkable either, since average life spans in the United States are in the late 70s. Essentially all research in medicine is simply prolonging the inevitable, whereas research in alternative energy has the potential to lessen the effects of centuries of anthropogenic destruction. This is not to say that those doing research in other fields do not have noble and high-minded purposes, but there is simply a larger problem at hand that requires the best of every field to combat. Nocera and Belcher, are extremely important for the field of alternative energy, but the public does not yet understand the importance of the field and will likely never give them the credit they deserve for dedicating their rare talent to an area that is about progress rather than individual accolades.

 

Claremont Colleges op-ed #4

The terms “energy crisis” has started to sound like a commercial that has aired for too long – the sound has normalized and we are not paying much attention. It does not matter that as American consumers, we take such a disproportionate share of the world’s energy sources and pay the least amount for it, at least not to us. Yet, there comes a time when we must become realistic alternative energy. With the all the tax cuts ahead in the Obama administration, the future is getting bleaker for a “change” that is truly necessary: higher allocation of funds to energy research. But if our recent economic down turn is any indication of our abilities, we are going to be left in shock in the coming scarcity of energy ahead.
Necessity being the mother of invention, researchers like Professor Daniel Nocera and Professor Anna Belcher from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are developing some truly unique solutions. At a  “town-hall” style meeting recorded on October 25, 2006 entitled, The Role of New Technologies in a Sustainable Energy Economy, each presented ideas that were far from the typical focus. Professor Anna Belcher presented her research on the genetic engineering of organisms, including bacteria and viruses, to get them to produce materials necessary for energy production. This process would theoretically minimize, if not eliminate waste production, and would be mostly self- sustaining like any other living organism. Then, Professor Daniel Nocera explained his plan to “snip the tie” between energy production and carbon sources, by harnessing solar energy in a process that would be similar to photosynthesis in plants. Professor Nocera explained that solar energy is the only source that has the capacity to accommodate rising energy necessity that by current trends, by the year 2050, will reach approximately 28 terawatts.

These researchers are doing some very exciting stuff according to scientists such as myself, but are either of these ideas going to be implemented in a broad way anytime soon? According to recent trends in financial distribution, probably not.  As Professor Nocera said, as always only approximately 1% of our gross national product goes to research and development, of any kind. Energy is also not a field that garners a lot of sympathetic dollars, which is in contrast to cancer research. As a scientist, this is not an encouraging fact. Essentially, though groundbreaking and completely relevant, this respected research ends up resembling a pipe dream; that is until our collective delusion turns into a nightmare.

All right, politically, there are substantial reasons why the American public has not been introduced to the alternative energy practices, but our government needs to wake up and prioritize. Less government allocated dollars means less people entering the “energy conversation.” As Dr. Belcher’s account showed, government quotas have been severe and unreasonable for the select few groups that have had the funding to make major breakthroughs. Imagining that the fate of Western energy is in the hands of such a minority of researchers sends a shiver up the spine of any hard working scientist. It is a responsibility too sparingly distributed by virtue of the paucity of funding that can only be spread across a few labs of prestige. To put it simply, it’s just too much pressure for so few. Realistically, if we are looking for some “brilliant” answer, it’s a matter of probability. We need to expand the numbers of research teams looking at this question, and how do we do this? We give out more money to more researchers.

I know that giving more of your precious tax dollars hurts. But imagine a country of workers, entrepreneurs and “light bulb” moments, without any light to guide the way.

 

Health vs. Energy Funding

Note from White House stimulus plan: 59b health v 43b energy.

‘Last year, the president’s budget for science spending contained “cuts for most areas” but some gains for weapons research, energy, and physical sciences, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Overall, the slight increase in the dollars for nondefense R&D was more than surpassed by projected inflation.’

This site gives an inflation adjusted graph of U.S. R&D spending history, as well as a graph of R&D as percentage of GDP history, stats we discussed the necessity of in class previously. Also shows that energy R&D went up 19% last year and National Institutes of Health funding went down 2% last year.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/science-and-the-2009-budget/

 

Solar Energy

Here’s the link to an article I came across talking about the funding made available for solar energy by US Department of Energy. About $60 million has been made available for research in this field

http://www.facilitiesnet.com/facilitiesmanagement/article/DOE-Announces-Solar-Energy-Research-Funding–6981.

Here is another link to the US Department of Energy website which talks about the DoE investing 21 million dollars in “Next Generation Solar Energy Projects”. Some of the projects that are being funded are at universities while the rest are independent laboratories.

http://www.energy.gov/5690.htm