Photo Credit: Jim Yost
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (9) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
3 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
July 7, 2009

EEI Expo: Secretary Chu Describes Life in a Carbon-constrained World

by Teresa Hansen, Editor-in-chief UAET&D and ELP
California, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

On Thursday, June 25, energy secretary Dr. Steven Chu addressed industry executives at the annual Edison Electric Institute (EEI) conference and expo held in San Francisco.

"Sooner or later we will be living in a carbon constrained world."

-- Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary for Energy

The secretary, who speaks like the scientist he is and not the political figures who in past years filled the secretary position, talked primarily about climate change. He thanked EEI for supporting the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, which passed the House of Representatives the following day, and emphasized that the industry's outlook is not doom and gloom, but instead one of optimism and hope.

Chu said that "sooner or later we will be living in a carbon constrained world." He listed five things that "we need to do to get where we need to be."

1. Alignment of financial incentives "We need to break the business as usual model of making more money by selling more energy," he said. Policies that provide utilities with return-on-investment incentives on things other than energy sales need to be developed. He said the DOE's goal is to create demand response programs that will lower peak demand by 20 percent. Chu said this goal is one of the reasons the department is allotting $3.9 billion in stimulus funding for smart grid investment. He also said that the minimum grant amount is $200 million per grant and the office has made $615 million available for smart grid demonstration projects.

2. Energy efficiency Chu stressed that energy efficiency is important, announcing that the department was making $90 million available to California for state-wide energy programs. As an example of how effective energy efficiency can be, Chu said that efficiency gains made in household refrigerators has saved more energy than all the energy currently produced by non-hydro renewable energy sources in the United States. "Energy efficiency does matter," Chu said.

3. Renewable energy Chu said that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is designed to double all non-hydro renewable energy generation in the next three years. He said that 20 percent of U.S. energy can be supplied by wind power. For renewables to meet their full potential, Chu said the nation's grid must be modernized and the smart grid must be developed. He discussed the need for smart grid standards, saying that the National Institute of Standards and Technology has already identified more than 80 of these standards.

4. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and nuclear energy The United States leads the world in coal reserves, so much so that little prospecting for new coal supplies is being done, Chu said. He said an international collaboration in CCS technologies is necessary and it needs to occur right away. "Even if the United States turns its back on coal, and I don't believe it will, China and India will not," Chu said. He said there is a worldwide goal to have 20 CCS pilot plants operating, which is one of the reasons the DOE is reviving FutureGen. Chu said it is also important to find technologies to retrofit existing plants with stack capture technology. As for nuclear power, Chu said that it is needed for carbon free baseload generation. He said the nuclear waste issue is solvable both scientifically and politically, but didn't elaborate on how the DOE plans to handle it.

5. Transformational energy technologies Chu said that the DOE has always funded basic science and it provides an opportunity to enlist "knowledge horsepower" to solve the nation's and world's energy problems. Because buildings consume 40 percent of the energy produced in the United States, the department and industry should be looking for new ways to design them. He also said the new energy crops being developed for biofuel have much potential and make more sense than corn-based biofuels.

Chu talked about the DOE's history of employing some of the world's smartest scientists and researchers, including 30 Nobel Laureates (including Chu himself). He emphasized that the organization is ready and able to address the energy challenges our nation and world face. He also emphasized the urgency of addressing these challenges.

"For the first time in human history, science has shown that human beings are altering the destination of our planet. The consequences of what we are doing today will not be fully realized for at least 100 years from now," Chu said.

"One of the ironies about climate change is that the ones who will be hurt the most are those yet to be born," he added.

Teresa Hansen is Editor-in-chief of Utility Automation & Engineering T&D and Electric Light and Power magazine.

This article was reprinted with permission from Utility Automation & Engineering T&D as part of the PennWell Corporation Renewable Energy World Network and may not be reproduced without express written permission from the publisher.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (9)
 
No image available
July 7, 2009
"For the first time in human history, science has shown that human beings are altering the destination of our planet. The consequences of what we are doing today will not be fully realized for at least 100 years from now," Chu said. "

I disagree with Secretary Chu and believe that most serious consequences will be felt much sooner than 100 years from now. Water table levels and drinking water availability problems have already caused the suffering of a large percent of the populations of India and China. Armed struggles and deaths have already occured over this essential resource. The people suffering and dying from lack of potable water can tell you right now that the 100 year wait is a misnomer.

Although Secretary Chu makes some excellent points, I believe that he has not kept up completely with what is going on throughout the world and should familiarize himself further with the issues.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment 1 of 9
No image available
July 8, 2009
Though water resources and sea level are pressing issues, and the first effects are already being seen across the globe, these are not the worst of whats to come. What about massive displacement of coastal peoples and island dwellers: Kiribati, a small islands chain country at the international dateline and the equator's intersection, is completely coral island with the country's highest point at 4 meters above sea level. The projected rise in pacific levels is greater than 4 meters. this country will DISAPPEAR! Land destruction through drought and flood, weather pattern shifts, climate alterations and ecological devastation are all on thier way.
Why isn't hydro counted in most RE tallies? It is renewable, and emerging technologies (U of Michigan's VIVACE, and (hopefully soon) U of Iowa's COUGAR) are 'passive'. They do not harm of alter the ecology of the watershed around them, and both provide the best form of power, baseline. Even without newer tech, old dams should be counted as they contribute in a non-GHG forming way. Are they perfect? No. Do they harm small patches? Yes. Do they melt the ice caps and set off a chain reaction of ecological tragedy while racing through finite resources? NO! Count them.
Comment 2 of 9
No image available
July 8, 2009
Joe,

The reason why large scale hydro often isn't counted is because of the massive land take they require, and the potential for Methane release (if the land isn't completely cleared before flooding) from rotting vegetation inside the dam. Also, the CO2 emissions from the building of the dam often take years to offset, and they often require the displacement of huge numbers of people.

Check out this: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/12/4504
on the problems thrown up (and admitted to!) by the 3 Gorges Dam. Admittedly, this is an extreme example, but 5.3 million people turned from farmers (so less farmlands, then) to urbanites entitled to 'social security' is not a good thing in my opinion.

Equally, places like south-east Asia where peat rainforests are cleared to enable dam building = bad move.

And I still say that they're barking up the wrong tree with CCS, which won't be commercially viable until CO2 emissions are priced to really hurt power station owners; and nuclear: Not a single nuclear power station built on time or on budget anywhere on earth. Ever. Not to mention that "the nuclear waste issue is solvable both scientifically and politically." Scientifically means better containers to bury it in, the problems with the Thorp reprocessing facility here in the UK should give you an idea of why reprocessing isn't working. Politically means finding other countries (or poorer areas of your own country) to take it. Nice.
Comment 3 of 9
No image available
July 8, 2009
Chu says "We need to break the business as usual model of making more money by selling more energy...For the first time in human history, science has shown that human beings are altering the destination of our planet."

We need to make sure that we are not stuck in business as usual mindsets (like the IPCC scenario projections) and following politicians who are interested in changing the political landscape. Huans have been altering the destination of the planet since the beginning of history, but mostly since the industrial revolution, improvements health care/medicine, agriculture, water (mis)management came together leading to enormous growth in living standards and population. I am absolutely confident "technology" is capable of and will improve efficiencies and provide new energy sources - of all kinds. But larger problems lie ahead especially demographic (aging and skewing of Ginis) leading to very different compositions of society and demand in the future. We can go back to being agricultural economies? We can go down wrong policy paths following policies dependent on technical models of how we now think the future might look based our the current business as usual mind models. But these static models are not good enough to inform on the longer term unless we broaden the thinking and toss out the political agendas and have simpler not more detailed models.
Comment 4 of 9
July 8, 2009
In Washington state, >60% of electrical production is hydroelectric and there is a heated discussion about why hydro is not classified as renewable. The potential energy content of water is renewable through precipitation at high elevations. Water itself is a finite and highly variable resource with many critical out-of-river uses such as irrigation and municipal drinking water, as well as in-river uses such as salmon bypass and barge passage operations. Only a small portion of the precipitation in the mountains actually produces electricity. Most is withdrawn from the river to irrigate desert land, using hydroelectricity to pump the water. Water used for irrigation has a negative energy content. The Columbia/Snake River dams are connected to the western intertie which includes HVDC transmission to northern California and Arizona. Sounds great. Use NW hydropower to integrate SW wind and solar. Except a few irrigators will never let that happen on an expanded scale. We do not consume sunshine and air and make them otherwise unusable, we do consume, waste and pollute most of the water which falls as rain and snow. We drink less than we allow to evaporate from our reservoirs. Problems emerging with water resource allocation are the driving reason that hydro is not included as renewable with the same status as wind or solar. Water is the primary constraint in most energy production systems and must be included when considering regulations.
Comment 5 of 9
No image available
July 8, 2009
Planting and contouring to keep water on the land longer and to make sure it is clean when it goes in rivers is a way to address several issues at the same time. Micro-climates can be changed by how plantings are done. Moving from open sun to understory is such a tactile illustration, it is a wonder to me that vegetation is not considered more important in the schemes of things. I recently saw Wangari Maathai listed as one of the most influential persons on the planet. She began by having marginalized Kenyans plant trees, which got her in enormous trouble with the strong man of the time. Intensely bright scientists like Wangari Maathai and Vandana Shiva insist that plants, animals, and marginalized humans be considered in water and energy plans. We will have micro-grids. It is just a matter of how much strife and time go on in the meantime. While proponents of huge things struggle to get funny money from D.C., experiments are going on in places that want to empower local people. Struggles of the titans make booms and busts that motivate little people to figure things out for themselves and their neighbors. Titans appear to be more interested in each other than they are in the health and welfare of ordinary mortals. I appreciate that I can find out about human-scaled projects in this forum.
Comment 6 of 9
No image available
July 8, 2009
It seems to me that the Waxman-Markey climate change bill was negotiated poorly. The proponents of climate change approached the consensus process by offering a rational realistic list of goals for carbon reduction. Whereas, the opposition approach was laissez-faire, do nothing, I see nothing wrong here. I mean Waxman could have come to the table with a Gore/Brown solution to climate change. Which would have been the diametric opposite of the current situation equal to the opposition stance. Perhaps resulting in a negotiated consensus closer to what Waxman actually brought to the table.
Comment 7 of 9
No image available
July 8, 2009
Let's get real. If Chu were serious about changing the paradigm he would encourage legislation that prohibits utility company executives and board members from holding a financial interest in petroleum and coal distribution companies.

At the same time the rules would encourage them holding shares in renewable energy suppliers. The problem here is corruption. Not technology. The fat cats will always be feathering their nests at our expense. At least we should be able to demand that they not destroy the life on earth in pursuit of their supposed self-interest.

As it has often been said, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
Comment 8 of 9
No image available
July 9, 2009
Totally agree Jonathan. Greed and corruption are the biggest threats to humanity. The problem is that you can't legislate greed out of humanity, and politicians are so mired in a sea of corruption that often it doesn't feel like that big a deal to them. The media doesn't report it because often they are the ones doing bribing etc, or needing a person for a story. So the general public doesn't hear about each incident and thinks it is the exception rather than the rule. Shocked for a few days and then get on with their lives.

Or they go the other way, like me, and see so much of it that they completely distrust ALL politicians and never believe a word any of them says anyway.

If I ever see a politician keeping their promises, and voting with their conscience, I might be prepared to revise that point of view, but to date I'm still a rampant cynic.
Comment 9 of 9
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Alteris Renewables AEE Solar The Stella Group, Ltd. Johnson Controls, Inc. Rolls Battery Engineering American Wire Group
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo