Several weeks back, I mentioned that I was taking a class at Stanford entitled, “A Practical Guide to Building a Sustainable Energy Plan for California.” Well…the class is now finished, and I thought I’d share a few tidbits from my experience.
The class was taught by Sally Benson, Executive Director of Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Program. The GCEP has recently been folded into the new Precourt Institute for Energy, a multi-million dollar research institue created this January to focus on Energy issues. The course ran for ten weeks, with the overall intention of equipping students with the knowledge and tools to devise plans that would both a) meet California’s energy needs, and b) reduce green house gas emissions (GHG) significantly (90%) by 2050. Our curriculum was as follows:
week 1: History, lingo and science behind global warming
week 2: Energy 101
week 3: Energy Use & sources
week 4: Overview of California energy usage & sources
week 5: Different ways to approach energy plans
week 6: Wind
week 7: Transportation overview and means of reducing corresponding GHG
week 8: Carbon capture & sequestration
week 9: Solar & Geothermal
week 10: Final projects (groups to develop and present plans)
When I signed up for the course, I fully expected to spend a lot of time talking about alternative energy and how we could power the world with solar panels and wind turbines. In reality, the class spent much more time talking about the fundamentals of energy itself and its correlation to GHG. What I learned is that the problem is more complex, dire and perversely more fixable than I imagined. The key is to understand that there is no one silver bullet that will solve all of our problems. It’s not just wind, or solar, or hybrid cars, it’s a concerted and integrated approach that includes Conservation (using less energy), Efficiency (getting more from the energy we do use), Alternative Energy as well as Decarbonization (proactively removing carbon from the air).
As a matter of fact, one of the most striking elements that came out of the class is just how important Efficiency is in the general equation. I was astounded at the absolute waste that occurs across all spectrums - from generating electricity, to the gas burning in our car, to the electricity that our computers are sucking down when we’re asleep. The importance of improved power grids, smart meters and better batteries became much clearer, and my Germanic nature was absolutely cringing at the untidiness of all that waste. Innovation along the lines of efficiency will be key to ensuring that we can accomplish sustainable energy systems.
The class was broken up into groups of about six students, and each group was required to present a California energy plan on the last day of class. The plans were broken up into several standard sections, including Electricity (generation), Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Transportation, again, with the goal to both meet California’s estimated energy demand while simultaneously reducing GHG by 90%. All of the plans essentially consisted of a mix of the four key elements above, and some of the plans had a few more extreme ideas:
Population Control: The desire to tamp down GHG is made more challenging by the fact that California is obviously experiencing a steady population growth. One group suggested implementing policies that were aimed at keeping our population more steady. Specifically, they cited research that stated women who had their first child between the ages of 18-24 were more likely to have large families. The group proposed that the state provide educational incentives to women who hold off having kids until they’re 25 or older. Personally I think this would be nigh impossible to pass (punishing single moms! encouraging girls to have abortions!), but I thought it was daring of them to think about it.
All-Electric Cars: Two groups included plans to essentially convert 100% of California cars to electricity over the next 40 years. Transportation accounts for a disproportionately large percentage of GHG in California (40%) - we do love our cars, we live in these large urban sprawls, and are blessed by mild winters (many cold/hot states emit a large percent of GHG in heating/cooling). One idea that our group had was to enforce a per residence car limit, or even better, to enforce a household fleet-averaged MPG limit (ie, if you have one car that is a gasoline hog, your second car must be incredibly efficient such that your household-averaged MPG is below a certain level.)
Hydrogen Power: One challenge associated with renewables is transmission and downtime. How do you get the collected solar energy from the Mojave to San Jose? What happens when the wind stops blowing and the turbines are stalled - what can we use to fire up our computers and boil our water? One group proposed using renewable energy to create Hydrogen, and then transport that hydrogen using existing natural gas pipelines (California’s principle energy source currently is natural gas).
All CFLs: We’ve all been encouraged and exhorted to switch, but one group stated that they would actually outlaw incandescent lighting by 2011 and make CFLs mandatory for everyone.
Bottled Water Tax: These same revolutionary folks also put forth a 100% tax on bottled water - that sure would cut down on Perrier usage I’m sure…
Citizenship Requirements: The gent heading up the residential section in our group asked that energy and environmental knowledge be required for folks to gain US citizenship.
My particular research topic was California Industry, and my analytical friends will either cheer or groan to hear that number one on my list was measurement, measurement, measurement! Better metrics, standardization, benchmarks and inter- and cross-industry comparisons. I guess all those years of online analytics really influenced me after all. I took a look at where industrial GHG were coming from and overlaid that with sector contribution to the state’s GDP, and a few things popped out:
- The oil & gas industry account for roughly 40% of all of California’s GHG (extracting and refining oil and gas are incredibly energy-intensive)
- The cement industry, while employing just 2,000 folks and contributing a fraction of the states GDP emits 6% of the emissions (again, cement manufacturing requires a huge amount of heat)
- Livestock (essentially cow poop and burbs) contribute 11% of GHG and less than half of one percent of total GDP
Now obviously we can’t get rid of Chevron, the dairy industry, or even the cement manufacturers, for that matter (we’d just have to import the stuff to build our bridges and building and roads), but understanding what some of the cost/benefits are seems to be a nice starting point for more efficiently targeting key industries.
All in all it was great to see the myriad approaches that the teams brought to the table, and notable that not one team wimped out and said that it just couldn’t be done, despite the incredibly challenging nature of the task. This quarter I’ll be learning about more environmentally-friendly ways to extract, refine and transmit oil and natural gas - should be a great cocktail party opener - ha!
Continue reading
California, education, Energy, Stanford