Author: arh0531@gmail.com

Now retired from multi-decade career in Federal government, most recently at U.S. Department of Energy..

Now retired from multi-decade career in Federal government, most recently at U.S. Department of Energy..

Why Is the Affordable Care Act Having Such A Difficult Roll-out?

In the opening Page of this blog (‘About this blog and me’) I reserved the right to “…occasionally discuss ‘random thoughts’ on other issues that catch my attention….”. Well, today’s Post is this blog’s second such occasion – the first was sharing a delicious and easy-to-make cheesecake recipe.

As I’m sure is true of many people in this country, and perhaps in other countries, the U.S. Government’s difficult roll-out of the Affordable Care Act ( ACA, aka as ‘Obamacare’) has attracted great attention. How could such an important Government activity be so poorly handled? The following Post is my take on that frustrating question.

(Note: my next blog, which I should publish in the next few days, will be a return to the blog’s focus on energy and water and related issues. It will discuss ocean energy.)

Why is the ACA having such a difficult rollout?
I am not an IT (information technology) expert but I did serve more than 25 years in the U.S. federal government and have spoken with an IT expert about the Affordable Care Act’s (Obamacare’s) startup problems. Here are my thoughts based on this experience and discussion:

I would first refer you to an article by Walter Pincus that appeared recently in the Washington Post on this topic (the story can be found at wapo.st/19wHvHL). It is a piece worth reading for the perspective it provides on an issue that has grabbed public attention. He offers several examples of other government roll-out problems and concludes that “the new health care law’s computer issues are not unique.”

Unique or not, the ACA roll-out has given the U.S. government a bad name and there may be a fundamental problem behind it. While contractors were hired to develop the computer code needed to allow people to apply for health insurance online, and presumably these contractors were competent in this area, final decisions on roll-out, etc., were in the hands of federal officials. In most cases I’m willing to bet that these officials were not IT specialists and under the gun to get something out by the legislated deadlines.

Another problem is that the major contracting companies in the area have proven that from time-to-time they do not hesitate to accept less-than-appropriate direction from their underqualified government managers. As is with most time and material contracts, they stand to benefit more from going along.

There are clearly places in the federal government where this expertise exists (e.g., selected parts of the National Security Agency, the Office of Management and Budget, and the U.S. Department of Energy) but why should we expect the Department of Health and Human Services, which was responsible for the roll-out, to have this expertise? It is not a routine part of their mission function and their ability to attract IT-qualified staff is limited by USG pay scales. Even if one is hired as a GS-15 or -16, considered to be at the top of the pay scale, the maximum salary is about $170,000, well below what such expertise can bring in the private sector.

This is not a problem unique to HHS, as many of us who opted for public service did it for reasons other than salary can attest, but at a time when IT expertise is at a premium it does mean that government agencies are at a disadvantage in competing for the best IT talent. Given Congressional attitudes this situation is not likely to change.

Perhaps a more serious issue built into the system is that decisions made by inexperienced, IT-unqualified and hassled government officials can have major impacts, as the ACA case seems to illustrate. Why was system testing delayed until just two weeks before roll-out? Why wasn’t there more timely coordination among federal and state agencies in planning the system and its roll-out? Where was the necessary oversight by senior HHS officials? Were the best IT contractors hired for the job or was this a lowest bid situation? Many other questions can be asked as well and I’m sure will be.

As someone who believes strongly in public service I get upset when public servants are demeaned. My experience in government taught me that the vast majority of government workers are dedicated to their tasks and committed to helping the public and providing value for money. Obviously not true in every case, but this is the case in the private sector as well. What is disturbing about the ACA situation is that an important and critical national policy (access to at least a minimum level of health care for all U.S. citizens) is being damaged by carelessness on the part of the U.S. government, a pay system that keeps needed expertise away from government service, and opportunistic political attacks that put political party loyalty above national needs. ACA undoubtedly needs to be improved in the future, as was true of social security in its day, but it is needed by the American public. How can the richest country in the history of the world deny even this level of protection to its citizens?

ObamaCare

Wind and Hydropower: A Natural Partnership

This blog was stimulated by an article published in the October 30, 2013 Washington Post: ‘Perfect’ winds blowing Brazil to new era of renewable energy (http://wapo.st/16nattl). It describes a rapid increase in Brazilian onshore wind deployments (the government’s goal is for wind turbines to supply “up to 10 percent of its generating capacity” by 2021) and quotes a Brazilian wind energy company president as saying “Wind is the perfect complement for the hydro base that we have in Brazil.” The purpose of this blog is to put increased focus on the too-little discussed importance of this natural partnership between wind and hydropower.

Hydropower and wind energy are closely related in that both are systems that use turbine blades to convert the kinetic energy of a moving fluid into electricity. In the case of hydropower the fluid is water and in the case of wind energy it is air. In both cases the energy available for conversion is proportional to the third power of the fluid speed V past the turbine – V squared from the kinetic energy in the flow and V from the rate at which fluid is moving through the blades.

image

image

Wind energy is a variable (intermittent) renewable energy source that be used as an energy saver for fossil-fuel powered generating systems when the wind is blowing but requires some kind of storage of excess wind-generated electricity if it is to supply electricity at other times. Water reservoirs associated with hydropower dams serve as a natural “storage battery” for variable wind (or variable solar) as hydroelectric generators have short response/startup times as well as flexibility as to when water can be released to the generators from reservoir storage. The combination of wind and hydro thus provides a system capable of firming up power availability even when the wind is not blowing and reduces complementary water releases when the wind is blowing.

But this hybrid system has its limitations. It works extremely well as long as the wind component is not too large and the variations can be handled by the hydropower system’s flexibility. When wind generation gets too big that flexibility no longer exists or becomes increasingly expensive and excess wind energy must be utilized elsewhere. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest Smart Grid Demonstration, underway in five Pacific Northwest states, is exploring options for addressing this growing problem.

A few more words about onshore wind (today’s dominant form of wind energy; offshore wind, an emerging technology, is discussed in an earlier blog on this web site) and hydropower, both of which are considered mature technologies.

Falling water first became a source for generating electricity in 1879 at Niagara Falls. Today hydropower provides about 20% of global electricity, with China, Canada, Brazil, the U.S. and Russia being the largest producers. There are about 78,000 MWe of hydropower generation capacity from 2,500 dams in the U.S. at present, with an additional 22,000 MWe in pumped storage capacity. Depending on rainfall and water availability, hydro provides about 6-7 percent of U.S. electricity and is currently the largest U.S. source of renewable electricity.

An interesting aspect of U.S. hydropower generation is that while further development of large hydropower projects is problematic (the best sites have already been developed) considerable potential exists for increased hydropower through development of new small and micro hydroelectric plants (59,000 MWe), development of new hydroelectric capacity at existing dams without hydropower facilities (17,000 MWe), and generation efficiency improvements at existing facilities (4,000 MWe).

Onshore wind energy capacity now totals more than 60,000 MWe in the U.S. and more than 300,000 MWe globally. Both numbers are growing rapidly. An interesting aspect of U.S. onshore capacity is the limitation imposed by existing highways – components for wind turbines beyond a given size (about 3 MWe) cannot be accommodated by existing roads. In principle the bigger the wind turbine the better the economics (ignoring the visual and noise impacts), a major argument for putting wind turbines offshore where size is not limited and other impacts are mitigated. One response being examined is manufacturing turbine components (towers, generators) in place using movable manufacturing systems.

image

In sum, hydropower and wind energy are important sources of renewable electricity with significant growth potential individually and as hybrid partners. Both will be important parts of our inexorable march to a renewable energy future.

Hydrogen and Fuel Cells: Important Parts of Our Energy Future?

Hydrogen is a simple atom/molecule and the most abundant element in the universe.

image

image

As a physicist it is an an article of faith with me that mankind will eventually make large scale use of hydrogen as a fuel. As a realistic physicist I also acknowledge that such large scale use of hydrogen is a number of years away.

The device that will convert hydrogen into a major energy source is the fuel cell, which is an electrochemical device that combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, with water and heat as its by-product. First invented in the 19th century, today there is extensive research and a large and growing literature on fuel cells.

In its simplest form, a fuel cell consists of two electrodes – an anode and a cathode – with an electrolyte between them.

image

When cells are stacked in series the output increases, resulting in fuel cells with power capacities ranging from several watts to several megawatts. A fuel cell system that includes a fuel reformer can obtain hydrogen from any hydrocarbon fuel such as natural gas, methanol, or gasoline. Since fuel cells rely on an electrochemical process and not combustion, emissions from fuel cells are significantly lower than emissions from even the cleanest fuel combustion processes. Fuel cells are also quiet, durable, and highly efficient. They are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen/air to sustain the chemical reaction; however, fuel cells can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied.

My enthusiasm for hydrogen goes beyond my physics daydreaming: I often refer to it as the ultimate energy storage system. For example, what does a utility do with excess electricity generated by wind turbines at night when the wind is often strongest and consumer demand for electricity is lowest. The simple answer is to store it for delivery during the next day when demand and electricity prices are higher. Of course, storage is not energy- or cost-free, and still expensive today. My attraction to hydrogen is that excess electricity can be used to electrolyze a common substance (water) into hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen can be stored and used in fuel cells which transmit their generated electricity to consumers in many locations via power lines. No need to transport hydrogen via pipelines which are inherently expensive and often hard to site, and these pipelines have to be impervious to leakage by the tiny hydrogen molecule, unlike more standard fossil fuel pipelines. The kickers in this game are that water has to be available and the efficiency of electrolysis devices needs to be improved to reduce the cost of hydrogen production.

A fuel cell is a transformative technology that changes the way we generate and use electricity, a characteristic it shares with solar PV. It can be used in small and large sizes, in mobile and stationary applications, and has several technological foundations (proton exchange membrane, phosphoric acid, solid oxide). The hitch in fuel cells is cost reduction, a tough problem to address, and they’re competing as storage devices with lithium ion batteries which are steadily getting cheaper. Flywheels, when mass produced, may also offer some competition.

I’ve been following fuel cell development issues for almost forty years, since arriving in Washington, DC, and cost seems to be the major barrier to their large-scale use. Lots of effort is going into related research, including how to mass produce cheaply. The U.S. Department of Energy is supporting this effort both for mobile applications (i.e., cars) and larger stationary applications.

Considerable effort is also going into development of micro fuel cells that can be used to power cell phones, laptop computers and tablets – all of which can benefit from longer-lasting portable power supplies. These will probably be fueled by replaceable alcohol-water cartridges where the alcohol (ethanol/C2H5OH or methanol/CH3OH) supplies the needed hydrogen. For example, one mixture under investigation is 35% methanol in water. Such a micro fuel cell could provide ten hours of laptop time, although some computer tablets today achieve that goal. The reason for not going above 35% is that methanol interacts chemically with common anode and cathode materials and degrades the fuel cell. Nanotechnology may offer new material options, allowing this percentage to increase. An interesting aspect of alcohol use in micro fuel cells is that alcohol, being flammable, requires a waiver to be brought onto airplanes. Ethanol clearly has such a waiver as witnessed by drink service on most aircraft. Methanol only recently obtained such a waiver.

image

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Is It a Viable Technology?

As mentioned in my previous blog (‘What I Took Away From the Doha Clean Energy Forum’): “three speakers made a strong case for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as a means of addressing global warming and climate change, especially in heavily carbon emitting industries such as cement production. Lots of questions remain, and will be discussed in a future blog.” This is that future blog on a well trod but still controversial subject.

Wikipedia defines CCS as “..the process of capturing waste carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources, such as fossil fuel power plants, transporting it to a storage site, and depositing it where it will not enter the atmosphere, normally an underground geological formation.”

image

Considerable literature exists on CCS, exhibiting a wide range of opinions on its viability as a technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The principal argument for CCS is that the world today is fueled largely by coal, oil and natural gas and that this situation is not likely to change any time soon. In fact, as many developing nations industrialize and emerge from poverty, the demand for energy increases steadily and it is argued that only fossil fuels can meet that demand in coming decades. It is also argued that while solar and wind and other renewable energy technologies can eventually replace electricity from coal and natural gas power plants this will not occur quickly and people will need fossil energy during the long transition. In addition, some industries like steel and cement are not so easily ‘fixed’ and will continue to use fossil fuels in increasing amounts as global industrialization grows.

These points raised in support of CCS are countered by the following arguments:
– CCS is expensive, whether added to an existing power plant or industrial carbon dioxide source, or included in newly constructed facilities. The energy penalty for operating CCS is also high, requiring a fair amount of parasitic energy that reduces efficiency and revenues.
– When operating, CCS systems require large amounts of water.
– captured carbon dioxide must be liquified and stored for indefinite periods of time in such a way as to avoid leakage and large ‘burps’ that can be toxic. This requires identification and development of storage sites (depleted oil and gas wells, coal mines, underground aquifers), infrastructure to transport liquid CO2, adds additional costs and raises questions of liability if something goes wrong and stored CO2 is accidentally released.
– the time required for development, demonstration and large-scale deployment of CCS technology that can have a meaningful impact on global warming is too long compared to other options.

Proponents of CCS (see http://www.globalccsinstitute.com) argue that CCS costs can be brought down significantly with a sufficient number of demonstration projects and economies of scale associated with large-scale deployment. Nevertheless, at the recent Doha Clean Energy Forum even one of its supporters admitted that an impactful global CCS system will cost an estimated 3.6 trillion USD (and I did say trillion). My immediate reaction was that for $3.6 trillion I can deliver an awful lot of renewable energy that will replace coal, oil, and natural gas use in power generation and transportation. Nevertheless, there is the argument that the CO2 emissions from some industries will still be there in large and growing amounts even with large-scale deployment of renewables and CCS is the only way to limit these emissions.

These are strong arguments for some attention to CCS R&D and demonstration, but, in my view, not at the expense of rapid development and deployment of renewables. This creates a conundrum as CCS demonstrations are expensive, and the money for them would have to come from somewhere. Government funding is at best problematic in current budget situations. Other possibilities are the fossil fuel industries themselves, which have a vested interest in continued purchase of their commodities. Countries with large reserves of fossil fuels – e.g., the U.S., with large reserves of coal – will also see value in CCS allowing extended use of secure domestic energy reserves.

In a world committed to reducing carbon emissions CCS offers a helping hand but not a definitive one. It may offer a partial answer for the rest of this century, but governments are unlikely to provide the needed funds for large-scale deployment. Let’s see if the private fossil fuel sector is willing to step up to protect its vested interests.

image

What I Took Away From the Doha Clean Energy Forum

Returned on Friday (11 October) from four days in Doha where I participated in the final annual Global Clean Energy Forum sponsored by the International Herald Tribune (IHT). In the future IHT will be known as the International New York Times.

image

The Forum organizers put together an excellent set of international speakers on a broad range of clean energy issues, including fracking gas and it’s impact on investments in renewables, energy technology innovation, sustainable energy in Arab and developing countries, carbon capture and sequestration, and perspectives of the financial community on investments in renewable energy. The agenda can be found at http://www.inytcleanenergy.com/2013-agenda.asps.

Some of my take-aways are the following:

– shale gas from fracking is seen as a definite part of future energy supplies and will be considered ‘complimentary’ to other natural gas supplies such as those from the large reserves in Qatar.
– the availability of relatively low cost, large shale gas supplies will affect the pace of investments in renewable energy technologies.
– the fact that water and energy issues are ‘inextricably linked’ is gaining wider acceptance but is still not routinely mentioned in discussions of energy supplies.
– global investment in deployment of renewables is increasing, but the pace of investment will have its ups and downs, with national policies being a critical determining factor in these early days.
– transportation will be an important future market for fuel cell and other forms of green electricity.
– there is much opportunity and need for innovation in clean energy technologies, with a corresponding need for appropriate incentives.
– The United Nations is finally on board with the need for greater attention to energy issues in sustainable development (there were no energy goals in the 2000 Millennium Development Goals).
– The financial community sees solar energy as the best bet for future renewable energy investments. De-risking clean energy investments is a critical need in funding decisions.
– three speakers made a strong case for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as a means of addressing global warming and climate change, especially in heavily carbon emitting industries such as cement production. Lots of questions remain, and will be discussed in a future blog.

image