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..

More on Renewable Energy: Where Does It Come From?

My previous blog talked about the history of renewable energy at the U.S. Department of Energy. This and succeeding blogs will get more into the current status of renewables and address some of the policy issues surrounding their development and deployment. It will be the first of a series of blogs that will focus in greater detail on each of the broad array of renewable energy technologies.

Wikipedia defines renewable energy as “…energy that comes from resources which are continually replenished such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves and geothermal heat.” A list of renewable energy technologies would include the following:

Solar Energy
o photovoltaics
o solar thermal
– dish Stirling
– parabolic trough
– power tower
– solar hot water
– passive solar
Wind energy
o onshore wind
o offshore wind
Geothermal energy
o power generation
o direct use
o ground source heat pumps
Biomass energy
Hydropower
Ocean and tidal energy
o OTEC
o wave energy
o tidal energy
Hydrogen and fuel cells

What is interesting about this list is that most of the entries are direct or indirect forms of solar energy. PV and solar thermal are direct forms. Wind is an indirect form arising from uneven heating of the earth’s surface. Biomass is organic matter grown with the aid of sunlight. Hydropower depends on water delivered by the hydrological cycle which is solar-driven. OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) depends on solar heating of the ocean’s surface. Wave energy is partly wind-driven but is also affected by the gravitational attraction between the earth and the moon. Tidal energy is water energy that is driven by ocean heating as well as gravitational effects. And finally, hydrogen, which is currently derived largely from steam reforming of natural gas, will eventually be derived from electrolysis of water using renewable electricity sources that are largely solar-derived. The one exception is geothermal energy that derives from radioactive decay in the earth’s core.

As an introduction to a more detailed look at renewables in subsequent blogs I am attaching the introductory section to a chapter entitled ‘Solar Energy” that I was invited to write for a new energy encyclopedia (Macmillan Encyclopedia of Energy, December 2000). It reflects my strong interest in understanding where all this solar-derived energy comes from. While the specific details on solar technologies in this chapter may be largely out of date by now (we’ve made significant progress since 2000), the introductory section (Macmillan – introduction) remains valid and informative. More to come, including a discussion of the promise of renewable energy.

A History of Renewable Energy at DOE

As you will have noticed when you logged in, the ‘theme’ (presentation format) of the blog has been changed to make it more interesting and visually attractive. Hopefully you will like the change.

Back to blogging: my next several blogs will focus on renewable energy, starting with a few bits of history that may not be widely known. Some of my fellow ‘dinosaurs’ will know this history, but one purpose of this blog is to share some of this history with the young people now populating the field who may not.

I will start with a memo that I forwarded to DOE Undersecretary Kristina Johnson when she requested information on the history of renewable energy at DOE (History of RE at DOE). She had spoken to a group of Fellows at DOE about her responsibilities and this topic came up in the following discussion. The memo makes reference to the ‘DPR’ and the video of President Carter’s 1979 speech when he dedicated solar water heaters that had been mounted on the White House roof. The DPR is discussed below and copies of the video (DVD) are available upon request.

The DPR (Domestic Policy Review of Solar Energy) was the final report of the first comprehensive review of federal renewable energy policy. It was announced by President Carter on May 3, 1978 when he dedicated SERI (Solar Energy Research Institute) in Golden, CO. It involved 30 federal departments and agencies, and at its peak there were 175 senior officials detailed to the DPR task force. As DOE’s senior representative to the DPR, and just one month after I had joined DOE as a political appointee, I was designated to head the effort by my boss, Al Alm.

The next six months were rather intense, beginning immediately on May 4th when it became urgent to move my temporary DOE office in the Old Post Office Building in downtown DC to the Forrestal Building (DOE Headquarters) without DOE assistance (no trucks or moving staff were available on short notice). One of my then new staff was also with me in the Old PO Building (Ron White, still a dear friend all these years later) and using our own cars we moved our stuff into a large open (and somewhat unpleasant) space on the G-level of Forrestal. In the next few days this space, which we dubbed the ‘bullpen’, was filled with desks to accommodate the anticipated agency detailees, but without dividing walls. Actually, there was one small office in the bullpen, mine, which meant that I saw the mice when they occasionally showed up during the day.

Another problem ‘out of the chute’ was the fact that the other 29 departments and agencies didn’t trust the 30th, DOE, because of some recent history. Shortly before the DPR was announced the Carter Administration had released a National Energy Policy, also a multi-agency effort chaired by DOE. The story I was told by non-DOE staff was that DOE, at the last minute, had pulled out a draft it had prepared on its own and submitted it as the multi-agency report. Not nice! As a result I spent much of the DPR’s first month building relationships with the non-DOE detailees to reestablish trust.

The DPR was completed in early December 1978, and delivered to the Domestic Policy Staff of the White House on December 6th, 1978, a date that those of us intimately involved in putting it together will never forget. For several years after, on the anniversary of this date, several of my staff and I would get together to celebrate the DPR’s completion. The full report, with appendices, was formally published in February 1979 and is available in DOE’s archives – its Executive Summary is attached (DPR-Executive Summary-1979).

What is worth noting is that a 34+ year old report is still somewhat relevant, indicating that the ‘dinosaurs’ did some useful thinking way back when and that U.S. energy policy has not advanced as quickly or as much as we had hoped when the report was completed in 1978.

Status Report

Now just over six weeks into joining the blog world and finding it easier and more fun than anticipated. A little over 100 hits and 14 comments per week on average so far and interested in going a bit more ‘viral’ (but not too much) now that I’m more comfortable with posting and responding to comments. So please consider this a reminder that I’m out there and looking for more readers and comments. Please sign up to follow the blog so you can be alerted when new posts appear, and please share the blog site (www.lapsedphysicist.org) with colleagues, family and friends if you think they might find it of interest.

The ten topics covered to date, nine on non-food topics, include:
– Thoughts on an Energy Policy for the New Administration (2008)
– Water and Energy
– Offshore Wind Energy
– Cheesecake Recipe
– Global Warming and Climate Change
– Values and Energy Policy
– Nuclear Power
– The Beginnings of a U.S. Energy Policy
– CAFE Standards
– Keystone XL Pipeline

Upcoming blogs will focus on solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and other forms of renewable energy, and other topics that are in the news and/or catch my attention.

Keystone XL Pipeline: A Memorandum To The President

A tough political decision that President Obama will soon have to make is whether to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline that would cross the international border between the U.S. and Canada. It is a highly controversial issue, one I do not find it easy to form an opinion on (see final paragraph) and about which I have had quite a few discussions with colleagues. What follows are some of the arguments that complicate my thinking and would constitute the elements of a decision memorandum I would send to the President.

Let me begin by reminding readers what the pipeline issue is all about. Quoting from Wikipedia: “The Keystone Pipeline System is a pipeline system to transport oil sands bitumen from Canada and the northern United States “primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast” of Texas. The products to be shipped include synthetic crude oil (syncrude) and dilbit (diluted bitumen) from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and Bakken synthetic crude oil and light crude oil produced from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota. Two phases of the project are in operation, a third, from Oklahoma to the Texas Gulf coast, is under construction and the fourth is awaiting U.S. government approval as of mid-March 2013. Upon completion, the Keystone Pipeline System would consist of the completed 2,151-mile (3,462 km) Keystone Pipeline (Phases I and II) and the proposed 1,661-mile (2,673 km) Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project (Phases III and IV) . The controversial fourth phase, the Keystone XL Pipeline Project, would begin at the oil distribution hub in Hardisty, Alberta and extend 1,179 miles (1,897 km), to Steele City, Nebraska.”

Those opposed to the pipeline cite the contribution to carbon dioxide emissions from the mining of tar sands in Canada, the possibility and consequences of pipeline leaks associated with heated and highly pressurized bitumen, the initial (now modified) proposed path of the pipeline through areas above the Ogallala Aquifer (a major source of fresh water), and the potential delay in investments in renewable energy technologies due to the continued availability of oil resources.

The proponents of the pipeline argue that Canada will mine the tar sands and produce the bitumen and its associated carbon dioxide emissions regardless of what the U.S. decides (an alternative pipeline path would be to Canada’s west coast for sales to Asia), Canadian tar sands oil is already reaching the U.S. by train and new quantities could be shipped by rail as well (as Canada is already preparing to do), that obtaining oil from Canada is preferable to obtaining oil from the Persian Gulf and other countries and is in the U.S. national security and economic interest, and that pipeline construction today is under better regulation and is safer than ever before.

In his climate change speech at Georgetown University on June 25th (see earlier blog ‘The Beginnings of a U.S. Energy Policy’) the President seemed to hint that he would approve the pipeline, arguing that “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.”

The use of the words ‘significantly exacerbate’ seems ‘significant’ in that it will be hard to argue that the carbon emissions from mininig the Alberta tar sands will add significantly to current global carbon dioxide emissions. Add they will, and add to oil availability they will as well, but by themselves and in terms of impact on climate change, not significantly.

Thus, if one assumes that the pipeline will be carefully regulated (and strict enforcement of regulations will be critical), that the Canadian tar sands will be mined regardless, that the new pipeline path is less risky for the Ogallala, and that the pipeline will reduce U.S. needs for other oil imports, I would approve the pipeline if it were my decision to make. This recognizes that our current need for liquid petroleum fuels to support transportation is significant and will continue for a while. However, this should in no way limit or slow down our efforts to electrify our transportation fleet, derive the needed electricity from renewable sources, and develop non-petroleum-based alternative fuels. I will say much more about these latter topics in future blogs.

CAFE Standards: Our Biggest Energy Conservation Measure

In my previous blog (‘The Beginnings of a U.S. Energy Policy’) I stated my belief that recent U.S. Congresses have been ‘dysfunctional’ with regard to energy policy and that it was quite different in the 1970’s when Democrats and Republicans worked together to pass energy legislation. My example was the passage of the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act which I participated in as a Senate staffer.  An important title of that Act was labeled ‘Corporate Average Fuel Economy’ which came to be more popularly known as CAFE.   This bill was signed into law in December 1975 and remained unamended until 2007, 32 years later, when the CAFE standards for new car fleets were increased slightly.  At that time I decided to write down some of the history of CAFE, recognizing that it was the most important energy conservation legislation passed to date, that only a few people knew that history first hand, and that I was getting a ‘bit long in the tooth’ and might forget a few details.  The resulting piece, published in the ‘Physics and Society’ e-newsletter that October, is attached (The Origins of CAFE).  It adds a bit to history and demonstrates that cooperation between our two political parties is possible when the long-term national interest is driving both. Recent changes to CAFE will further enhance its impact.