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..

The Economic Implications of Addressing Climate Change

The article attached below appeared today (January 24, 2017) in the Washington Post. It is an important article and was written by Todd Stern, who served as a senior negotiator on climate change issues during the Obama Administration. I bring it to your attention because it addresses the economic implications for the U.S. of addressing or not addressing climate change issues in a meaningful way. It recognizes that the global energy system is evolving from its heavy dependence on fossil fuels to a system increasingly dependent on renewable energy technologies. The market for these technologies is already large and growing rapidly, and the U.S. has an opportunity via its innovation and manufacturing skills to be a major player in that market. This has significant implications for U.S. economic growth and job creation. If the Trump Administration slows down our efforts to move away from a fossil fuel powered economy and toward a clean energy economy focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy, our country will pay an unfortunate price economically, environmentally, and in terms of our global leadership position. One can only hope that the new U.S. Administration will be open to acknowledging this stark reality.

……………………………………………….

Trump can make the deal of the century on climate
By Todd Stern January 24, 2017
Todd Stern, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, was U.S. special envoy for climate change from 2009 to 2016.

As President Trump takes the reins of power, anxiety and uncertainty are the order of the day for those concerned about the threat of climate change. Trump has ranged from disbelieving (climate change is a Chinese “hoax”) to dismissive (we should “cancel” the 2015 Paris agreement) to open (“I’m looking at it very closely. . . . I have an open mind to it”) on the issue.
The truth is that the climate challenge Trump faces is large and the stakes are high, but he has been dealt a very good hand if he is willing to play it.
The challenge is that achieving the climate goals endorsed by all the countries in Paris — especially holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels — will take a concerted commitment centered on rapidly transitioning from a high- to a very-low-carbon global energy system. A global economy that currently runs more than 80 percent on fossil fuels will have to cut that habit dramatically by 2050 and eliminate or capture all carbon emissions by the 2060s or 2070s.
Nor can the Paris goals be shrugged off as an excess of zeal that we can comfortably revise upward. With average temperature having risen by only 0.9 degrees Celsius so far, we already see rapidly accumulating evidence of rising sea levels, stressed water supplies and “100-year” events such as extreme droughts, floods and storms. As these and other effects worsen, we will face risks to health, safety, economic well-being and national security that we have never tolerated in any other context. If you doubt this, just consult the published views of the Pentagon, the intelligence community and any number of major corporations, not to mention the leading lights of the U.S. and global scientific establishment.
The good news, though, is that while meeting the challenge of transitioning to clean energy is formidable, it is also doable as a matter of innovation, policy and financing. We know what we need to do, and we can do it — if the political will is there.
Which brings us back to Trump and those good cards he has been dealt. First, he has the Paris agreement itself. Climate change is a global problem, so it can’t be solved without a global regime to drive joint action, and the landmark Paris accord finally delivered that regime, after 20 years of trying. It is built to work both for the United States and for others. It has a bottom-up structure based on countries devising their own climate plans and targets; it applies to all, including China and India; it renews itself every five years a.s countries update and augment the ambition of their efforts; and it includes binding commitments for full transparency, so all countries can have confidence that others are acting.
Second, we have entered a period of explosive growth in clean energy, led by the genius of U.S. innovation both in technology and in business models, and by the massive markets being created worldwide for pollution-free energy. The costs of wind and solar generation have been plummeting and are already near the cost of fossil fuel, and sometimes cheaper. More than 60 percent of new electricity capacity in the United States in the past two years has come from these sources.
And innovation is blossoming all over the clean-tech landscape, from storage technology to open the door for expanding use of renewables, to electric vehicles, to a smarter grid that will enable more work to be done with less energy.
Plus, there are jobs — for example, more solar jobs now in the United States than in the oil, gas and coal extraction industries combined. And clean energy is hugely popular with both Democratic and Republican voters.
We still, crucially, need strong policy support and research and development, but the change is gathering speed.
Globally, the economic potential of the clean-energy transition is staggering, amounting to trillions of dollars. No one has more to gain than the United States by jumping into this new “great race” with both feet, given our unparalleled culture and infrastructure of innovation. It’s the deal of the century, and a presidential dealmaker should pursue it with gusto.
None of this would prevent generous treatment for those, such as coal miners, who helped build the industrial backbone of our nation. Or, indeed, for full-on R&D and other support for technologies such as carbon capture and storage.
Is it plausible that Trump could recognize the climate challenge and embrace this opportunity? The key lies in that “open mind” of his. If it is open, then he will listen to knowledgeable advisers — from the military, big business, Wall Street, the scientific community — and he’ll come quickly to understand the risk of climate change and the reward of taking it on.
With an open mind, Trump can make history. He has a Nixon-to-China capacity to bring Congress, the American public and the rest of the world with him on climate. He should seize it.

Cyber Security: Revisiting a Critical Issue

Three previous blog posts have mentioned or addressed in detail this critical issue which I believe represents a major vulnerability of U.S. electrical power and other industrial systems:
– ‘Grids, Smart Grids and More Grids: What’s Coming’,
July 7, 2014
– ‘The Vulnerability of Our Electric Utility System to
Cyber Attacks’, January 28, 2015
– ‘Returning to an Important Subject: The Vulnerability of
the U.S. Electrical Grid’, August 31, 2015

I mention this history because today (January 6, 2017) the Washington Post published the following article on the same subject, reporting on the results of the Quadrennial Energy Review just published by the U.S. Department of Energy. It focuses much needed attention on this growing vulnerability.

“New Obama report warns of changing ‘threat environment’ for the electricity grid
By Chris Mooney

At a time of heightened focus on U.S. cybersecurity risks, the Energy Department released a comprehensive report on the nation’s rapidly changing electrical grid Friday that calls for new action to protect against evolving threats.

The agency urged policymakers to grant regulators new emergency powers should threats become imminent, among other recommendations.

The document notes the sprawling scale of U.S. electric infrastructure: The nation has 7,700 power plants (ranging from coal-fired to nuclear) and 55,800 substations. Some 707,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines link the two, and then 6.5 million additional miles of local lines spread out from the substations.

Dramatic change is sweeping over the sector. For instance, so-called smart meters are being added to bring more online control to the electrical grid. And more and more households are adding solar systems to their rooftops, providing new connecting points. A “rapidly evolving system” is in major need of modernization and upgrades to keep pace, the report says.

“There’s the weak-link issue for the whole system,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in an interview to highlight the report. “The reality is, for a lot of rural, smaller utilities, it’s a very difficult job to have the kind of expertise that will be needed in terms of cyber, so we suggest for example, grant programs to help with training, to help with analytical capacity in these situations.”

“The economy would just take an enormous hit” from a successful grid attack, he said.

The document is the second installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review, a series of wide-ranging reports surveying the entire U.S. energy system that the department began after President Obama announced new climate change policies in 2013. The first installment dealt broadly with the entirety of the nation’s energy infrastructure, which goes far beyond electricity to encompass natural gas and oil pipelines, storage infrastructure, and other facets. This one zooms in on electricity.

It highlights not only cyberattacks on electric infrastructure in Ukraine in late December of 2015 — in which three Ukrainian utilities were hit by synchronized cyberattacks, leading to power losses for 225,000 customers — but also the Oct. 21, 2016, event that used in-home Internet-connected devices, collectively, to lead a large denial-of-service attack.

“We know that this is not just a theoretical concern,” Moniz said.

The report calls for utilities to take engage in “deliberate risk management activities” as the electric power sector becomes increasingly interconnected with global communications networks.

“The threat environment is also changing — decision makers must make the case for investments that mitigate catastrophic, high-impact, low-probability events,” the report notes.

Cyberthreats are not the only challenge facing the grid. The report warns that extreme weather events triggered by human-caused climate change also makes the system vulnerable.

On grid security, the report contains myriad recommendations, including amending the Federal Power Act to give the Energy Department the ability to issue a “grid-security emergency order,” and also giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission new powers to bolster reliability standards that affect electricity-sector operators “if it finds that expeditious action is needed to protect national security in the face of fast-developing new threats to the grid.”

In the interview, Moniz said he hoped that under the next administration, the Quadrennial Energy Review process would continue, noting that the last installment of the report has already triggered major action. Of its 63 recommendations, the DOE has found, 21 are already “fully or partially reflected in Federal law.”

“We think that the second volume hopefully is going to have the same kind of track record,” Moniz said. “That’s the basis upon which I certainly hope, and will certainly recommend, presumably to [Energy secretary nominee Rick Perry], that the new administration take ownership of this, and keep it going.”

The DOE press release announcing the report can be found at
https://energy/gov/articles/administration-releases-second-installment-quadrennial-energy-review and the full report with related analyses can be found at energy.gov/QER.

An Interesting Interview with President Obama’s Science Advisor

Dr. John Holdren has served as President Obama’s Science Advisor and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy throughout the eight years of the Obama presidency.  I found the following interview of Dr. Holdren of great interest and reproduce it here for the benefit of this blog’s readers. It was conducted by Kiley Kroh, Senior Editor of the e-journal ThinkProgress and first published in that journal on December 21, 2016.

………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Can the world fight climate change in the era of Trump? Obama’s science adviser thinks so: Dr. Holdren weighs in on climate science, denial, and why every president needs a science advisor.

image

Dr. John Holdren and President Obama

When asked what has kept him in his job for so long, the longest serving presidential science adviser in history answered without hesitation.
“What kept me in the job is working for the most science savvy president since Thomas Jefferson,” Dr. John Holdren said. “And in a situation where there’s a lot more science to be savvy about today than there was when Thomas Jefferson was president.”
Holdren was clear that the man in the Oval Office, that man’s respect for science and innovation, and his desire to elevate those fields across government all made the past eight years a once in a lifetime opportunity.
“I would not have jumped off this ship for anything,” said Holdren.
But the winds of change are blowing hard. President Barack Obama will vacate the White House in a month and the tenor of the group assembled to replace his administration, particularly with regard to science policy, could not be more different. President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” and recently said “nobody really knows” whether climate change is real. (In reality, scientists are quite certain it is both happening and largely the result of human activity.)
Trump has already amassed an alarming number of people who reject the scientific consensus regarding climate change, have deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, and are quite clear regarding their intent to undo or weaken the Obama climate legacy. His transition team has asked the Department of Energy to name staff who worked on Obama administration climate policy, and pressed the State Department about its international environmental spending.
In the face of this dramatic shift, the scientific community is bracing itself for an administration that could be dismissive, or outright antagonistic, towards science — some are even going as far as to copy government climate science data on independent servers to ensure its preservation.
Holdren is nevertheless optimistic that the forces moving the world toward progress on climate change are stronger than the pull of denial, and that the advancements made in the past eight years will serve as building blocks rather than targets. While as a political appointee he’s prohibited from discussing the policies of the president-elect, he had a lot to say about climate denial, the importance of his position, and where we go from here. Read on for the highlights from our recent interview.
So much of what you were able to accomplish seems driven by a president who really prioritized science and gave it the funding and attention it deserves, so what happens to all of these initiatives moving forward?
I can’t speculate about the next administration but I will say this: First of all, the issue of addressing the climate challenge should not be a partisan issue. It’s about the economy, public health and well-being, national security — these are not fundamentally partisan issues, so one has to hope that that will increasingly be recognized.
The second thing I’ll say is that a lot of the progress is being driven by forces that are not fundamentally policies of the federal government. I think the two biggest drivers of progress on climate change around the world today are that the symptoms of climate change, the damages from climate change, are becoming ever more apparent. And the opportunities to do something are also growing — in substantial part because clean energy is getting cheaper. That’s going to be extremely important moving forward, regardless of what government policies do or don’t materialize in the United States.
If the U.S. is no longer at the forefront pushing climate commitments at the international level, is it your sense that China is going to step up? Are there other countries you’re looking to?
Let me be clear, I very much hope the United States will continue to carry out these forward-leaning actions to reduce emissions and build preparedness and resilience, because I think it makes great sense environmentally and economically. But if we don’t, I do believe most other countries will continue with their efforts in this domain because, again, they understand it’s in their interest to do so. China’s already stepping up.
But I don’t think for a minute that if, for one reason or another, the U.S. reduced its level of activity in this space, that China would reduce its [activity]. I expect that the European countries, who are themselves experiencing the impacts of climate change, will stay the course; I think Canada will stay the course; I think many of our friends in Latin America will stay the course; I think India will stay the course.
Everybody is suffering from climate change, and no matter how much hand-waving a few folks may want to continue to do about how it’s not all proven, the fact is everybody around the world now understands that it’s real, that human activities are causing it, and that aggressive action is required to fix it.

You mentioned your belief that several major countries will continue to stay the course on climate action. Can you talk about the course we’re on globally? Obviously, the Paris agreement was a significant achievement, but how do you view that in terms of what we need to be doing to stave off the worst impacts of climate change?
First of all, as you know, it’s not enough. Everybody who looks at this problem realizes Paris is a down payment on a longer term strategy to reduce emissions much more drastically. By the end of this century, we have to be at zero emissions; in fact, we should be at zero emissions, net, before the end of this century if we want to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. The key point about Paris, really, is that it is the biggest step in the right direction the world has ever taken, and it was taken much later than those of us who watch this problem closely would have wished. After 2030, when the most far-reaching of the Paris targets occur, we’re going to need a very powerful encore; we’re going to need much deeper reductions going forward, we’re going to need better technologies to do it.
One of the things I’ve found a little irritating about the climate science discussion over the years is the discussion about when will we reach dangerous human interference in the climate system. I think it’s very difficult to argue climate change isn’t already dangerous. We’re not really in the business any longer of trying to avoid dangerous climate change — we’re already in dangerous climate change. We’re trying to avoid catastrophic climate change and I think it would be better to be clear about that.
“We’re not really in the business any longer of trying to avoid dangerous climate change… We’re trying to avoid catastrophic climate change.”
I know you can’t speculate on the incoming administration, but it’s my sense the tide was turning over the past few years to make it less acceptable for a public figure to deny climate change. What is it about climate denial that makes it so difficult to overcome?
I think it’s a misconception that’s driven a lot of the expressions of doubt about the science — that folks don’t want to accept the science because they think accepting it is tantamount to accepting a draconian regulatory regime on our energy choices. The reality is that there are many ways to skin this cat. As economists from all parts of the political spectrum tell us the most efficient ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be a market-based approach, putting a tax on carbon emissions that could be offset by reductions in other taxes.
If you accept the science, you might prefer to accept a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade approach, which does more or less the same thing under different administrative arrangements. Either can be adjusted over time to get the emissions result that you want. And that’s basically a market-based approach rather than a regulation-based approach; it should make Republicans happy.
I’m sure you’ve seen the various efforts to sell Republicans and conservatives on the solutions — clean energy, even a carbon tax — without emphasizing or asking them to accept the climate science component. Do you think that can work?
I think ultimately we will not do enough without accepting the reality of climate change and the need to address it in a more serious way going forward than we have in the past. We will do a lot of things that go in the right direction based on market forces alone — as I noted before, basically, clean energy in many of its manifestations is getting cheaper. But I don’t think the market alone, without a price on carbon or its less efficient equivalent in a regulatory approach, will get us as far as we need to go.
In light of the reports regarding the fear in the scientific community about a potentially hostile environment ahead, what is your advice for scientists trying to preserve their ability to do their jobs?
Climate scientists should keep doing their science and they should keep publishing the results, and keep talking about the implications of the results. And they should keep making their data available so others can check their results. But coming back to a question you asked earlier about what continues to drive so much of the rejection of scientific consensus, the phrase has been around for some quite time: “do you believe in climate change?”
The notion that this is a matter of belief rather than respect for the conclusions of an expert community — this is not a matter of belief. Climate change doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not. It’s going to keep going.
In terms of big signs of climate disruption, what’s happening in the Arctic is one of the most alarming stories of the year. Can you talk about that, and any other major signs you’re following?
The Arctic is not only experiencing climate change much more rapidly than the rest of the world, but the consequences don’t stay in the Arctic. As we thaw permafrost, we are increasing the release of carbon dioxide and methane from the decomposition of organic matter. Wildfires in the Arctic are burning unprecedented areas; even the tundra is burning now. Sea level rise, combined with loss of sea ice protection from waves, is causing drastic coastal erosion around the Arctic, and the mainly indigenous peoples who live in villages on the vulnerable coastlines are in many cases having to relocate. I will tell you now from rather extensive experience meeting with the people who live in the Arctic, there are no climate deniers up there.
“This is not a matter of belief.”
There are some other things that are starting to get the attention they deserve. One is wildfires; there’s really an extraordinary story, and a very dangerous one going forward. A second is the danger from extreme heat, and the circumstance that there are parts of the world where, already in the hottest months, in the hottest parts of the year, it’s not possible to work outside without dying because of the heat stress. You’re seeing larger and larger areas of the world, as we’re moving further into this century, where it’s going to be impossible to do outdoor labor for much of the year. This is really a stunning result.
The other one that I think is helpful in explaining to people that, despite the complexity of this system, there are certain things that can be understood in pretty intuitive terms, is the relationship between warming and torrential downpours. That was long predicted, but we’re now seeing these increases in torrential downpours and associated flooding across much of the world. People who have experienced flooding of a sort that never previously occurred in their lifetime are generally not among the deniers.
As you’re reflecting on your legacy and work, can you tell me why, from your perspective, it’s important for a president to have a science adviser and receive objective scientific advice?
First of all, the president needs a source of science and technology advice that’s independent of the agendas of individual departments and agencies. It’s very important that there be somebody close enough to the president to tell him or her scientific and technological insights that may not agree with the prior preferences of the president.
Being able to work for this president on these issues has been the highlight of my career, and I expect that a lot of what we have done will survive as building blocks of progress going forward.
(This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.)

 

Living With A Trump Presidency – An Interview.

The article attached below was written by Roy Hales, editor of the e-journal ECOreport (www.theecoreport.com). It is based on a 30-minute telephone interview that Roy conducted with me on Tuesday, November 15, 2016, one week after the U.S. presidential election in which Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton.. The audio recording of the interview, broadcast on Wednesday as a podcast, is embedded in the original article posted on The ECOreport web site. Photos in the original article are not reproduced here, but can be found in the original article as well.
………………………………….

LIVING WITH A TRUMP PRESIDENCY
NOVEMBER 17, 2016
The ECOreport interviews Dr Allan Hoffman, a former senior analyst with the D.O.E., about living with a Trump Presidency

By Roy L Hales

The American people have spoken. Donald Trump is not Dr Allan Hoffman’s choice for President. While it is still possible that Trump will be more reasonable than his pre-election rhetoric suggests, this is unlikely. Hoffman described Trump as a demagogue who appears to be a climate denier, whose statements about energy were “uninformed, ignorant and terrible.” Never-the-less, he has been elected and, for the next four years, “the American public is going to have to live with that.” Hoffman spoke about the realities of living with a Trump presidency.

Living With A Trump Presidency
“If you go on the basis of what he said, it is going to be a very difficult period for those of us concerned about clean energy and (the) environment … (Trump) has made some statements that are terribly critical of solar energy and wind energy, but then there are contradictory statements that he makes at other times, if you look at his website … The bottom line is that it is really hard to know what he is going to do as President. An important clue is who he will put into the 4,000 positions he has control over in the new government,” said Hoffman.

“The next few years are going to be a real test of the American system of checks and balances. Democracies are always vulnerable to the rise of demagogues. … When demagogues arose in Europe in the 1930s, in the form of Mussolini and the form of Hitler, things got rapidly out of control as these people basically took over countries in a non-democratic way. The United States is now in the position where a demagogue has been elected President … but the U.S. President is not a dictator. He cannot just decide what happens in this country and if you go back to the record of other presidents, you see that many of them tried to do certain things but were unsuccessful.”

Ronald Reagan tried to get rid of the departments of energy and education – but failed. Unlike Trump, President Reagan faced a Democrat controlled congress. Trump will initially have the support of a republican controlled House and Sevnate, but it is by no means certain that he can count on them to attack the nation’s energy and environmental sectors.

“I have to believe that not all Republicans are going to back what he has said. A lot of them were very concerned by Trump’s statements during the campaign and there will be opposition to some of his extreme positions,” said Hoffman.

United States Energy System Is Highly Decentralized
Trump’s attempts to hinder renewable development will be hindered by the fact the nation’s energy system is highly decentralized. For example, the federal government does not make the decisions governing utility policies. Those are set by individual states.

“Wind and solar are now price competitive with fossil fuels and certainly competitive with nuclear, which tends to be quite expensive. Decisions are going to be made not just on an ideological basis, but on a pragmatic basis of how we can generate our energy in the most cost effective way and all of that will be in the context of trying to reduce carbon emissions and other emissions that impact our climate – and that includes CO2, that includes methane, natural gas, and that includes nitrogen oxide, which is a residue from agricultural activities,” said Hoffman.

He dismissed the arguments against global warming as simply “dead wrong.”

“The temperatures deep in the oceans are changing, they are going up. A lot of the heat that is being generated by global warming going into the ocean and we are measuring that. That is not a debatable point; that is a measurement.

“Global sea levels are rising. That’s measurable as well, it’s not debatable. When sea levels rise, coastal communities get flooded. Salt water infuses into fresh water supplies and contaminates them so you cannot drink the water without cleaning it up with desalinization.”

“Insects are moving from one location to another because of changing temperatures on land in a manner that is obviously faster than historical trends suggest. That’s all real, you cannot deny that stuff.”

“A lot of things that are going to come into play here. You can certainly not expect California and other states to change what they are doing now to reduce global warming and carbon emissions. You should certainly not expect other countries ou to change what they are doing.”

The Real Price For the United States
“There is a real price for the United States because the future energy system is going to be highly dependent on clean energy. The United States would like, and should be, a major player in the economy that supplies those technologies. Other countries have been moving ahead for years while the United States held back under previous presidents. That means economic growth, that means jobs, reduced environmental health, improved (public) health and so on. There are lots of reasons for moving forward … and if the United States decides to bail on this because of Trump and his administration, it will have an impact but not the horrific impact that some people have anticipated.”

“China is moving actively into the renewable field not for ideological reasons but because it is important for their country to reduce the pollution they get from fossil fuels, particularly coal. India is moving in the same direction ….” he said.

“The United States can impact the pace at which some things happen, but it is not going to stop other nations from moving forward.”

Forty Years Of U.S. Renewable Development
Few Americans possess Dr. Allan Hoffman’s insight into the development of the nation’s renewable sector. His dismissal of Trump’s allegation that climate change is a hoax, invented by the Chinese, as “untrue” arises from personal experience. In 1978, Hoffman presented President Jimmy Carter with the interdepartmental energy plan that would have launched the nation’s adoption of renewable energy decades ago.

Hoffman resigned late in the Carter Administration, out of frustration with insufficient budget support for renewables, but subsequently served under four other presidents. He watched in further frustration as succeeding administrations let the United States’ leadership in solar and wind energy development dissipate. Hoffman was 71-years-old by the time Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and a senior analyst in the Department of Energy. He finally retired in 2012.

“There are a lot of things that are happening now that are moving in the right direction and it’s not going to stop.”

He added that Trump can slow down America’s adoption of renewable energy, but he cannot stop it.

“When people start seeing all the jobs going to other countries, it is going to have an impact back here in the United States because there is a tremendous amount of manufacturing that is going to take place and the United States should be a center of that.”

Is There Still A Place For Fossil Fuels?

Dr. Hoffman argues that there is still a place for fossil fuels, and with proper regulation and enforcement it is possible to reduce fracking incidents to an acceptable level.

“If we don’t do that job well, then there is no benefit to natural gas over coal.”

Asked if adequate regulations are in force anywhere in the United States, he replied some claim they are. He mentioned Pennsylvania’s legislation adding, “We will have to see” if it works.

The fossil fuel sector will continue to expand because people want the energy (and money), but the eventual transition to a fossil free economy is inevitable.

“I am very concerned about the increase in (global) temperature because I think a lot of the impacts are going to be very adverse. For example, climate change will change precipitation patterns. We aren’t going to have the same water supply system that we’ve had for the last 200 years. It is a very uncertain future.”

What Can We Do?

“The first thing is to recognize that a President cannot do just anything that he wants. So, calm down a little bit. The initial reaction is that he is going to do this on day one of his administration. He can’t do that, he just can’t do that,” said Hoffman.

“The other thing is to be eternally vigilant. A long time ago somebody said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance – well that is absolutely true … We are going to have to watch this administration as carefully as we can.”

“We also have to recognize that a lot can be done on the state level. … If you cannot do it on the federal level because of Trump and his people, you can do it on the state level and that is (already) happening in lots of different ways.”

For example, the United States does not have any federal policy for net metering, so close to 40 states have adopted their own net metering laws.

“We should keep pushing on our state legislators and decision makers to promote the increasing use of clean energy.”

The business community needs to be part of this dialogue. One of the strongest arguments for the adoption of renewables is economic.

“A lot people in the private sector, who presumably have the ear of the Trump administration, will simply say it makes a lot of sense to go this way.”

Hoffman says that If it had the political will, and made appropriate investments, reports show that America could obtain 80% of its’ electrical energy from renewable sources by 2050.

(Listen to Dr. Hoffman describe these issues in more detail – as well as topics like the United States’ attitudes towards a woman President, the keystone XL pipeline, and oil by rail – in the podcast embedded in the original version of this article).

 

More History – Circa 1997

This is the second of the two articles from the 1990s mentioned in the previous blog post. It was published in the November-December 1997 issue of Asia Pacific Economic Review.

……………………….

Why We Must Move Toward Renewable Energy
by Allan R. Hoffman

Rapid economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region has been and will continue to be mirrored by a rapid increase in energy demand. Between 1970 and 1995 primary energy demand in the region increased from 19 to 70 Quads (quadrillion BTUs). This figure is expected to increase to 135 Quads in 2010 and to 159 Quads in 2015 (Source: Energy Information Administration International Energy Outlook, 1997). The World Bank has estimated that developing countries alone will require 5 million megawatts of new electrical capacity over the next four decades to meet the needs of their expanding economies. The world’s current total installed capacity is just under 3 million megawatts. Thus, even if the World Bank’s estimate is too optimistic, installed world generation capacity will essentially have to double during the next 40 years. This much new capacity will require trillions of dollars of new investment.

What does this mean for renewable electric technologies – I.e., electricity generated from solar, biomass, wind, geothermal and hydropower resources? Fossil fuels are likely to remain the dominant energy source through the middle of the next century, while renewables can anticipate capturing only a fraction of that market. Every one percent of the emerging market in developing countries represents $50-100 billion of investment. If renewables can capture several percent of that market, the potential exists for several hundred billion dollars of renewable technology sales worldwide over the next four decades. Why are renewables important? They are the most environmentally responsible technologies available for power generation. Most renewable technologies have proven effective and reliable. Efforts are underway to further improve their technological performance, which may be the easiest problem to solve.

Providing Access to Renewables for Developing Countries
The more difficult problems are how to get renewable technologies into people’s hands, how to pay for them, and how to set up the non-technological infrastructure needed for widespread deployment of renewables. In many applications, 
renewables are the least cost energy option. 
Thinking on energy costs is distorted in the 
United States because of relatively low 
energy prices. Outside the US the story is 
very different. Average electricity prices in 
Germany and Japan approach or exceed 
20 cents per kilowatt-hour. Even in remote 
parts of the US, such as Alaska, electricity prices range from 40 to 60 cents per kilowatt-hour. In many parts of the world, including remote areas of the Asia-Pacific 
region, it is hard to put a price on electricity because there is no access to it. The current world population is 5.8 billion people. 
It is estimated that more than 2 billion of 
those people have no access to electricity. 
In China alone that number is 120 million. 
At least another half billion people around the world have such limited or unreliable 
access to electricity, that for all intents and 
purposes they have no electricity. If we are 
to make a difference in these people’s lives, 
we have to make available to them free-standing power sources suitable for off- 
grid applications – i.e., renewable electric 
technologies. When people have no access 
to electricity, even a 35 watt photovoltaic 
panel or a small wind machine can make a 
very large difference in their lives. Where 
the alternative is to extend expensive electrical transmission and distribution systems, use of these technologies can be cost 
effective.

What is the status of renewable 
technologies today? Costs for photovoltaics, the use of semiconductor materials to 
convert sunlight directly into electricity, 
have come down from approximately $1 per kWh in 1980 to 20-30 cents per kWh 
today. With increasing scales of manufacturing and increasing emphasis on thin-film devices, electricity costs from photovoltaics are expected to fall below 10 cents 
per kilowatt-hour early in the next decade. 
Current annual world production has just 
exceeded 100 megawatts, and is growing 
at more than 20 percent per year. This corresponds to a doubling time of less than 4 
years. Current US. production capacity (40 
megawatts per year) is fully subscribed, 
and half a dozen new or expanded manufacturing plants are scheduled for operation within the next 18 months. Roughly 
70 percent of US. production is currently 
exported.

The “3- Flavors” of Solar Thermal 

Another form of solar energy, solar thermal technology, concentrates sunlight to 
create heat that can then be used to generate stearn and/or electricity. This technology comes in 3 “flavors”: troughs that con
centrate sunlight along the axis of parabolic 
collectors; power towers that surround a 
central receiver with a field of concentrating mirrors called heliostats; and dish-engine systems that use radar-type dishes to 
focus sunlight on heat-driven engines such 
as the Sterling engine. Electricity costs from 
the parabolic trough units are in the 10 to 
12 cents per kilowatt-hour range, but can 
be reduced. Costs of electricity from the 
other two solar thermal technologies are 
expected to be even lower than those of the 
parabolic trough systems, and could reach 
4 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour when manufactured in commercial quantities.

The world has large resources of organic 
material, called biomass, which occurs in a 
variety of forms (wood, grasses, crops and 
crop residues). Biomass can be converted 
into energy in a number of ways. As wood-burning fuel, it has been used extensively 
in developing parts of the world, often resulting in widespread deforestation, soil 
loss, declining farm productivity, and increasing likelihood of seasonal flooding. In 
future, the most effective way to use biomass is likely to be gasification, where the 
resulting gas can either be used as fuel for 
high efficiency combustion turbines, or as 
synthesis material for producing liquid fuels. The US Department of Energy (DOE) 
has a series of projects underway to determine how to most effectively use biomass 
for energy production. DOE is experimenting with biomass-coal co-firing in New 
York state, biogasification with bagasse 
(the residue from sugar cane) in Hawaii, 
with wood in Vermont, with switchgrass 
in Iowa, and with alfalfa in Minnesota. Biomass-based electricity has the advantage 
of being a baseload technology (i.e., it can 
be operated 24 hours a day) and is carbon 
dioxide neutral – i.e., the carbon dioxide 
released during its use is recaptured by the 
biomass during its growth. The revenue 
derived from the sale of biomass resources 
can be an important component in rural 
economic development. Costs for biomass-generated electricity are expected to be 
competitive as long as biomass resource 
costs remain reasonable.

Europe “Blows with the Wind”
Many locations offer wind resources. Wind 
is the fastest growing energy technology 
in the world today. Most ofthe 17,000 wind 
turbines in the United States are located in 
California, but a dozen U.S. states (from the 
Dakotas south to Texas) have greater wind 
potential. Today’s highly reliable machines 
(typically available 95-98% of the time) provide electricity at 5 cents per kilowatt-hour 
at moderate wind sites. The next generation of turbines, currently under development, should provide electricity at half that 
cost. Use of wind energy is expanding rapidly in many parts of the world, with 
Europe’s installed capacity now exceeding 
that of the United States (4,000 megawatts 
compared to 1,700 megawatts). India ranks 
third with 800 megawatts of wind generated capacity. Large wind generation 
projects are also being planned for China and other parts of the developing world. 
Geothermal resources – i.e. hot water or 
steam derived from reservoirs below the 
surface of the earth – were first used to generate electricity in Italy in 1904. Today, more 
than 6,000 megawatts of geothermal power 
are installed world wide, with about half of 
that in the United States. Rapid expansion 
of geothermal power is taking place in several places around the world, most notably in Indonesia, the Philippines, Mexico 
and Central America. Geothermal power 
is a baseload technology. It can be a low 
cost option if the hot water or steam re
source is at a high temperature. One California geothermal project produces electricity at 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Limit to Fossil Fuels?
Given the world energy situation, one can
not project today’s energy system into the 
long-term future. Fossil fuels will continue 
to be the primary fuel source for years to 
come. As history has shown, the transition to a different energy system is likely 
to take 50 to 100 years. The world cannot 
continue to be dependent on fossil fuels. 
Transportation issues are a good example 
of this misplaced reliance. If a reasonable 
fraction of the large and growing populations of China and India start driving cars 
as people in the developed world do, demand and prices for petroleum resources 
will grow rapidly, causing serious international supply problems and political ten
sion; unacceptable environmental consequences will affect us all. There is a limit 
to the Earth’s fossil fuel reserves. Whether 
it takes 50 years, 100 years or longer, these 
reserves will run out. The head of Shell 
UK, Ltd., a highly respected oil industry 
planning organization, has said: “There is 
clearly a limit to fossil fuels. Fossil fuel resources and supplies are likely to peak at 
around 2030, before declining slowly. Far 
more important will be the contribution of 
alternative renewable energy supply.” For 
many reasons, financial and otherwise, 
nuclear power is not likely to meet the energy needs of developing countries. Hydro
power is the most mature form of renewable energy and already provides a significant share of the world’s electricity. Though 
potential exists for further hydropower developement in many parts of the developing 
world, significant hydropower expansion in 
developed countries is unlikely to occur 
because of environmental concerns. With 
limited choices, the world is entering the 
early stages of an inevitable transition to a 
sustainable world energy system dependent 
on renewable energy resources.
_____________________________________________________________
Dr. Allan R. Hoffman is Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
the Office of Utility Technologies, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
Department of Energy in Washington, D.C.