A Presidential Campaign Speech from 2052

(Note to my readers: please allow me this ‘indulgence’ as it allows me to discuss what I see coming in the energy field.)

My fellow Americans, I am pleased to announce today my candidacy for President of the United State. We have just turned the corner on the first half of the 21st century, a time of significant change for our country and many other countries. In 2052 it is time to consolidate and reaffirm those changes that are beneficial, and plan for the coming decades. The 21st century has been an American century, but not exclusively – other parts of the world have demonstrated global leadership both economically and politically in these past 50 years – and it is encumbent on a new set of U.S. leaders to continue the American century in peaceful and meaningful cooperation with our global partners. Before discussing my plans for the future I would like to review what I see as the history and the accomplishments of the century’s first fifty years.

The century began as an extension of the 20th century – multiple national conflicts, internal dissension in many countries, and heavy dependence on traditional fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Global population continued to increase – having grown from 1.8 billion to more than 6 billion in the past century – and is expected to reach as much as 10 billion sometime before the turn of the current century. That number in 2052 is just under eight billion.

Increasing electrification was an important characteristic of the 20th century and will continue to define the 21st century as well. It is allowing increasing numbers of people to enjoy the energy services that access to electricity and other forms of energy brings – lighting, heating, cooling, communication, transportation, and the ability to make things quickly and in quantity. Today, fewer than five percent of the world’s population lacks access to reliable electricity supplies, and this number should reach zero in the next two decades. Essentially all have access to wireless devices that allow widespread communication and access to the world’s store of information.

This access to energy, the closely related access to clean water, and wireless capability have significantly reduced global poverty and greatly enhanced opportunities for learning. The education revolution that has been made possible by universal access to the internet, for both women and men, and the individualized learning that the computer revolution has made possible, together with energy access, has finally allowed a slowdown in the rate of population growth so that a stabilized global population may be achievable in my lifetime.

This century has also seen other powerful changes. In 2008 our country elected its first black President, and then reelected him in 2012 as affirmation of their good judgement four years before. In 2016 the U.S., after a lengthy and often nasty presidential campaign, elected its first female president, who once and for all showed that women can serve effectively at the highest levels of our political life. Together with the military opening all its ranks to female participation in 2015, the so-called ‘glass ceiling’ was finally shattered, never to be restored. That election also saw the election of a Vice President of Hispanic ethnicity, who eventually went on to become the 47th President of the United States. Today I am trying to shatter still another political barrier by attempting to become the first Muslim American to receive the nomination for President of a major political party.

While much has changed in the past five decades, and I will discuss one of the most important changes in detail shortly, not everything has changed, unfortunately. We are still human beings, with all our many shortcomings, and religious and racial intolerance are still major sources of pain and conflict in the modern world. While the threat of Islamic jihadism that arose forcefully in the first few decades of the century has been reduced significantly through the actions of a global coalition of Muslim and non-Muslim governments, remnants are still with us and require careful attention. As our President I would commit all the resources needed, in cooperation with our allies, to keep this threat under control. A major factor in controlling this threat has been the willingness of Sunni and Shiite governments to put aside their religious differences In the name of their overriding commonality, Islam.

Among the other changes we have seen in our lifetime is the establishment of the first human colonies on the moon and on Mars. The moon colony was a joint U.S.-Chinese achievement in 2032, just twenty years ago, and the first Mars colony of four people was established just 8 years ago, in 2044. Both were extraordinary events at the time, and commanded global attention, but as is true of so many achievements in outer space the existence of the colonies is becoming part of the background. That is an OK result as we want space travel to become a routine part of the mainstream.

Other major steps forward have been in the field of medicine. With advances in DNA measurement and manipulation personalized treatment has become routine for many gene-related diseases. It is not unusual today to see people living into their second centuries and still functioning normally. Of course the social security and related safety-net systems in the U.S. have had to be adjusted for this new longevity, and as you might expect, only after long and difficult political battles.

Finally, let me talk in some detail about the most important revolution of the 21st century, one I have worked hard to support in my current position as a U.S. Senator. It is one that I am committed to support and advance if I am privileged to serve as your President. That is the energy revolution that started in the latter part of the 20th century, took flight during the early decades of the 21st, and is today reaching all parts of the globe. It is a transition point in human history.

The 1973-74 Oil Embargo, which took place almost a century ago, was a brutal wake up call for many nations, including our own. The history books tell many stories about how Americans, for the first time, began to look at energy issues in a different light. Prior to the Embargo energy costs were sufficiently low that it was not an area of public concern. Then, one day Americans awakened to the fact that much of their energy, especially for transportation, was imported from abroad, and that such supplies were subject to political uncertainties beyond our control. This was true in the countries of Western Europe as well. We responded by creating the International Energy Agency, a mechanism for sharing oil reserves among countries if another embargo threatened our energy supplies. We also started looking at energy alternatives, with particular emphasis on nuclear power. In fact the public mantra at that time by our political leaders was a doubling every decade of the number of nuclear power plants deployed in the U.S. A few others raised concerns about nuclear power and called for examination of enhanced energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives. Until that time renewable energy had not been seriously considered except in the case of hydroelectricity. The suggestion related to enhanced energy efficiency was dismissed by economists and others who saw economic growth (GDP) tied one-to-one with energy consumption, and renewables were attacked as too expensive and incapable of meeting the demands of the U.S. economy. These arguments persisted for several decades until it was shown that GDP and energy consumption were not directly linked, climate change associated with combustion of fossil fuels became a major global issue, the costs of renewable energy systems began to decrease, and the ability of renewable energy in the form of electricity, biofuels, and heat were shown capable of supporting large economies. These new realities became the focus of policy debates in the first two decades of the century, and finally came to govern U.S. energy policy in the third decade when the majority of the private sector finally put its full support behind renewables and the battle to limit global warming. All Presidents since the Obama era have supported a move away from dependence on fossil fuels – it was 80% at the turn of the century – and Congress finally placed a steadily increasing cost on carbon emissions in 2020. This created the economic environment needed for investment in clean energy technologies and reduced use of fossil fuels. It allowed the U.S. to finally catch up with the many other countries that had seen the importance of these changes and implemented appropriate policies many years before.

These changes have led to today’s energy situation in the U.S. – 70% of electricity is generated by solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal, natural gas from fracking peaked in 2040 and is steadily being replaced as an energy source in power plants as renewables take over, petroleum from fracking of oil shale peaked at about the same time and has been used to power aging and disappearing transportation fleets, electric vehicles dominate the automobile and light duty truck markets, all new aircraft and ships are designed to run on alternative biofuels, energy efficiency has been enshrined as the cornerstone of national energy policy, coal has been replaced as a domestic energy source except in a few industries, and nuclear power’s share of electricity generation has been steadily reduced to its current value of 5%. Total national energy demand has been stable even as the U.S. population has increased to 400 million, all new homes are routinely outfitted with solar energy rooftop systems and ground source heart pumps wherever feasible, the U.S. leads the world in wind turbine and wind energy production, we are second only to China in offshore wind energy deployment and production, and battery energy storage has become as ubiquitous as any other household appliance.

The world has turned a corner in these pat 50 years, undergoing an inevitable transition to dependence on energy from the sun and heat derived from radioactive decay in the core of the earth. These clean energy sources will last as long as people populate the earth, unlike fossil fuels which are depletable on any timescale relevant to humankind. We owe much to our fossil fuel resources, the product of millions of years of transformation of organic materials subject to high temperatures and extreme pressures deep in the earth, but the fossil fuel era is coming to an end and will eventually be only a blip on the timeline of history.

My promise to you as your President will be to continue and strengthen this transition in all ways possible so that our children, grandchildren, and their heirs, will live in a world free of global warming and the other harmful impacts of burning fossil fuels. Nuclear fission power had its day as well, but the issues associated with its use – cost, safety, long term storage of wastes, and weapons proliferation – have proved too difficult to accept now that renewable energy has been shown up to the task of meeting societal needs. Nuclear fusion, a much cleaner form of nuclear energy, remains as a long term possibility as well, but progress in taming the process that powers our sun and other stars has been slow and time will tell if controlled nuclear fusion has a future here on earth. I support continued cooperation with other countries in researching this technology that offers unlimited energy availability but so far has always been a few years away. Our investments largely must go into renewable technologies to ensure completion of the transition. This is our legacy to the future.

Revisiting the Keystone XL Pipeline Issue

President Obama’s recent decision to deny Trans Canada’s application for permission to build the national boundary-crossing Keystone XL pipeline raises several questions about my earlier recommendation to the President to approve the pipeline (see my July 6, 2013 blog post ‘Keystone XL Pipeline: A Memorandum to the President’). My first question to myself is what has changed since July 2013 to justify such a decision, at least in the President’s mind?

What I don’t believe has changed is the reality that a U.S. negative decision on the pipeline will not change Canadian intentions to develop and exploit its large tar sands resources, that development of these resources will not have a significant impact on global carbon emissions (the principal argument put forth by some environmental groups opposed to the pipeline), that U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil suppliers will decrease if oil is imported from Canada, or that Canada does not lack alternative transportation means to move bitumen to U.S. refineries. Canada will sell its oil resources to us and/or other global trading partners regardless, and will build other pipelines if necessary to export from its east or west coasts. It is true that mining the oil in tar sands will introduce additional carbon into the atmosphere, but this is the wrong battle to focus on – the amount is small in comparison to the much more important global warming issues that require our attention. And the battle against the pipeline, which would probably have been the most carefully regulated pipeline in history, ignores the reality that Trans Canada is already shipping bitumen to the U.S. via railway cars, a dangerous means of transportation with a bad track record, and one that Trans Canada will likely turn to even more now that the pipeline application has been denied.

What has changed is significant: the market price of oil is approximately half of what it was in 2013, Canada has a new federal government that is likely to be more environmentally oriented than the previous Conservative government, and President Obama has decided that an important part of his legacy will be global leadership on climate change issues. The sharp reduction in oil prices, which is likely to persist, has made oil exploration and development more problematic in economic terms, and the switch in Canada from Harper to Trudeau represents an important shift in governing philosophy and approach to environmental issues. Perhaps most important in explaining President Obama’s recent decision is the third factor, his legacy. There was an obvious shift in Obama’s willingness to speak out on climate issues after the 2014 midterm elections when he no longer had to worry about jeopardizing the electoral chances of Democratic House and Senate candidates. His behavior since has been one many of us have long been waiting for, and he has taken the lead in arguing for limits on carbon emissions both domestically and globally, a welcome and needed change. The Keystone decision is of a piece with this new behavior, especially with the Paris meeting on climate change coming up next month. This clearly political decision may be justified for some on the basis that if the U.S. won’t take even small symbolic steps to reduce carbon emissions and global warming, why should other countries striving to improve their economic welfare undertake such efforts?

If the environmental groups opposing the pipeline had made this latter argument in 2013 I could have better understood their opposition. But they didn’t – they incorrectly projected the pipeline issue as having a major global impact on carbon emissions, and completely avoided discussing the dangers associated with shipment of bitumen by railway car.

It was the wrong issue in my view to devote so many resources to, when environmental sensitivity is needed on more important issues such as the need to expedite the transition from a fossil-fuel dependent economy to one increasingly dependent on renewable energy. My views were captured by a Washington Post editorial on November 6th that stated:

“Yet world governments are smart enough to recognize what many activists apparently have not: The Keystone XL fight hardly matters in the grand scheme of the global climate. Perceptions of U.S. climate leadership depend on Environmental Protection Agency rules to reduce emissions from U.S. power plants and cars, not on a domestic political psychodrama.

Some smart environmentalists have excused jettisoning substance and siding with the anti-Keystone XL crowd by emphasizing the symbolic importance of the pipeline. Cultivating enthusiasm with a victory on Keystone XL might lead to meaningful progress in other areas of climate policy, the thinking goes. Not only does this view infantilize environmentalists, its illogic could justify all sorts of irrational, arbitrary decision-making.”

The Coal Conundrum

A long article in the October 16th Washington Post, ‘U.S. exports emissions – as coal’ by Joby Warrick, points out the conundrum posed by the U.S.’s abundant coal resources. These coal reserves provide a relatively low cost energy resource that can be burned to produce steam and electricity and improve human welfare in both the U.S. and other countries. However, its combustion produces large amounts of carbon dioxide that when added to the atmosphere causes global warming and associated global climate change. The conundrum arises from a clear conflict of values – the need to provide energy services to people around the world, in particular people in developing countries whose per capita consumption of electricity is well below that of developed countries, and the need to address climate change with its many adverse consequences, identified by many as the most serious problem facing the globe. No easy answer exists to satisfy those on both sides of this conundrum.

Several statements in Warrick’s well-researched article captured my attention, including: “Just a dozen nearby mines, scattered across a valley known as the Powder River Basin (Wyoming), contain enough coal to meet the country’s electricity needs for decades. But burning all of it would release more than 450 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – more than all greenhouse-gas emissions from all sources since 2000.” and “The Obama Administration is seeking to curb the United States’ appetite for the basin’s coal, which scientists say must remain mostly in the ground to prevent a disastrous warming of the planet. Yet each year, nearly half a billion tons of this U.S.-owned fuel are hauled from the region’s vast strip mines and millions of tons are shipped overseas for other countries to burn.”

Given the legitimate needs on both sides of this conundrum I can see only one path to follow to bring the benefits of electricity to as many people as possible while minimizing the risks associated with burning coal. This is to promote the use of energy efficiency technologies wherever feasible, to reduce the demand for coal-based electricity, and expedite the development and deployment of renewable electric technologies such as solar and wind as substitutes for coal. This is already happening to some extent as the world slowly begins to come to grips with the climate change problem, but the pace needs to and can be accelerated. The ability of renewables to meet most of the world’s electricity needs has been documented in several recent studies, e.g., the June 2012 NREL report entitled ‘Renewable Electricity Futures Study’, and what is now needed is a commitment on the part of national governments and international institutions to make it happen as quickly as possible. It is a matter not of technology but of political will and financial resources. Admittedly, such a switch from coal and other fossil fuels (natural gas, oil) that also produce carbon dioxide when combusted, to a renewables-based energy economy, will take time, lots af planning, and lots of money. However, when the full costs of using fossil fuels are taken into consideration, including not just market costs but also health and climate change-related costs (such as coastline flooding due to rising seas, changed precipition patterns that adversely impact water availability and agricultural production), and international tensions due to competition for fossil fuel resources, renewables become a much more attractive and even less expensive long-term option. Renewable resources are also insensitive to cost increases once initial capital investments are made, unlike fossil fuels that rely on a depletable resource that produces uncertain and often volatile costs.

Nuclear power advocates will make some of the same arguments since the process of releasing energy via nuclear fission does not produce greenhouse gases, but nuclear technology faces four serious problems: high cost, safety, the need for long-term radioactive waste storage, and proliferation of weapons capability. If these problems can be successfully addressed, then nuclear-powered electricity can be a viable option for the future. Nuclear power also offers the tantalizing option of nuclear fusion, a relatively safer and cleaner nuclear technology with enormous resource potential, but the problem of achieving controlled nuclear fusion on earth (it is the process that powers our sun) is proving to be the most difficult technological challenge the world has faced to date. It can legitimately be labeled ‘the technology that is always a few years away.’

In sum, the choice is ours – we can continue to use our coal resources without limit or we can move more quickly to a clean energy society that provides needed energy services and minimizes global warming and climate change effects. I vote for the latter.

What Will Historians Say About Recent U.S. Congresses?

American history is filled with ugly periods of political confrontation and no-nothingness and recent years are no exception.

Political dialogue between two of our founders, Jefferson and Adams, was vindictive and nasty. It was only as both approached their final years that comity began to appear in their relationship and they died as reconciled friends on the same day, July 4, 1826.

Andrew Jackson, seventh President of the United States, disregarded an order from the Supreme Court and forced thousands of Native Americans to move from Georgia to the Oklahoma territory, a lasting stain on U.S. history. The Native American Party, renamed in 1855 as American Party and commonly called the Know Nothing movement, was an American political party that operated on a national basis during the mid-1850s. It promised to purify American politics by limiting or ending the influence of Irish Catholics and other immigrants. Mainly active from 1854 to 1856, it met with little success. There have been several other periods of anti-immigrant fervor in American history, dating to the early days of the Republic, and even continuing today.

A number of politicians of both major political parties in the U.S. in the middle of the 19th century continued to support slavery, leading to the formation of the Republican Party in 1854 and the election of Abraham Lincoln as President in 1860. The post-WWII period saw the rise of McCarthyism in the U.S. and it took years for the public and policians to address the damage this ‘ism’ was doing to America. And today we have loud voices taking issue with some of the fundamental tenets of American democracy.

I state all this as my way of getting to what triggered this piece, my concern about the know-nothingness exhibited by people who deny the obvious, that the earth is warming, the oceans are gathering more heat, glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, and weather patterns are changing as a result of the several greenhouse gases we are adding to the atmosphere, mainly carbon dioxide and methane. The following cartoon by Toles in the Washington Post of 27 September 2015 was the immediate trigger:

By image

It is my firm belief that when historians look back on this period in American history they will be unkind to those politicians and other leaders who disparaged or minimized the reality of global warming and subsequent climate change for their ignorance, short-sightedness, and failure to prepare for the future. My cynical self also believes that many of these ‘leaders’ do understand what science is so clearly saying – it is basic physics after all – but adopt their public positions for political or other self-serving reasons. Even the Pope has enriched this discussion by stating in his recent encyclical: “The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries has repercussions on the poorest areas of the world, especially Africa, where a rise in temperature, together with drought, has proved devastating for farming.”

Whatever their reasons they are failing the American public and future generations by failing to act now in prudent ways to forestall greater difficulties and more expensive solutions in the future. A theme I always espouse is that a major responsibility of public officials is to look down the road, anticipate problems, and take steps to prevent problems from developing into crises. In my opinion the U.S. has failed to do this in recent years due to unusual (but not unique) polarization in the U.S. Congress and between the Congress and the President, with a high price attached. Not only is climate change a real, measurable phenomenon that we are still struggling to fully understand with all its consequences, but by failing to take the necessary steps now to move the U.S. more quickly to a clean energy society we are limiting the U.S.’s ability to compete as effectively as it could in future global energy markets. This future is coming, as more and more people around the world are recognizing and incorporating into their plans. Nevertheless, elements of the U.S. Congress still resist change, protect vested interests, and protect their political selves by attacking and denying well documented science. They should be held responsible for limiting the U.S. response to climate change and a changing energy world, and history will surely do so. Unfortunately, they will no longer be in office or responsible for corporate decisions and have to face up to their failure of vision and shortcomings.

The solutions are public education and the ballot box, which in democratic societies can be a slow process. But the understanding of climate change and its impacts on precipitation patterns, animal and plant diversity, storm intensity, public health, and coastline flooding is coming, as is the transition from a fossil-field based global economy to one increasingly dependent on renewable energy. It is Congress’ responsibility to set policies that advance this understanding and movement forward.

It is Time to Take the Next Step on Energy Policy

The following piece was first published on energypost.eu and the text is reprinted here as a new blog post.
……………………..

US desperately needs a national energy policy
September 24, 2015 by Allan Hoffman

The US – and indeed the world – is at a crossroads when it comes to the choice on how we want to provide energy services in the future, writes US energy expert Allan Hoffman. According to Hoffman, the US desperately needs a national energy policy that recognizes the importance of moving to a renewable energy future as quickly as possible. Without such a policy, economic growth, the environment and national security will suffer.

There are two fundamental ‘things’ needed to sustain human life, water and energy. Water is the more precious of the two as reflected in the Arab saying “Water is life.” Without water life as we know it would not exist, and there are no substitutes for water – without it we die.

We also need energy to power our bodies, derived from chemical conversions of the food we consume. We also need energy to enable the external energy services we rely on in daily life – lighting, heating, cooling, transportation, clean water, communications, entertainment, and commercial and industrial activities. Where energy differs from water as a critical element of sustainable development is the fact that energy is available in many different forms for human use – e.g., by combustion of fossil fuels, nuclear power, and various forms of renewable energy.

Critical juncture

Today the U.S., and indeed the world, stands at a critical juncture on how to provide these energy services in the future. Historically, energy has been provided to some extent by human power, by animal power, and the burning of wood to create heat and light. Wind energy was also used for several centuries to power ships and land-based windmills that provided mechanical energy for water-pumping and threshing. With the discovery and development of large energy resources in the form of stored chemical energy in hydrocarbons such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas, the world turned to the combustion of these fuels to release large amounts of thermal energy and eventually electricity with the development of steam power generators. Nuclear power was introduced in the period following World War II as a new source of heat for producing steam and powering electricity generators and ships.

My recommendation is to put a long-term and steadily increasing price on carbon emissions to motivate appropriate private sector decisions to use fewer fossil fuels and more renewable energy and let the markets work

Renewable energy, energy that is derived directly or indirectly from the sun’s energy intercepted by the earth (except for geothermal energy that is derived from radioactive decay in the earth’s core), has been available for a while in the form of hydropower, originally in the form of run-of-the-river water wheels, and since the 20th century in the form of large hydroelectric dams. Other forms of renewable energy have emerged recently as important options for the future, driven by steadily reducing costs, the realization that fossil fuels, while currently available in large quantity but eventually depletable, put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when combusted, contributing to global warming and associated climate change. Renewable energy technologies, except for biomass conversion or combustion, puts no carbon into the atmosphere, but even in the biomass case it is a no-net-carbon situation since carbon is absorbed in the growing of biomass materials such as wood and other crops.

Support for renewables is also driven by increasing awareness that while nuclear power generation does not put carbon into the atmosphere it does create multigenerational radioactive waste disposal problems, can be expensive, raises low probability but high consequence safety issues, and is a step on the road to proliferation of nuclear weapons capability. Another driver is the now well documented and growing understanding that renewable energy, in its many forms, can provide the bulk of our electrical energy needs, as long disputed by competing energy sources.

Clean future

All these introductory comments are leading to a discussion of the energy policy choice facing our country, and other countries, and my recommendations for that policy. This choice has been avoided by the U.S. Congress in recent years, much to the short-term and long-term detriment of the U.S. We desperately need a national energy policy that recognizes the importance of energy efficiency and moving to a renewable energy future as quickly as possible. That policy should be one that creates the needed environment for investment in renewable technologies and one that will allow the U.S. to be a major economic player in the world’s inevitable march to a clean energy future.

Before getting into policy specifics, let me add just a few more words on renewable energy technologies. Hydropower is well known as the conversion of the kinetic energy of moving water into electrical energy via turbine generators. Solar energy is the direct conversion of solar radiation directly into electricity via photovoltaic (solar) cells or the use of focused/concentrated solar energy to produce heat and then steam and electricity. Wind energy, an indirect form of solar energy due to uneven heating of the earth’s surface, converts the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical energy and electricity. Geothermal energy uses the heat of the earth to heat water into steam and electricity, or to heat homes and other spaces directly. Biomass energy uses the chemical energy captured in growing organic material either directly via combustion or in conversion to other fuel sources such as biofuels. Ocean energy uses the kinetic energy in waves and ocean currents, and the thermal energy in heated ocean areas, to create other sources of mechanical and electrical energy. All in all, a rich menu of energy options that we are finally exploring in depth.

Controversial

Energy policy is a complicated and controversial field, reflecting many different national, global, and vested interests. Today’s world is largely powered by fossil fuels and is likely to be so powered for several decades into the future until renewable energy is brought more fully into the mainstream. Unnfortunately this takes time as history teaches, and the needs of developing and developed nations (e.g., in transportation) need to be addressed during the period in which the transition takes place.

The critical need is to move through this transition as quickly as possible. Without clear national energy policies that recognize the need to move away from a fossil fuel-based energy system, and to a low-carbon clean energy future, as quickly as possible, this inevitable transition will be stretched out unnecessarily, with adverse environmental, job-creation, and other economic and national security impacts.

My recommendation is to put a long-term and steadily increasing price on carbon emissions to motivate appropriate private sector decisions to use fewer fossil fuels and more renewable energy and let the markets work. Nuclear power, another low-carbon technology, remains an option as long as the problems listed earlier can be addressed adequately. My personal view is that renewables are a much better answer.

The revenues generated by such a ‘tax’ can be used to reduce social inequities introduced by such a tax, lower other taxes, and enable investments consistent with long-term national needs. In the U.S. it also provides a means for cooperation between Republicans and Democrats, something we have not seen for several decades. It is clear that President Obama ‘gets it’. It is now more than time for U.S. legislators to get it as well.

Editor’s Note (Karel Beckman, energypost.eu)

Allan Hoffman, former Senior Analyst in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), writes a regular blog: Thoughts of a Lapsed Physicist.

On Energy Post, we regularly publish posts from Allan’s blog,in his blog section Policy & Technology. His writings often deal with issues at the intersection of energy technology, policy and markets. Allan, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from Brown University, served as Staff Scientist with the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and in a variety of senior management positions at the U.S. National Academies of Sciences and the DOE. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.