INDEX of all
files on this site
This informal
website is primarily for information and discussion
between the present members of the Energy PMP .
This site is
publicly available but a related 'private"
website is available with password access.
To post something on this
site, send it to the present webmaster at wilson5@fas
.harvard.edu.
I would prefer it in html, or in pdf formats, but any format
such as msword and power point presentation will be acceptable pro
tem. You will be able
to download them but not open
them on line.
THE MOST RECENT REPORT IS FIRST;
earlier reports are at the end. BUT for a given
meeting the reports are in order
October 2nd 2009
The report
of the energy pmp for 2009
SEPTEMBER
28TH 2009
****************************************
42nd SESSION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SEMINARS ON PLANETARY EMERGENCIES AND ASSOCIATED MEETINGS
PERMANENT
MONITORING PANELS
Climate - Energy – Limits of Development
– Pollution - Water
FIVE PMPs INTERDISCIPLINARY WORKSHOP
Erice, 24 August 2009
Workshop Summary
42nd SESSION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SEMINARS ON PLANETARY EMERGENCIES AND ASSOCIATED MEETINGS
Plenary
Sessions August 2009
Session No: 5
09.30-13.00
ENERGY
& CLIMATE
09.30 –
13.00 SESSION N° 5
Professor Edward S. Rubin,
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
The Outlook for Power Plant CO2
Capture
Dr. Wolfgang Eichhammer,
Competence Centre Energy Policy and Energy Systems, Fraunhofer
Institute for Systems and Innovation Research
Making Rapid Transition to an Energy
System centred on Energy Efficiency and Renewables possible
Dr. Giorgio Simbolotti, ENEA,
President's Office, Senior Advisor on Energy Technology
Beyond Emerging Low-carbon
Technologies to Face Climate Change
paper
Lee Lane, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Washington,
DC, USA
Organizing
the Search for New Climate Solutions
Dr. Michael C. MacCracken,
Climate Institute, Washington, DC, USA
Moderating Climate Change by Limiting
Emissions of Both Short- and Long-Lived Greenhouse Gases
Dr.
Masao Tamada,
Japan Atomic Energy Agency
Extracting
Uranium from Sea Water
16.30 – 19.00 SESSION N° 6
Dr. Mark Levine
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, USA
Energy
Challenges for both China and the United States
Professor Zhang Xiliang
Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy, Tsinghua University,
Beijing
Technologies and Policies for Low
Carbon Energy System Transformation in China
Professor Li Mingyuan
OR Research Center, China University of Petroleum
Assessment pf CO2 Storage
Potential in Oil/Gas Reservoirs in the Songliao Basin of China
Professor Yuan Daoxian
UNESCO International Research Center on Karst, Guilin, Guangxi, China
Carbon Cycle in
Karst Processes
,
Dr. Zhuang Jie
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment, University of
Tennessee, USA
Bioenergy in China: A Grand Challenge
for Environmental and Economic Sustainability
Professor Xia Jun
Centre for Water Resources Research and Key Laboratory of Water Cycle
and Related Surface Processes, CAS, Beijing, China
Screening for Climate Change
Adaptation: a Case Study on Managing the Potential Impact of Climate
Change to Water Sector in China
Chairman A. Zichichi – Co-chair Mark Levine
August 19th 2009 at
9.30 am
August 3rd 2008
Article by Aguilera on oil in Mddle East and Africa as submitted to OPEC review
July 24th
Two views of Fuel
efficiency in 1780 and in 1948. Both still topical.
July 21st 2009
This is a report by R Cleehus, S. Clemmer
and D Friedman and circulated by the Union of Concerned
Scientists. It seesm to offer something for
nothing. I put it here because UCS has been influential in
the past, and we may all have to express an opinion on it.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-2030-report.pdf
July 14th 2009
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today
issued the following
statement after voting against H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009: “It sets targets that are too weak,
especially in the short term,
and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting
methods. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the
problem that should be on its way out– coal – by giving it record
subsidies. And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways
at
taxpayer expense. There is $60 billion for a single technology
which
may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep
warming the planet at least another 20 years. “Worse, the bill locks us into a
framework that will fail. Science
tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the
planet. Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee
catastrophic levels of warming. But the bill does not require any
greenhouse gas reductions beyond current levels until 2030. “Today’s bill is a fragile compromise,
which leads some to claim
that we cannot do better. I respectfully submit that not only can
we
do better; we have no choice but to do better. Indeed, if we pass
a
bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk
away with only an illusion. The price for that illusion is the
opportunity to take substantive action. “There are several aspects of the
bill that are problematic. 2. The
offsets undercut the emission reductions. Offsets allow
polluters to keep polluting; they are rife with fraudulent claims of
emissions reduction; they create environmental, social, and economic
unintended adverse consequences; and they codify and endorse the idea
that polluters do not have to make sacrifices to solve the problem. “I offered eight amendments and
cosponsored two more that
collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting
point. All amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full
House. Three amendments endeavored to minimize the damage that
will be
done by offsets, a method of achieving greenhouse gas reductions that
has already racked up a history of failure to reduce emissions –
increasing emissions in some cases – while displacing people in
developing countries who rely on the land for their well being. “Three other amendments would have made
the federal government a
force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come
from renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to
transition to electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the
installation of solar panels on government rooftops and parking
lots.
These provisions would accelerate the transition to a green economy. “Another amendment would have moved up
the year by which reductions
of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025. It
would
have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced
opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an
allowance by a third each year. “The last amendment would have removed
trash incineration from the
definition of renewable energy. Trash incineration is one of the
primary sources of environmental injustice in the country. It a
primary source of compounds in the air known to cause cancer, asthma,
and other chronic diseases. These facilities are
disproportionately
sited in communities of color and communities of low income.
Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per unit of
electricity produced than coal-fired power plants. “Passing a weak bill today gives us weak
environmental policy tomorrow,” said Kucinich.
“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of
2009. The reason is simple. It won’t address the
problem. In fact,
it might make the problem worse.
1.
Overall targets are too weak. The bill is predicated on a
target atmospheric concentration of 450 parts per million, a target
that is arguably justified in the latest report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but which is already out of
date. Recent science suggests 350 parts per million is necessary to
help us avoid the worst effects of global warming.
3. It kicks the can down the road. By
requiring the bulk of the
emissions to be carried out in the long term and requiring few
reductions in the short term, we are not only failing to take the
action when it is needed to address rapid global warming, but we are
assuming the long term targets will remain intact.
4. EPA’s authority to help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the
short- to medium-term is rescinded. It is our best defense against a
new generation of coal power plants. There is no room for coal as
a
major energy source in a future with a stable climate.
5. Nuclear power is given a lifeline
instead of phasing it out.
Nuclear power is far more expensive, has major safety issues including
a near release in my own home state in 2002, and there is still no
resolution to the waste problem. A recent study by Dr. Mark
Cooper
showed that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the
life of 100 new nuclear reactors than to generate the same amount of
electricity from energy efficiency and renewables.
6. Dirty Coal is given a lifeline instead
of phasing it out.
Coal-based energy destroys entire mountains, kills and injures workers
at higher rates than most other occupations, decimates ecologically
sensitive wetlands and streams, creates ponds of ash that are so toxic
the Department of Homeland Security will not disclose their locations
for fear of their potential to become a terrorist weapon, and fouls the
air and water with sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates,
mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other toxic
compounds that cause asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, and
pulmonary and cardiac problems for starters. In contrast, several
times more jobs are yielded by renewable energy investments than
comparable coal investments.
7. The $60 billion allocated for Carbon
Capture and Sequestration
(CCS) is triple the amount of money for basic research and development
in the bill. We should be pressuring China, India and Russia to slow
and stop their power plants now instead of enabling their perpetuation.
We cannot create that pressure while spending unprecedented amounts on
a single technology that may or may not work. If it does not work on
the necessary scale, we have then spent 10-20 years emitting more CO2,
which we cannot afford to do. In addition, those who will profit from
the technology will not be viable or able to stem any leaks from CCS
facilities that may occur 50, 100, or 1000 years from now.
8. Carbon markets can and will be
manipulated using the same Wall
Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis.
9. It is regressive. Free
allocations doled out with the intent
of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale in
comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special
interests. The financial benefits of offsets and unlimited
banking
also tend to accrue to large corporations. And of course, the
trillion
dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors.
Much
of the benefits designed to assist consumers are passed through coal
companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on
the savings.
10. The Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) is not an
improvement.
The 15% RES standard would be achieved even if we failed to act.
11. Dirty energy options qualify as “renewable”: The bill allows
polluting industries to qualify as “renewable energy.” Trash
incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic
substances. These plants disproportionately expose communities of
color and low-income to the toxics. Biomass burners that allow
the use
of trees as a fuel source are also defined as “renewable.” Under the
bill, neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as
contributing to global warming.
12. It undermines our bargaining position in international
negotiations in Copenhagen and beyond. As the biggest per capita
polluter, we have a responsibility to take action that is
disproportionately stronger than the actions of other countries. It is,
in fact, the best way to preserve credibility in the international
context.
13. International assistance is much less than demanded by
developing
countries. Given the level of climate change that is already in the
pipeline, we are going to need to devote major resources toward
adaptation. Developing countries will need it the most, which is
why
they are calling for much more resources for adaptation and technology
transfer than is allocated in this bill. This will also undercut
our
position in Copenhagen.
G-8 Failure Reflects U.S. Failure on Climate Change
It didn't take long for the counterfeit climate bill known as Waxman-Markey to push back against President Obama's agenda. As the president was arriving in Italy for his first Group of Eight summit, the New York Times was reporting that efforts to close ranks on global warming between the G-8 and the emerging economies had already tanked:
The world's major industrial nations and emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on significant cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, unraveling an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following the talks.
Of course, emission targets in 2050 have limited practical meaning -- present leaders will be dead or doddering by then -- so these differences may be patched up. The important point is that other nations are unlikely to make real concessions on emissions if the United States is not addressing the climate matter seriously. With a workable climate bill in his pocket, President Obama might have been able to begin building that global consensus in Italy. Instead, it looks as if the delegates from other nations may have done what 219 U.S. House members who voted up Waxman-Markey last month did not: critically read the 1,400-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and deduce that it's no more fit to rescue our climate than a V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon. I share that conclusion, and have explained why to members of Congress before and will again at a Capitol Hill briefing on July 13. Science has exposed the climate threat and revealed this inconvenient truth: If we burn even half of Earth's remaining fossil fuels we will destroy the planet as humanity knows it. The added emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide will set our Earth irreversibly onto a course toward an ice-free state, a course that will initiate a chain reaction of irreversible and catastrophic climate changes.
The concentration of
CO2 in our atmosphere now stands at 387 parts per million, the highest
level in 600,000 years and more than 100 ppm higher than the amount at
the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Burning just the oil and gas
sitting in known fields will drive atmospheric CO2 well over 400 ppm
and ignite a devil's cauldron of melted icecaps, bubbling permafrost,
and combustible forests from which there will be no turning back. But
if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide, coal, we have a
chance to bring CO2 back to 350 ppm and still lower through
agricultural and forestry practices that increase carbon storage in
trees and soil. The essential step, then, is to phase out
coal emissions over the next two decades. And to declare off limits
artificial high-carbon fuels such as tar sands and shale while moving
to phase out dependence on conventional petroleum as well.
This requires nothing less than an energy revolution based on
efficiency and carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won't get there
with the Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in
Washington after energetic insemination by special interests.
For all its "green"
aura, Waxman-Markey locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands
it with a Ponzi-like "cap-and-trade" scheme. Here are a few of the
bill's egregious flaws:
It guts the Clean Air Act, removing EPA's ability to regulate CO2
emissions from power plants.
It sets meager targets -- 2020 emissions are to be a paltry 13% less than this
year's level -- and sabotages even these by permitting fictitious
"offsets," by which other nations are paid to preserve forests - while
logging and food production will simply move elsewhere to meet market
demand.
Its cap-and-trade system, reports former U.S. Undersecretary of
Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro, "has
no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy
companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically
in the permits and their derivatives."
It fails to set predictable prices for carbon, without which, Shapiro
notes, "businesses and households won't be able to calculate whether
developing and using less carbon-intensive energy and technologies
makes economic sense," thus ensuring that millions of carbon-critical
decisions fall short.
There is an
alternative, of course, and that is a carbon fee, applied at the source
(mine or port of entry) that rises continually. I prefer the
"fee-and-dividend" version of this approach in which all revenues are
returned to the public on an equal, per capita basis, so those with
below-average carbon footprints come out ahead.
A carbon fee-and-dividend would be an economic
stimulus and boon for the public. By the time the fee reached the
equivalent of $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton of CO2) the rebate in the
United States would be $2000-3000 per adult or $6000-9000 for a family
with two children.
Fee-and-dividend would work hand-in-glove with new
building, appliance, and vehicle efficiency standards. A rising carbon
fee is the best enforcement mechanism for building standards, and it
provides an incentive to move to ever higher energy efficiencies and
carbon-free energy sources. As engineering and cultural tipping points
are reached, the phase-over to post-fossil energy sources will
accelerate. Tar sands and shale would be dead and there would be no
need to drill Earth's pristine extremes for the last drops of
oil.
Some leaders of big environmental organizations have
said I'm naïve to posit an alternative to cap-and-trade, and have
suggested I stick to climate modeling. Let's pass a bill, any bill, now
and improve it later, they say. The real naïveté is their
belief that they, and not the fossil-fuel interests, are driving the
legislative process.
The fact is that the climate course set by
Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. Their bill is an astoundingly
inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions. It's less than
worthless, because it will delay by at least a decade starting on a
path that is fundamentally sound from the standpoints of both economics
and climate preservation.
Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who died
this week, suffered for 40 years -- as did our country -- from his
failure to turn back from a failed policy. As grave as the blunders of
the Vietnam War were, the consequences of a failed climate policy will
be more severe by orders of magnitude.
With the Senate debate over climate now beginning,
there is still time to turn back from cap-and-trade and toward
fee-and-dividend. We need to start now. Without political leadership
creating a truly viable policy like a carbon fee, not only won't we get
meaningful climate legislation through the Senate, we won't be able to
create the concerted approach we need globally to prevent catastrophic
climate change.
This is the
energy bill passed by the US House of represenatives and forwarded to
trhe US Senate
July 10th 2009
: Some notes about Peak Oil
I think the five easy
pieces need to be checked and perhaps revised and expanded.
I say this because one of the key premise of Peak oil is the
assumption that demand and supply will continue to increase
exponentially by a certain rate (say 1-2%), while oil resources are
limited no matter how large the ultimate in place resource is and what
fraction the
technology would allow us. Of course with these assumption, it is
easy to show, as
Peak oil theory application does, that the onset of the peak does not
change by much, perhaps a decade or two more. B However, demand and
supply does not have to behave that way, and globally they do not
behave that way. The
US case is special case. And when you add unconventional resources to a
likely moderation of demand for oil, plateauing (decreasing
growth
rate down to zero over time, so demand does not follow an
exponential growth path), then the picture of peak oil and peak oil
curves is no longer valid nor
useful. There are other issues I would like to add to the debate but I
must leave my computer screen now for a meeting ( I am in Boston
today).
I do appreciate this premeting discussions. It would certainly help us
focus and sharpen the presentations and discussions at the meeting.
Adnan Shihab-Eldin
Vienna +43 676 5372535, +43 664 332 8225
Kuwait +965 66151170
July 10th 2009
**************************************Erice,
18-26 August 2008
Overall Programme of Events
Welcome Dinner – Monday 18 August –
20.30
Permanent Monitoring Panel Meetings
– Tuesday 19 August – 09.30-19.00
Energy
- Pollution Limits of Development joint
discussions Paul A.M. Dirac Lecture
Hall - Patrick M.S. Blackett Institute
Information Security – Richard P.
Feynman Lecture Hall – Isidore I. Rabi Institute
Medicine; Climate; Mother &
Child; Statistics – Vaulted Rooms – Eugene P. Wigner Institute
Wednesday 20 August – Friday
22 August – 09.30-19.00
Energy - Nuclear Power, Present
and Future;
Introduction
Dr Richard Wilson
Harvard University, USA
Nuclear
Renaissance: anno 2008
Dr Frantisek Janouch
Sweden and Czech Republic
Nuclear
Power, Present and Future
Dr David J. Hill
Argonne National Laboratory, USA
Nuclear
Renaissance: Industrial Requirements for an integrated and sustainable
solution.
Dr Phillippe Gardaret
AREVA, France
Energy & Pollution - Resolving
the Nuclear Waste Issue on the Road to Sustainability;
Summary
Frank. L. Parker
Large
Radiation Accidents-Environmental and Medical Impoacts
R.M. Alexakhin
Russian Institute of Agricultural
Radiology and Agroecology, Obninsk, Russia
20
years
of Progress in Processing Nuclear Waste
James A Rispoli
Office of Environmental Management US Department of Energy
Climategy & Methodology
- Basic Theoretical Problems;
Food & Energy -
Sustainability of Biofuels;
Session Introduction: Current
Biofuel
Policies and Projected World-Wide Biofuels Growth
Dr. Carmen Difiglio
U.S. Department of Energy, USA
Habitat and Biodiversity Losses from
Biofuels
Professor G. David Tilman
University of Minnesota, USA
Biofuel Policies and the Food Crisis
in Developing Countries
Dr. Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere
International Food Policy Research
Institute, Ethiopia
Global
Policy Options for
Sustainable Biofuels
Professor Wally Tyner
Purdue University, USA
Climate
& Pollution - Airborne Particulates and Health Consequences;
Medicine & Climate - Global
Warming and Vector-borne Diseases;
Information Security – The Crisis
in Internet Security. Internet
security website
Homeland Defense vs. Homeland
Security - the big gap paper
power
point
Jody Westby
Esq., Cyber Risk Inc. USA
New
Challenges for IT-Security Research in ICT and Electronic
Identity Cards and Citizens’ Portals
Dr Ugo Helmbrecht
Federal Office for Information Security, Bonn,
Germany
Gian Carlo Wick Gold Medal
Award
World Federation of Scientists
General Meeting - Paul A.M. Dirac Lecture Hall
Saturday 23 August – 09.30-13.00
PMP and Working Groups Reports –
General Debate and Conclusions
Fulkerson, University of Tennessee EnergyPMP
report
Sunday 24 August – 09.30-19.00 -
Paul A.M. Dirac Lecture Hall - Patrick M.S. Blackett Institute
There was a workshop of 5 Permanent
monitoring Panels at once. The talks ar all collected in this directory
************************************
June
7th 2008
Richard Wilson as he leaves for an
international risk analysis meeting is increasingly upset with recent
international decisions
They are indeed indications of
Planetary emergencies. Please excuse him for "sounding off"
SCIENTIFIC
AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION IS IGNORED IN CRUCIAL DECISIONS
HERE ARE FOUR
WITH INTERNATIONAL RAMIFICATIONS
IRAQ WMDs - EITHER LIES OR STUPIDITY.
Take your choice
Iraq
had no nuclear weapons and few other WMDs.
Experts knew this. Either the
President deliberately misled the American people or he stupidly
ignored people who knew.
MISSILES NO DEFENSE
For 40 years it has been known that
antiballistic missiles are hard to make work and easy and cheap to
render useless.
Yet
the
US is planning to i nstall them in eastern Europe.
CORN BASED
ETHANOL DOES NOT STOP GLOBAL WARMING
It has been known for 30 years that it
takes almost as much carbon fuel to produce corn as in the oil the
ethanol saves.
It upsets the global food
economy.
Subsidies are counter productive.
yet on Thursday June 5th 2008 the Farm
Folly bill was passed by the US Senate
which perpetuated subidies for: (a) corn based ethanol
(b) food oil for diesel fuel
(c) and cotton
CARBON
as
it comes out of the
ground is easy
to monitor.
Yet politicians want to control emissions
sector by
sector with huge expense and inefficiency.
The Lieberman-Warner Bill is loaded with pork and may not pass.
But regulating carbon as it comes out leaves less room for
pork.
Politicians and financiers dont like it
There are many others of lesser
importance.
Wednesday June 4th 2008
Here are
two important papers about nuclear matters
Garwin's
invited lecture in Rome in May
2008
IAEA report on the future
of the
Agency
Monday
March 17th 2008
3 years ago we
tried to get Tom Shea to talk at Erice but he had to back out at
the last moment. He now has a new job as Director of Global
Nuclear Policy Forum in London and has a screed
he would like us to consider.
Saturday
March 15th 2008
The reports on the Potential for Low
Carbon emissions by Professor Julia King (King Review) on low -carbon
cars has now been released by the UK government
Part
I , the potential for CO2
reduction
Part
II. Recommendations for
Action
I note in particular:
"In the long term, carbon-free road
transport fuel is the only way to achieve an 80-90 per cent reduction
in emissions, essentially decarbonisation. Given biofuels supply
constraints, this will require a form of electric vehicle, with novel
batteries, charged by "zero- carbon " electricity oror possibly
hydrogen produced by zero- carbon electricity"
This makes our
recommendation for treating all non-carbon sources the same
particularly relevant.
In view of the fact that the summer 2007
meeting, and the December 2007 meetings specifically discussed the IPCC
report, I note the report
of the Heartland
Institute of February 2008 which disagrees with the
conclusions. I suggest that all members of the relevant
panels ead and be able to criticize that report when needed.
Friday
March 15th 2008
The article on nuclear power that I was
requested to write, and first presented at Erice 4 years ago has only
now been published. It can be downloaded
here in pdf format
Thursday December
20th 2007
Sunday
August 19th 2007
Energy
Permanent Monitoring Panel; Seminar on Planetary Emergencies;
joint meeting with climate PMP.
Monday
August 20th 2007 38th session of the
Erice International Seminar on
Planetary Emergencies ;
Plenary
Seminar (9.30-12.00)
0.
Welcomes
by: Franco Marini, President of the
Italian Senate, Welcome message sent by cable
Dr Ignazio
Sanges President National
Association of Arts and Sciences
1. Professor Antonino
Zichichi
Introduction
to the
38th
session
of the Erice International
Seminar
ENERGY & CLIMATE
: FOCUS: MANAGING CLIMATE CHANGE
2. H.E. Professor Jan Szycko, Minister of the Environment,
Warsaw, Poland
Combating
Climate Change: Land Use and Biodiversity - Poland's Point of View
3. Professor Yuri A.
Izrael, Institute of Climate Change and Ecology, Moscow, Russia
The
role of Stratospheric Aerosols in Antagonizing the Global Climate Change
4. Professor
Mikhail Antonowsky Carbon Dioxide Dicision, Institute of Global
Climate and Ecology, Moscow
Trends
of carbon
dioxide concentration since the industriual era and effect on global
climate change
5.
Professor Antonino Zichichi,
Meteorology
and Climate
Change: Problems and
Expectations
12.30 – 13.00
SESSION
N° 2
* Professor William A.
Sprigg, Dept. of
Atmospheric Sciences,
University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
Introduction – Climatological
Considerations
* Professor Arthur H.
Rosenfeld, California
Energy Commission, USA
Introduction – Energy
Considerations
General reference to
IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch
IPCC files may be downloaded here IPCC files here
13.00
-1400 SESSION No 3
Chairman A. Zichichi – Co-chair
Professor Willaim Sprigg
* Dr. Filippo
Giorgi, The
Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, Physics of Weather and Climate,
IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report –
Summary and Key Messages
* Dr. Tim
Lenton, School of
Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, UK
Tipping Points or
Gradual Climate
Change
FOCUS: MANAGING CLIMATE CHANGE –
MITIGATION OF GREENHOUSE GASES
Chairman A. Zichichi – Co-chair A.
Rosenfeld
16.00 – 19.00 SESSION
N° 4
* Dr. Peter Bosch, Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report –
Summary and Key Messages
* Dr. Igor Bashmakov, Center for Energy Efficiency, Moscow,
Russia
The Three Laws of Energy Energy Transitions
* Professor Arthur H.
Rosenfeld, California
Energy Commission, USA
Opportunities
in the Building Sector
* Dr Carmen
Difiglio, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington,
DC, USA
Reducing the Growth of Motor Vehicle
CO2 Emissions through 2050: Efficiency, Low-Emission Fuels
and Advanced
Technologies
Fuel Efficient
Transportation in Wyoming
* Professor Andrea
Contin, Department of Physics,
University of
Bologna, Italy
Biomass Energy from the Po River Basin
and Carbon Sequestration
19.00 Presentation of the "Gian Carlo Wick Gold Medal
2007" to Professor Andre Martin
Tuesday
August 21 2007
Plenary Seminar (9.30-19.00)
FOCUS: MANAGING CLIMATE
CHANGE
– FILLING THE GAP: GEO-ENGINEERING AND ADAPTATION
Chairman Tsung-Dao Lee – Co-chair A.
Rosenfeld
09.30 – 11.15 SESSIONS N° 5
and 6
* Dr. Michael MacCracken,
Climate Change Programs, Climate
Institute, Washington D.C.; USA
*
Dr. Ken
Caldeira, Global Ecology
Dept., the Carnegie
Institute of Washington, Stanford, USA
Geoengineering
the Arctic
* Professor William
Fulkerson, Joint
Institute for Energy and
Environment, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
The
Role of Adaptation in Dealing with
Climate Change
Discussion
*
Professor Richard
Garwin, Summary
and review
12.00 - 13.00
SESSION N° 7
* Professor Richard Wilson,
Harvard University
The Bush-Putin
Disagreement: Some background on Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems ppt
file rtf
file
* Professor Richard
Garwin, IBM Watson Institute
Ballistic Missile defense deployment to
Poland and the Czech Republic
FOCUS: MANAGING
CLIMATE CHANGE
- DEBATE
Chairman Tsung-Dao Lee – Co-chair A.
Rosenfeld
16.00 – 19.00 SESSION N° 8
* Professor
Christopher Essex, University of Western Ontario
*
Professor Graeme Stephens, Colorado
State University
Model
Limitations
* Professor Garth Partridge,
University of Tasmania
Scientific
Questions behind the Arguments concerning the Robustness of Climate
Models
* Professor Anastasios
A New Theory on the Relation between ENSO
and Global Temperature
Wednesday
August 22nd 2007
Plenary session on other subjects not recorded here
SESSION No 9
* Professor
Frank Leon Parker, Vanderbilt University
Understanding
Energy Production Externalities
* Dr James Conca, New Mexico State University, Presented by Professor Paolo Ricci
Energy
and Radioactive
Waste Disposal in the Age of Recycling
Useful
report relevant to the discussions are added here
* IUGG report of July 2007
Mike
MacCracken's comments to Rep Dingell
Mike
MacCracken's comments on permits
IPCC
(2007) files here
Thursday
August 23th 2007;
Plenary Session, PMP Reports (9.30- 13.00)
*
Three proposed Resolutions. Proposed here but
modified
on Friday
Carbon Control
Urgent
Study of Uranium resources and costs
Adding
Geoengineering
Friday August 24th 2007 ;
Energy-Climatology Joint PMP Meeting (9.30-13.00)
An
open discussion on
“Managing Climate Change”
Discussion moderators: Bill
Sprigg and
William Fulkerson
Partcipants
The three resolutions proposed
on
August 23rd (links above) were discussed, modified and
approved. (reworded and approved by particpants by e mail
later)
Bruce Stram discussed a summary of the Stern
Review in the context of “tipping points.”
December 21st 2006
Special
Session in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Vatican
city
Presentation
of 2005 Erice Prize to Lord John Alderdice, Professor Andre Peterman
and Richard
Wilson
Talk
on Energy
Crisis or Environment Crisis by
Richard Wilson
Talk on
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons by Richard Garwin
AUGUST 2006 MEETING
Permanent Monitoring Panel Meetings – Saturday 19 August – 09.30-19.00
Energy – Paul A.M. Dirac Lecture Hall – Patrick M.S. Blackett Institute
International
Seminar on Planetary Emergencies 2 sessions on Global
Nuclear Power Future: 20th August 2006
Introduction and setting the stage : Richard Garwin IBM Watson Lab
Monday 21st August -09.30 - 13.00
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
World Federation of Scientists General Meeting - Paul A.M. Dirac Lecture Hall
Wednesday 23 August – 09.30-13.00
Morning – PMP and Working Groups Reports – General Debate and Conclusions
June 15th
2006
The International energy Agency (IEA) is preparing a 2006 report on ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVES.
When it is ready, and IF it is on the web, it may well influence our
deliberations.
February 20th 2006
Hisham Khatib's comment on
President Bush's energy plans
August 24th 2005
Meeting
of PMP under new Chairman: Professor Klaus Lackner.
Minutes
Draft
recommendation for discussion
August 23rd 2005
Report of Energy PMP
Richard Wilson's comment
on non proliferation put here
for convenience (Garwin's
also)
Erice schedule:
July 7th 2005
The founder of Greenpeace testified in US
congress (on April 2th 2005) supporting nuclear energy
July 6th 2005
June 14th
Joseph
Chahoud reminds us of the following thoughts of his written in 1999
that make the same
arguments we have been repeating recently.
The attached
document on electrification issues from Ken Davis (one time Deputy
Secretary of Energy in ERDA) may be of interest
February 21st
Hisham Khatib
sends an article by Malcomb Keay on "
CO2 Emissions Reduction: Time for a Reality Check? "
At 11 am today we mourn the fact that the
"war to end all wars" had come to an end but did not end all wars.
September 7th
2004
Hishab
Khatib's review
of Edwards-Kerry energy program
August 20th 2004
Reports of the August 19th meeting and other reports of the August 20-24th meeting are located here
Hisham
Khatib Energy in the light of global warming. Presentation on
August 20th
Carmen
De Figlio The costs of NOT including Nuclear and Carbon
Sequestration
Richard
Wilson Sustainable Nuclear Energy - Some reasons
for Optimism
Barkat
Electrification of Bangladesh
Kumar
Energy for Rural Areas: the Perspective of India
Jef
Ongena - The future of Fusion
August 13th 2004
Revised
plan for Thursday August 19th
meeting of
PMP (please make suggestions for modification) SEND IN YOUR IDEAS
Meet at 9.30 am
Approval of agenda
Discussion of Energy for Developing countries
Talks by:
9.45 Dr
Barkat (Bangladesh) Electrification of Bangladesh
10.30 Daniel Kammen (UC Berkeley) will not be
coming Renewables in developing countries will not be given
10.30 Dr Kumar (India) Energy
renewables in India
11.15 Discussion
of ways to help these developing countries (see Fulkerson, Levine et al
proposal)
___12.00
Discussion of afternoon's agenda on energy generally and in particular
resolution(s) for action that Professor Khatib or the Chairman will
raise to the whole group and that we hope Zichichi with support and
send upwards.
1 pm Lunch
____________________*************_____________
4.00 pm Energy in the context
of climate change
4.05 pm (a) a long term
one. What is the status of fusion? Jeff Ongena
prooses to bring us up to date. I suggest we try to keep that
short - 20 minutes.
4. 30 pm (b) raised by David
Bodansky (who cannot be there) and others: we should discuss
nuclear fission and its ability to meet global warming
concerns. Traditionally the Nobel Laureates who came to
Erice have all been strong nuclear power advocates, but the
antinuclear sentiment in the world has been such that it has been
boring to keep raising the same issues year after year. But I am
convinced that there have been enough recent changes that this year we
should reconsider the issues. I have been asked to
prepare a paper for a special issue of the "International Journal of
Global Energy Issues (IJGEI)" which I am entitling: Sustainable
Nuclear Energy - Some Reasons for Optimism.This will cover the same ground as papers I wrote 10
years ago, but with changed emphais because of the change in public
perception. I am in the middle of the draft but have posted
a set of power point slides I will present quickly (in 20 minutes or
less) at the PMP.
5.00 pm The US often sets the agenda. We should discuss the energy programs of the rival Presidential candidates
5.30 pm
(c) General
discussion of energy issues including
resolutions for Zichichi
6
pm Chairman of PMP for next year
6.15 pm Discussion of next years
program. We have discussed earlier that we should emphasize
carbon sequestration and meet jointly with the committee of the World
Energy Council at Erice in August for 2 days as our August
meeting. I suggest that if we confirm this that we
invite Dr Klaus Lackner (originally a high energy physicist) from
Columbia University to join us. He thinks about the
problems in ways of which Nino Zichichi would
approve. I will post here within a week some articles
on the subject.
6.45 pm Anyone else want to say anything? Please let me know
7 pm Any Other Business
before 7.30 adjourn
On August
20th or 21st Dr Hisham Khatib will present his
paper:
to the main group. Senator
Kerry and Mr Edwards have released a summary of their energy
proposal. It
is attached here. I note that it subsidizes renewables,
and coal (new combined cycle plants which cost a lot more) but no
mention of sequestration. It also continues and expands the
ethanol from corn program which is actually energy inefficient when the
whole fuel chain is considered (and is widely perceived as a subsidy
for the company Archer, Daniels, Midland ). I suggest
that we look at this on the afternoon of August 19th at the PMP
meeting, and suggest some resolutions for the whole group of
WFS. Although the US is only one country, it remains
the world's largest fuel user. Hisham
Khatib's comments upon another
version.
August 13th 2004
August 3rd
Bill Fulkerson sends an update of his and Levine's proposal for international aid to developing countries with emphasis on energy efficiency.
July 30th 2004
Comment by Joseph Chahoud
Dear Chairman,
I’m here getting back to
you only now since until a
few days ago I was so busy preparing, finishing and submitting to the
editor a paper on “Public Transport Policy and Measures that could
improve the air quality in major cities in the Mediterranean basin”.
Hence I sat scanning, in chronological order, the mass of
correspondence started last winter and early spring within many of the
members of the PMP Energy group. Navigation in such a bedlam has
revealed itself to be not an easy task, and I had a feeling of
bewilderment. But, not exactly all of sudden, I realized that we have,
this year, to face two major issues; namely global warming and climate
change, and energy for developing countries. This latter was our
priority option that was put forward 2 years ago by P.K. Iyengar and
others.
As for what concerns global warming and climate change
I would say that the problem, which is per se very complex in its
intrinsic nonlinearity, is still questionable and under debate within
the scientific community (see e.g. Nature, v 429 n 6992, just to
mention one of the most recent articles on the subject). Much have been
said during the plenary sessions last year, and I wonder if we could
put forward any further contribution, except from our own competency
calling for a reduction of GHG emissions in the processes of energy
production and consumption. So I think it would fair enough if we
address proposals in that direction, proposals that should be linked to
the second issue which is “energy for developing countries”.
This important issue, although not having been well
defined or understood at full, is certainly strictly linked to another
one which has a high ethical quality, namely that of “Poverty”. Two
billions of fellow citizens live on less than 2 $ a day and survive
burning dung or wood for fuel. 80% of them still have no access to
electricity. What is needed is an energy system based on renewable
energy and improving efficiency; to say it with Klaus Toepfer, a
combination commonly called “sustainable energy”, a multi-purpose tool
that can best help all countries in their sustainable development. Put
another way: development needs energy, sustainable development needs
sustainable energy. A tentative definition of sustainable energy could
be given by a few examples: sometimes it means increasing the system
efficiency of burning fossil fuels, such as coal, to generate
electricity squeezing the most efficiency of both supply and demand,
while reducing the emissions of pollutants such as carbon dioxide,
nitrous oxide and PMs. Sometimes it means a photovoltaic plant, whether
small or large. Sometimes it means a dam that can provide water and
electricity while protecting the river habitat. Sometimes it means a
wind farm feeding electricity into a national grid or into a mini grid.
Amazingly enough we find that the distribution of the
population over the globe is mostly concentrated in areas where there
is scarcity of “concentrated” primary energy resources; the few have a
lot and the many have a little (exceptions do exist and are well
known). In my view the soft distribution of the population over the
rural areas requires the exploitation of the softly distributed energy
resources (renewable) saving thus large investments in transmission
lines besides savings a part of losses. In my view the writings of Bill
Fulkerson et al and Daniel Kammen are of great value, and could well
fit as basis for a resolution with regard to how could we help those
developing countries electrifying rural areas and isolated communities.
As for what concerns nuclear power I would say that the nuclear option has never left the table. A new dawn is finding its way back with some of the generation IV reactor concepts. To this regard I would recommend reading the correspondence of Declan Butler published in Nature, volume 429, issue of the 20th of May 2004.
Coming back to conventional fossil fuels I would say that I disagree with two of the statements that have been put forward by Dr Hisham Khatib. The first one (reporting Mitchell) says that “as much as importing countries are anxious to ensure security by having sustainable sources, exporting countries are anxious to export to ensure sustainable income”. Although I consider it legitimate to industrialized to be anxious securing sustainable supply, I dare saying that the attitude of those exporting countries of oil, who are also under development, to be anxious to export to ensure income (which is this way, and in my view, not sustainable) should be discouraged. Economical and social development based on almost one single resource could not be sustainable.
The second statement of Dr Khatib is the one contained in his message of the 2nd of last may, that concerns the “great” advantages of fossil fuel resources. My objection could better be expressed quoting Bart Lijnse, 11 yrs: “ Do we ever run out of energy? Well, yes we do, we run out of coal and oil, but not out of electricity. Why not? Because electricity, that can be generated”. I would also add: when it becomes necessary it will be too late.
July 18th 2004
Bill Chandler,
who unfortunately cannot be at our meeting in person, suggests a paper
for our enlightenment.
I note that not only is he a
coauthor but so also is Xiao Dadi (another member of the PMP),
Adnan Shihab Eldin, who also cannot be present in person because
of a concurrent OPEC meeting, send a paper
by Maugeri arguing that
(if climate change does not force a change) that the age of oil is far
from dead or declining. This seems to be a general
consensus in the oil and gas industry of which we should be aware.
June 2nd 2004
Hisham Khatib
forwards to us the power point slides of Mr Barry Worthington on how
to finance
Carbon Sequestration
June 1st 2004
The
Chairman notes two pieces of world news that will inevitably influence
oil prices, and thereby the potential for alternates to fossil
fuels. He suggests that all members of the Energy Permanent
Monitoiring Panel take note.
(1) The new government in
Iraq. Will it have "full" sovereignty on July 1st
2004? Only a government with full sovereignty can make long
term arrangements over its mineral (oil) resources. (UN
resolution in the early 1970s that may not be respected by US but will
be respected by international financiers). Therefore full
sovereignty is essential before any expansion of Iraqi oil production
capacity to 10 million barrels a day from the present which is about 2
milion barrels a day.
(2) The terrorism in Saudi
Arabia
These
and other matters (dollar devaluation) have already led to a rise in
oil prices.
May 18th 2004
From Dan Kammen To me, Carmen's assertion raises the critical central issue in all the discussions of lean energy futures: what level of GHG mitigation can we get from evolutionary vs. revolutionary technological paths. We all know the story that Carmen is referencing when he states that EE + renewables can't make up the energy capacity we need to power the globe at a 30 - 40 TW, let alone 10 - 20 TW level as we expect to need. There is a good argument for this perspective, to be sure. On the other hand, the Rosenfeld view of efficiency is that by 2100 carbon emission at the level of gas today coupled with the current efficiency-innovation level (1% growth/year) expanded to 2 - 3% could do it. Now, many in this group, to be sure, don't believe that view but I'd like to posit that we really don't fully know. Art's vision is a reasonable one with California over the past 30 years as the reference. In my view the aggressive efficiency path coupled with aggressive renewables growth (at the same level) and nuclear at replacement levels or a bit more, plus a vastly modernized grid could get us pretty close, with India and China the big variables, naturally. A number of us are working on a paper now that lays out this forecasted future, and I'd suggest that we at least compare/discuss it viz. the other very technology intensive views out there. It is the key to our debates, really. <>Into this mix the role and effectiveness of R&D has to take a central role. I'll shortly send around a short update of our 1999 Margolis & Kammen papers on the effectiveness of energy R&D. For those who want to see them, start with the short on in Science, and the whole set can be downloaded at:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html#R&D
May 18th 2004
from Bill Fulkerson
As many have observed re
stabilizing carbon in the atmosphere to
levels that will comply with the U.N. convention, there are no silver
bullets. The recent Scientific American paper by Jim Hanson in
the March 2004 issue suggests that complying with the U. N.
convention requires stabilizing carbon concentrations in the
range of 500 to 550 ppm(V). It will be a tough expensive job to
stay within these limits unless some technological miracles
happen. Let us hope that R&D adequately funded may provide
such miracles, and Bruce Stram proposes ways to pay the piper.
What is obvious is that all options should be pursued until they are
proven to be ineffective. This includes improving
efficiency, using fossil fuel with sequestration,
improving nuclear fission and pursuing nuclear fusion, developing all
types of so-called renewables, and then looking for way out
solutions including evaluating reflective particles in the stratosphere
(as insurance in case all else fails). A balanced robust
strategy is needed.
May 18th 2004
From Carmen de Figlio (Adna Shihab
Eldin in agreement)
A report to the plenary on what could be done to mitigate GHG emissions from energy should include all important options. While it is true that there is, as yet, no agreement within the Energy PMP on carbon capture and storage, perhaps there is also a lack of consensus on what can be achieved with efficiency, renewables and nuclear.
In my opinion, putting much hope in
nuclear power ignores current
liberalized electricity markets and public opinion in most OECD
countries. I also think that energy
efficiency and renewables will not
be able to reduce energy-related CO2 emissions sufficiently to
stabilize greenhouse gas emissions in the 500-600 ppm range. A
massive effort on efficiency would not even keep up with the growth of
world-wide emissions. Renewables can help but, with only 3%
of today's primary energy supply (excluding large hydro) and
substantial resource constraints for wind and biomass (that
constitute 86% of non-hydro renewable electric generating capacity),
they will not do much to slow the growth of fossil fuels though
2040. Taken together, strong programs to promote efficiency and
renewables would still result in a world-wide emissions profile that is
incompatible with stabilizing GHG concentrations at safe levels.
Technologies besides efficiency and renewables will be needed to
stop and reverse the world-wide growth of emissions before
2040-2050. If we can't reasonably expect a large revival of
nuclear power, it must either be carbon sequestration or some
technology that we have not yet anticipated. If we can not move
forward with either nuclear or carbon capture and storage, the
prospects for mitigating CO2 emissions from the energy sector
sufficiently to stabilize GHG concentrations below 600 ppm are poor. I
know there are uncertainties about carbon capture and storage.
For example, permanence of storage is still unresolved but there will
be a new IPCCC report that may indicate that this is not likely to be a
big problem (this report will be published in 2005 but we have seen an
early draft that is encouraging on permanence). Our IEA
technology cost and modeling analysis shows that, without carbon
capture and storage or nuclear, the cost of achieving an emissions
profile compatible with stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions
is extremely high. In conclusion, I do not think that we should provide
a message to the plenary that gives the impression that we can reduce
emissions sufficiently with efficiency and renewables or overestimates
the very low likelihood that climate change policies would embrace
nuclear power
May 18th 2004
From the Chairman
We have arranged that in August 2004 we continue to discuss
energy for developing countries. Coming to the meeting will
be Dr Ashok Khosla who has been working in Indian villages and
was UNEP prize winner last year, Dr Abul Barkat who organized
Bangaldesh's successful rural electrification system (suggested by Bill
Fulkersion and Bruce Starm) and Dan Kammen who has worked on solar
ovens in Kenya.
It
has also been arranged that at the plenary session (which is primarily
about the potential for global warming) someone from our group will
present what we think the energy system of the world can do to increase
and or mitigate the problem. I propose therefore that Hisham
Khatib do this, but we will discuss this at the PMP meeting to be sure
he presents a consensus view or any dissents.
For next year I propose that we
discuss carbon sequestration, and the August 2005 meeting be for 2 days
and cooincident with the World Energy Council meeting on the same topic
at Erice. We can thereby have more authority and influence.
This has to be agreed soon for organizational reasons.
May 5th 2004
from the Chairman:
As always, we should think
about specific resolutions that we may ask Nino Zichichi to urge.
May 1st 2004
PK Iyengar (who originally
suggested this theme, but cannot be
there) comments:
I am glad that the PMP will discuss energy problems of the developing vworld, especially in rural areas. I wish to bring to your attention, the following observation, which is typical of what science can do to improve the conditions of the developing world: Last November, I visited the Airbus Industries in Toulouse, France. They took me to one of their latest models, which will seat 800 people. It was well lit. I asked them what kind of lighting they used. They said it was something new; white light emitting LEDs. I was impressed by that. Its efficiency is obviously higher; it simulates while light well; and can operate on low DC voltages. I recalled how fireflys produce white light inside the nests, especially in tropical forest areas. Long ago I was in Assam, in North-East India, where I noticed my room had a number of light-emitting fireflys hovering around, which made me wonder why man has not tried to simulate it. I browsed on the Internet to see how much these white LEDs cost. It was around $70 for a 3 W LED array, which, because of the higher efficiency is equivaent to several hundred lumens.
Today I again browsed and got the following interesting Web-sites. I recommend them to you. One is Sandia National Lab., where the semiconductor LEDs are discussed in great length. There is even a Web-page which discusses the total lighting load of electricity consupmtion, and how the use of LEDs could save electricity and thus reduce global warming. They also talk about organic materials for the LED, which would reduce the capital cost enormously. Nature has already produce that in the firefly! But do the developed nations see this as a priority R&D effort? Will it help the rural village light their homes and eventually improve their standard of living, without being connected to the electricity grid? Such drastic chages in technology do not seem to get priority in the developed world. I have always quoted other examples, like the maglev train and energy sources for automobiles, in the form of centrifuges, which was demonstrated by the Livermore National Laboratory. Cold fusion was debunked for a long time. Perhaps they couldn't shut off the multi-billion dollar investment in hot fusion overnight. There are still people continuing to work and demonstrate that cold fusion is reproducible. Most recently, the March issue of Physical Review E carries a paper by Taleyrkhan and others, demonstrating d-d fusion in cavity collapse in acetone - a miniaturised hydrogen bomb that has most of the physics behind the H-bomb, but using a well-known phenomenon called sonoluminiscience. They seem to have extended the pheonmenon from electron deexcitation to produce light, to d-d fusion, which, according to conventional wisdom, requires high temperature and density (the Lawson criterion). This must be a fertile ground for theoreticians to show if it is feasible and true or not.
I just want to bring to your attention that things could change in the energy sector if R&D is not controlled by policy makers and bureaucrats who do not appreciate Nature's laws and the wonders that it has created.
(1) http://lighting.sandia.gov/
What Dick says makes a great deal of sense, but I desire to add another item to his global warming agenda.
Some of you may recollect that I have
been advocating an
international (hopefully global at some point) program of energy
research and development (and probably limited deployment) that is
"permanently" and reliably supported by some "trust fund" mechanism,
which I have generally described as a (small) carbon tax. Other
mechanisms would of course suffice. (Nations' participation in the
program and access to the research is contingent on enacting a trust
fund mechanism and contributing the proceeds to research, or in the
case of nations in the developing world, providing scientific
skills.) The ultimate goal of this research program is to achieve
what Bill Fulkerson calls a miracle: an energy alternative less costly
than currently available fossil fuel sources. It is fair, I
think, to describe this goal as a miracle because the technologies
currently under significant development don't seem likely to ever meet
this criterion. But miracles of this sort do occur, and it may
well make sense to increase the likelihood that one will happen in the
next half century. Obviously such a goal can only be achieved in the
long run. However, this does comport with the long run nature of
the global warming problem. Further, this approach has the advantage
over all other global warming
policy ideas in that it is self implementing: if its cheaper, they will
use it and discard fossil fuels (eventually). In proposing
this I am implicitly assuming that increased and stable R & D
expenditures will be commensurately effective if appropriately
implemented (as opposed to say our desperate efforts at instant success
in the 70's and 80's), and that technologies meeting that criterion are
"out there". A second assumption is that such technologies are in
fact out there, not too far over the horizon.
I am trying to get a handle on the best research per the incremental efficacy of R & D, and energy R & D in particular. (If anyone knows of any such sources I would very much appreciate hearing about them.) I would like to add the "over the horizon" technology question to our agenda. If this question has been thoroughly explored (that is, including some hard nosed assessment of the promise of any such technologies) I think it very appropriate that we put it on our table and review it. If not, I'd suggest, we discuss the possibility of sponsoring the development of such an assessment.
Additionally, I'd just mention that Bill Fulkerson and I are exploring linkages between such a research program, and energy problems in the developing world, especially including the rural poor. We don't know yet whether we'll have a useful product.
I think that there are good reasons to
think that with any sort of
well-directed and even reasonably funded R&D effort in these areas,
b
below BAU energy costs is quite reasonable. If may be worth
looking at the set of R&D studies my group did:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html#R&D
(and we'll have an update coming out shortly, we hope)
April 29th 2004 (the Chairman is 78 years old today)
There seems to be a consensus that at the whole day PMP meeting on August 19th 2004, we should:
(1)
continue to discuss energy
for developing countries, and in particular rural areas where there is
little energy (and no electricity)
There is a general feeling that the problem of
getting energy to these areas is NOT technical (scientific) but social,
economic, and such details. Most of us have little
experience in this. However, I have persuaded Dr Ashok Khosla
(PhD physics, Harvard in 1970s; UNEP prize 2003) to join
us. He has experience in just these matters in India. Also
I hope Dan Kammen can join us: he has experience in east Africa. Bill
Fulkerson has a report on what they have done in Bangladesh where there
is a lot of natural gas.
(2)
be prepared to contribute to
the global warming discussion that is the general theme of the August
meeting by outlining the technical steps that can be taken.
There seem to be several:
(a) nuclear power
(b) much improved efficiency
(c) MUCH increased use of renewables
(d) a medium shout : carbon
sequestartion
(e) a long shot- fusion.
Again, a lot of this is not scientific but (a) at least is strongly related to public perception.
I will be in Erice next week at a meeting on Risks of Bioterrorism and will discuss with Claude and Nino the extent we can contribute to the main sessions on August 20-23 on global warming.
April 22nd 2004
A
draft paper resulting from Fulkerson and Levine's reports to PMP in
2003
April 11th 2004
Bruce Stram's comment:
For some time now, environmentalists
and others have chosen to focus
the policy discussion re: global warming, on Kyoto like
approaches. While some of us feared this approach contained fatal
flaws, in effect all or almost all of our “eggs”, have been put in this
basket. Now, as it appears those anticipated flaws are being
exposed, there are little in the way of coherent alternatives. I
don’t wish to kindle a reiteration of this debate, but simply to
observe the inescapable: the process is in trouble and it is reasonable
to worry that it is doomed.
At the same time it is impossible, at least for me, not to have great concern with regard to global warming issues. But I’m becoming fearful that no long-term strategy will be implemented.
Logically, one knows that anthropogenic induced global warming, if it will indeed prove to be a problem, accumulates over the long term and any policy that addresses the generation of GHG can only take effect over a long period of time given anything resembling current economic parameters. These facts tend to “trap” us into thinking in terms of long run solutions.
This of course runs counter to the reality of the dynamics of policy formulation. Policy is most easily formulated in response to a clear and present danger, and the ideal policy instruments are those that lead to relatively quick results.
So, given the current state of affairs, perhaps we need to turn the “solution” question around 180 degrees. Instead of trying to fit the solution to the “reality” of the problem, lets fit the “problem” to the reality of policymaking. What policy makers will need, given what I perceive as a likely course of events, is some quick fixes.
We all know that a number of these have been proposed and rather flamboyantly so by some. That style of presentation has surely offended many. Others are offended by the idea of “fooling with mother nature”. But the reality is that if the need arises, such measures, even if ill conceived and poorly thought through, will be implemented. So perhaps it is time to being a balanced and realistic discussion of the pros and cons of such measures.
Thus it seems to me a useful session per global warming would in broadest outline consist of two parts:
1. An assessment of the likelihood that
the GHG emission “problem”
will be corrected by development of lower cost non-carbon alternatives,
or that the cost of carbon based technologies will soon rise
dramatically because of resources exhaustion. (Presumably, very
unlikely on both counts over the next 10-30 years.)
2. An assessment of selected possible short run fixes in
reverse order of their time to achieve results. (Presumably
sequestration would appear on this list but wouldn’t have the shortest
time fuse.)
Our PMP could take responsibility for
Part 1, and pieces of part 2.
Bill Fulkerson's comment:
I like Bruce's one pager. He is pointing out a potential
policy paralysis crisis The U.S. government has directed its
energy technology R&D budget at the long term. This is, of
course, a short term policy reaction and not entirely
unreasonable for R&D. It does not exclude doing other
things, but probably not during this
Administration. I recommend a recent report by the Aspen
Institute and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The report
derived from an
Aspen Institute Policy Dialogue workshop in Nov. 2003 that was
co-chaired by Bob Fri and Eileen Clausen, and it presents a very
interesting recommendation for policy strategy including evolving a
cap and trade strategy that moves with time. The Report is edited
by Jack Riggs, and it is available from The Aspen Institute: A Climate
Policy Framework: Balancing Policy and Politics.
The Aspen Institute
Publications Office
Queenstown, MD 21658
410-820-5326.
April 4th 2004
March 28th 2004
Firstly the Chairman apologizes for his inactivity. A fall on Christmas day, and an intensification of his trigeminal neuralgia, leading to an operation in February took its toll.
(1) It is time to plan for our August
meeting. Who will be there? What do we talk about (a)
in our group? (b) in the plenary? The Chairman suggests that we work towards possible Erice
statements, or possible specific Erice schools on a specific topic
December 16th 2003
(2)
Carmen suggests, and we all still agree, that we should discuss
sequestration in the context of reducing or delaying Global Climate
Change. There seems enough sentiment in the group that I agree
that this should be on the agenda. However, we should, I
believe, consider it together with the option on the table that
is known to work, although many people consider it undesirable -
nuclear fission. I am putting members comments on a page
called sequestration_WFS,html
(3)
We seem to have had no more discussion on energy for developing
countries. In spite of my summary of October 15th, below)
The Chairman still thinks that the discussion last August (2003) was
incomplete. In order to be efficient about energy use one
must have it in the first place. Of course one needs efficiency
in conversion (electricity production) too. I see several issues.
Is rural
electrification provided free to villages? There is a difference
here between the CAPITAL being free and the operation being free.
We could use a discussion of all of this. Our member PK
(Iyengar) informs me that his health is better and heopes to be
with us in August. I hope that he can help us here.
Does anyone have a specific talk to propose? A particular
person to invite? Any other ideas?
Carmen deFiglio recommends an IEA
report on carbon sequestration. It is available here
in MSWORD. That report is certainly of interest to all of
us. The Chairman's feeling is that it is not of relevance to our
immediate AGENDA for next year. But it is a matter of
importance in which he is personally interested. See comments
by Khatib and Fulkerson and Shihab Eldin.
If others comment, their comments will be added.
October 15th 2003
AGENDA FOR
NEXT YEAR 2003-2004
The
Chairman suggests
that we work towards possible Erice statements, or possible specific
Erice schools, on:
(1)
Education of people for efficient energy production and use in
developing countries: education to start with reluctant World Bank and
AID personnel, continue through developing countries and proceed to the
village level
(2) How to
set international
priorities for energy R and D
(3)
How to set up logical
procedures (including constraints) to implement (1) and (2)
Drs Stram and Wilson
are working on (3) and hope
to have a draft paper to circulate early in 2004
Dr Hisham Khatib has a new book out which he recommends to all of us.
August
23rd 2003
This informal website is primarily for information and discussion
between the present members of the Energy PMP To post something on this
site, send it to the present Chairman, Richard Wilson, at wilson5@fas
.harvard.edu. who hopes that in due course a more direct method will be
possible. I would prefer it in html, or in pdf formats, but any format
such as msword and power point presentation will be acceptable pro
tem. You will be able to download them but not open
them on line
The PMP met on August 19th in Erice and reported to the
plenary meeting of the 30th International Seminaron
Planetary Emergencies in Erice on August 22nd and August 23rd 2003
The following made presentations which will be posted here when
available. Abstracts are also in the Chairman's
report:
E mail list as of September 28th 2009
World Federation of
Scientists
main website
