America’s Energy Future:Technology Opportunities, Risks and Tradeoffs

Status: October 2008

Larry Papay

2

Overview• Current energy policy context:

– International energy trends– Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007– Climate change legislation developing– Energy is now a major 2008 presidential campaign issue

• Overview of the energy technology landscape• Origins of America’s Energy Future (AEF) project• Status of AEF “portfolio” of projects:

– Phase I: Foundational study on energy technology cost, performance, and impact underway

– Phase II: Studies on policy, R&D, impacts, international implications, and others being planned

• Opportunities for impact of the AEF effort

World Energy Situation: Some Significant Changes In Recent Decades

• Accelerated economic globalization and economic structural change; Asian economic growth, especially China

• Increased sense of urgency about climate change as a global issue

• Rising and volatile energy prices

• Dramatic performance of energy efficiency improvements in many nations

• Middle East developments – Iraq War, Iran, Palestinian conflict and implications for oil supply

• The increased role of natural gas in many countries

Total Energy Use Projections for Selected Countries

Source: International Energy Outlook, EIA, 2008

Changing Focus of Energy PolicyIn the United States energy policy is largely a derivative policy with its roots in economic, national security, and environmental policies and with shifting priorities over time among those policies.

economicvitality

national securityenvironmentalquality Energy

Policy

United States Total Primary Energy Use, 2007

Energy Flows in the U.S. Economy, 2007(Quadrillions of Btus)

Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Technology and Transformational Change• Energy efficiency• Alternative transportation fuels• Advanced coal-fired power generation and

CO2 capture and storage• Renewable electric power generation• Electric power transmission, distribution,

control and storage• Nuclear power

Origins of the America’s Energy Future Project

1. NAS and NAE councils jointly concluded in February 2007 that the Academies should provide an important public service with an authoritative study on energy technology cost, performance and impact—a “foundational” study.

2. Congressional request from Senators Bingaman and Domenici, chair and ranking minority member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to carry out the America’s Energy Future study.

3. To minimize any perception of bias, a broad diversity of sponsors were engaged:

– U.S. Department of Energy– Kavli and Keck Foundations– Dow Chemical, General Electric, Intel, GE, GM, and BP

9

10

Principles of the Foundational Study

• Don’t reinvent the wheel —critically review existing work -- fill gaps with focused investigation where it is most needed.

• Coordinate with ongoing studies —build on related recently completed, on-going, and planned NRC efforts and others.

• Stick to the academy’s widely recognized strengths —focus on technology performance, cost and impact—avoid the problematic feature of CONAES.

• Lay groundwork for action-oriented “Phase II” studies —policy, R&D priorities, climate change strategies, efforts focused on reducing oil import vulnerability, promoting technology innovation….

Key Objectives of Foundational Study

• Provide authoritative estimates of the current contributions and future potential of existing and new energy supply and demand technologies, their associated impacts and projected costs.

• Resolve conflicting analyses of energy technology options being considered to help facilitate a productive national policy debate about the nation’s energy future.

12

Foundational (Phase I) Study Structure

• Study committee working with a goal to produce results informing Congressional deliberation and the Presidential transition early in 2009

• Three additional panels are supplementing the Committee’s work: Renewable Electric Power, Energy Efficiency, and Alternative Transportation Fuels

• Summit on America’s Energy Future, March 13-14, 2008

• Harold T. Shapiro - (Chair), Princeton University • Mark S. Wrighton - (Vice Chair), Washington University • John F. Ahearne, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society • Allen J. Bard, The University of Texas at Austin • Jan Beyea, Consulting in the Public Interest • W. F. Brinkman, Princeton University • Douglas M. Chapin, MPR Associates, Inc. • Steven Chu, E. O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory • Christine A. Ehlig-Economides, Texas A&M University• Robert W. Fri, Resources for the Future, Inc. • Charles Goodman, Southern Company (Ret.)• John B. Heywood, Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Lester B. Lave, Carnegie Mellon University • James J. Markowsky, American Electric Power (Ret.) • Richard A. Meserve, Carnegie Institution of Washington • Warren F. Miller, Jr., Texas A&M University-College Station • Franklin M. Orr, Jr., Stanford University• Lawrence T. Papay, PQR, LLC• Aristides A.N. Patrinos, Synthetic Genomics, Inc. • Michael P. Ramage, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering (Ret.) • Maxine L. Savitz, Honeywell Inc. (Ret.)• Robert H. Socolow, Princeton University • James L. Sweeney, Stanford University • G. David Tilman, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis • C. Michael Walton, The University of Texas at Austin

America’s Energy Future Study Committee

13

• 25 members• 80% academy members• Spans science, technology

& economics

14

Phase I Committee Leadership

Harold Shapiro, IOM, Chair, President Emeritus , Princeton UniversityMark S. Wrighton, Vice-Chair, Chancellor, Washington University

Committee Subgroups Panels

Energy Efficiency Lester Lave, University Professor, Carnegie Mellon UniversityPanel Maxine Savitz, General Manager, Technology (Ret.), Honeywell, Inc.

Franklin M. Orr, Jr., Professor, Stanford UniversityChristine Ehlig-Economides, Professor, Texas A&M University

Richard A. Meserve, President, Carnegie Institution of WashingtonDouglas M. Chapin, Principal Officer, MPR Associates, Inc.

Renewable Lawrence T. Papay, CEO and Principal, PQR, LLCElec. Pwr. Panel Allen J. Bard, Regents Professor, The University of Texas

Alt. Liq. Transp. Michael P. Ramage, Exec. Vice Pres. (Ret.), ExxonMobil Res. & Engineering

Fuels Panel G. David Tilman, Regents Professor, University of Minnesota

James J. Markowsky, Executive Vice President (Ret.), Amer. Electric PowerSteven Chu, Director, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

James L. Sweeney, Professor, Stanford UniversityRobert Fri, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Resources for the Future

Phase II

Alternative Fuels

Electric Power Transmission & Distribution

Reference Technology Scenarios

Committee on America's Energy Future

Nuclear Power

Renewable Energy

Energy Efficiency

Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas

America’s Energy Future Committee: Working Subgroups

15

Committee SubgroupsSeparately

Appointed PanelsCoordination with Other Academy

Activities (selected examples)Phase I

Committee SubgroupsSeparately

Appointed Panels

Phase II

Assessment of Resource Needs for Development of Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technology

Committee on Relationships Among Development Patterns, Vehicle Miles Traveled, and Energy

Consumption

Committee on Enhancing the Robustness and Resilience of Future Electric Transmission and

Distribution in the U.S. to Terrorist Attack

Energy Efficiency

Review of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Research and Development Program

Alternative Fuels

Electric Power Transmission & Distribution

Reference Technology Scenarios

Alternative Liquid Transportation

Fuels Panel

Oil and Natural Gas

Committee on America's Energy Future

Workshop on Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States

Committee on Assessment of Technologies for Improving Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy

Committee on Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership

Committee on Nuclear Energy Research & Development

Energy Efficiency Panel

Renewable Electric Power

Panel

Coal to Electricity Generation

Nuclear Power

Renewable Energy

16

• Expected Principal Report providing estimates of:

• current use and future potential of existing energy supply and demand technologies (three “buckets”)

• environmental and other impacts

• projected costs and potential for new technologies deployable within the next few decades

1991 U.S. Oil Consumption Projection to 2020 with Options for Change*

*Options include fuel economy improvements, alternative fuels, and new productionfrom Alaska; Source: Gibbons and Blair, Physics Today, July 1991

Current: 2006 U.S. Oil Consumption Projection

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 20200

5

10

15

20

25

U.S

. Oil

Con

sum

ptio

n (1

06 bar

rels

per

day

)

Net Imports

Alternative Fuels

Domestic Production

AlaskaOther Liquids

Source: Energy Information Administration

Source: McKinsey & Co.

20

AEF Phase I Status (October 2008)

• 25 member committee (7 working groups), 3 supplemental panels—65 volunteers; several consultants and support from 12 NRC staff.

• Full committee meetings, subgroup and panel meetings frequently convened.

• National Academies Summit on America’s Energy Future convened on March 13-14, 2008.

• 5 reports estimated to be delivered between September 2008 and March 2009.

America’s Energy Future Reports1. Summary report of the National Academies Summit

on America’s Energy Future—Now

2. Energy Efficiency—Fall 2008

3. Renewable Energy Technology—Fall 2008

4. Alternative Transportation Fuels—Winter 2008

5. Final report —Committee on America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks and Tradeoffs—Early 2009

Preparations for Phase II • Phase I: foundation for portfolio of subsequent

action-oriented efforts in Phase II such as:– Forging the future of the nation’s power grid

– Accelerating the prospects for alternative fuels

– Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reduction

– Transportation policy actions

– Setting energy research and development priorities

– Strategic energy technology development, e.g., carbon capture and sequestration

– Policy analysis

Additional Information on the America’s Energy Future Effort

• http://www.nationalacademies.org/energy• National Academies Summit on America’s

Energy Future, March 13-14, 2008: archived video and presentations online and report expected in September 2008

• For further information:Peter D. Blair, Ph.D.Director, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciencespblair@nae.edu