Scaling the Energy Mountain

I saw this great presentation from professor Nocera, at MIT, which you should truly download and watch on iTunes. If there is anyone who doesn’t get the scale of the problem we are facing, professor Nocera really knows how to punch you in the gut with the reality of our global energy crisis. We used to debate the flip angle of his worry – that of climate change caused by greenhouse gasses emissions. People still claim we don’t know what the scope of the problem is, or when will the glaciers melt (some even have the chutzpa to say they are waiting for it to happen so we can dig for oil in Greenland…), etc. Professor Nocera has a much simpler view on it – we are running out of energy – and the clean energy solutions we have don’t scale - with the exception of solar (did I mention he is working on solar solutions at MIT...in particular recreating photosynthesis).

To summarize his energy math –
1.    We will need 28 Trillion Watts as a planet in 2050 – 18 TW of which are not in existence today – even if we reduce our average level of consumption significantly below current US levels.
2.    If we convert every plant we have to fuel plants we will get 7 Trillion Watts (we do have to give up on all food crops in that case). I heard some people argue a different number on this point
3.    If we go Nuclear and figure out how to put a new safe nuclear plant every 36 hours we can get 8,000 nuclear facilities (we will each get a neighborhood nuclear plant) supplying 8 TW. In Israel, that will translate to roughly 5 new nuclear facilities…
4.    If we catch all the winds in the world (and with it the birds) we will get 2 more TW
5.    Finally, if we damn all the rivers we didn’t already put a damn on – we will get 1 trillion watt – putting us in a world without fish (which goes perfectly well with a world without trees, crops, birds, and your local nuclear facility).

On the other hand we do know that the sun pours 800 Trillion Watts on the planet at any point in time. Historically we lived entirely based on that energy – everything we grew, hunted and ate leveraged that energy source. Wind and waves resulted from the sun, we turned them to energy for transportation and mechanical drive through boats and windmills. What we didn’t use simply got into the ground and turned into fossil fuels over the years – that was our planet’s battery – and we filled it up over 300 million years. The battery held its energy in complex C-H bonds, until we became smart enough to figure out we can burn that bond and make things go faster, bigger, farther and spread our Icarus wings to get closer to the sun.

Well, the news flash is that we have used half of that battery in the last 100 years or so. At the rate we are going, we won’t have 100 more years to go, we probably have closer to 50 as we accelerate the burn rate. If we do not revert back to using the sun, and being very efficient at doing it, well we might simply need to figure out how to have less people or less burn. Neither option leads me to the comfort that we will peacefully figure out whose turn it is at the decision table when we decide on who owns the remainder of the global battery.

The urgency of that battery drain pace is daunting to me. I hear people telling me that the energy problem is solvable (on its own -  was the claim) within 10-20 years for each of the issues we are facing. My view is that we have to do whatever we can to solve any aspect of it, as soon as possible, or we will simply drain what’s left before we have time to let the problem solve itself. 8 years of doing nothing amount to almost 20% of the time we have left on the most urgent global clock, it is ticking loudly and we cannot afford 8 years of doing nothing.

What we need is a portfolio approach, most of which should be focused on two time axis – long term focus on the disruptive solutions that can scale to meet our real needs; and short term solutions that drastically reduce the energy consumption of our  current technology set. Some of the people, in particular VC backed companies, should focus on the short-term cycles – as the VC implicit impatience (and I do say that with the most positive sense – they have to be impatient to sieve out the bad ideas quickly and redirect the money towards the successes.) The long-term solutions need to get different kind of money – patient money that does not want short-term returns, but is looking for long term mega-profits, with big social impact. I call it “mission money”.

I am glad to tell you that as I am going through the funding process I am more than impressed with finding the “money missionaries”, they are around, they are smart, they want to do good and they sign up. If the world splits the efforts – VCs will buy us more time, missionaries will buy us a way out – I believe there is a way to address all these points at scale and allow us all to keep going faster, bigger, farther, only this time not at the expense of our children.

Comments

[Pedro Arrontes]

In general I absolutely agree with this thesis. The big challenge will be to sensitize the people all over the world, that the energy resources aren´t inexhaustible. But probably we´ve a chance using the opposite of nuclear fission that is nuclear fusion. Scintists are working at the moment on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache (France) trying to fuse hydrogen to helium. In theory during this process one gram of hydrogen releases the same amount of energy as the combustion of 8 tons of petroleum or 11 tons of carbon. I think this is a grippingly story. There are still a lot of difficulties but also challenges. But as you have mentioned ... we have to hurry up ... Thanks for the food of thought ... we forget to often the real problems on the world.

[Dennis Howlett]

Link to Nocera's presentation?

[Sandro]

The most important question to consider when planning the conversion to electric locomotion is: "Will we have all the electric power to run all the vehicles we run now?".
This request of energy for locomotion is a big number that need to be considered carefully.

The Prof. Nocera site at MIT: http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/www/faculty/nocera.html

[Rick Bullotta]

The biggest failing we could make is to focus on the supply side of the energy equation while failing to work just as hard on lowering the demand side. I would argue that technology exists and will exist for order-of-magnitude improvements on reducing consumption as well...

[Rick Bullotta]

Not to belittle the issue, but after doing some quick research, our current capacity is about 15TW, and he's projecting less than a 2X demand increase...which, while substantial, does not seem to represent quite as tall a "mountain" to scale when viewed from that perspective...in any case, it should also become obvious that responsible and safe application of nuclear energy is going to be an almost "must-have".

[ron]

When can we expect to see the first "Powered by SOLAR NetWeaver" tagline? :)

[CB]

Shifting Gears.

Nanosolar ist opening a Production Facility in Luckenwalde this year.

Benchmark Capital, Klaus Tschira , Dietmar Hopp and Google’s Larry Page und Sergey Brin are giving support to this Venture (as you may know).

“The company itself claims these solar cells successfully blend the needs for efficiency, low cost, and longevity and will be easy to install due to their flexibility and light weight. Estimates by Nanosolar of the cost of these cells, fall roughly between 1/10th and 1/5th [5] the industry standard per kilowatt. A significant cost reduction which, if true, is expected to drastically affect, if not revolutionize the modern energy market.” … from Wikipedia

Likely they will have some start-up problems, and it will take them a number of cycles to get it right, in production. But if they manage to pull it off this would be pretty disruptive.

What is in the back of my Mind is the question: if the extremely powerful International Oil Cartel is just going to sit back and do nothing, while some others are beginning to eat their Lunch?

[ruy]

I believe that in the future it is necessary to give to each person/company the possiblity of producing energy. The concept of production of energy will changed from the actual, and in buildings production this will be part of infrastructure. The temperture in the earth interior will be use to produce electrical and thermic energy /power. The cars will be cover by material producing electrical energy. In a world where due to the new technologies are spending a lots of energy it is necessary to use this technologies to produce also this energie.
rg,

[ruy]

I believe that in the future it is necessary to give to each person/company the possiblity of producing energy. The concept of production of energy will changed from the actual, and in buildings production this will be part of infrastructure. The temperture in the earth interior will be use to produce electrical and thermic energy /power. The cars will be cover by material producing electrical energy. In a world where due to the new technologies are spending a lots of energy it is necessary to use this technologies to produce also this energie.
rg,

[Orly]

Hello,
I also share your passion for creating a better environment through technology.
I am an electrical engineer and physicist and looking for job opportunities in that area.
I would like to hear your advice even if you don't have positions.
You can contact me at [email protected].
Best regards,
Orly

[moti]

in 1880 (or so)economists concluded that by 1920 London would drown in Horse shit, and something must be done to resolve the problem. Without any relation the car was invented, world war I erupted and in 1920 London was facing other challenges.

The problem is three fold
- the size of the human population
- the resources we use (waste)
- direct utilization of the sun

The first two are even more important than the third, and we are still entrenched in the agriculture culture of growing populace as a sign of healthy existence.

As regards the direct utilization of the sun, the answer is simple to articulate. All the energy comes from the sun through the photosynthesis process. The question is how to make electric producing plants. Imagine a tree which provides a continous output of electricity created in a genetically altered photosynthesis process.

moti

[Timbo]

Even if we assume that we would be able to bridge the energy gap, the real driving factor is, as moti has already pointed out, the size of the human population on earth. With that exceeding 6 billion now and ever increasing, the amount of resources consumed, of which energy is but one, will also increase. Maybe the earth can simply not support 6 billion people who want to live an American way of life. Still, any attempt to step away from being on battery power is a good one. Not to mention the problem we are facing with global warming.

[Abhay]

Hello Mr. Agassi (Or Hello Shai whichever you prefer)
I would really like to comment on a bunch of other things other than just this blog entry - starting with moving out of SAP to the recent photographs from your vacation, but let me get to the point. What I really wish is great brains and passion of yours to get together with some other similar great personalities e.g. Mr. Ratan Tata (of TATA group of industries of India). Though I can not claim any personal acquaintance with him (or you) to bring the two of you together, I am willing to do whatever necessary to contribute to your initiatives, just let me know.

[Ami]

Hi Shai,
I am already convinced, I wonder what is the best way to contribute to this effort, I would be happy to hear your opinion.

Ami

[Tony Belding]

I don't think solar power is the only option that can scale up to address the problem, although it's clearly the one with the most mindshare. I think both geothermal power and IEC "polywell" nuclear fusion have huge potential to fill this gap, and neither of these are getting enough attention -- or enough funding.

MIT produced a study highlighting the untapped potential of geothermal power: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html

Dr. Robert Bussard caused a stir when he gave a Google Talk and described his recent research into IEC fusion reactors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

[Shai Agassi]

I agree with the comments regarding the three "scaling sources". We can either use the sun power, the earth's power or build our own "star on a planet" - nuclear plant. While the first two will run eternally (all we need are the right spots on the ground to harness/harvest the energy sources of the sun or the earth) the third requires that we build enough small stars and manage them carefully.

Good point!

[Asad]

Shai,

I was searching for some information about you/SAP (synonymous *smiles*) when I came across this! And would you believe this...?!

The Master himself is blogging...and actually answering back to us?! Like, wow! Alternate energy is an interest, while the predecessor - oil - is a passion!

This is my first post - I look forward to visiting your blog regularly...and seeing you, in due course.

Kind Regards,
Asad

[Ami]

Hi Shai,

The solar solution is not so perfect, many of the heavy energy users live in an "cloudy" environment and I am almost sure that there will be not enough solar power near them. so the long. The conclusion is that long term effort should include reducing consumption and energy transfer ways. so I think that their are Four elements on this equation and not only Three

Regards,
Ami.