I've read a number of stories on President Obama's nomination of MIT physicist Ernest Moniz to be the next Secretary of Energy. This overview of his background from the Washington Post is as good a place as any to start. Although I haven't met Dr. Moniz, I've seen him on various panels and am familiar with some of his department's work, such as MIT's reports on the Future of Natural Gas, Future of Coal and Future of Nuclear Power. As many comments since his announcement have suggested, it would be hard to find a more ideal steward of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. At the same time, this choice also reflects many of the key challenges facing the Department of Energy at this moment, not least the preservation of its R&D activities and other capabilities in a post-sequestration environment. This is likely to be a different Department of Energy (DOE) than the one that Dr. Chu guided for the last four years.
If I thought it likely that the DOE would continue to pursue large-scale industrial policy, such as the expanded energy loan guarantee program and other renewable energy deployment-focused activities that originated in the 2009 stimulus bill, I would be a lot more concerned that the President has selected another scientist and academic administrator to lead the DOE, instead of someone who has actually run a large energy business. Lack of commercial experience was arguably a key factor in the DOE's decision to fund Solyndra even as its main business proposition was unraveling, along with promoting a premature and excessive expansion of US electric vehicle battery manufacturing capacity.
However, the federal budget sequester is now in place and Congress has little appetite for expensive new programs. Business acumen seem less critical for a department that must make do with less for the foreseeable future, while remaining relevant in an administration focused on advancing renewable energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. From the relatively little I know of Dr. Moniz, his prior experience in government--including a stint as an undersecretary of energy--and prominent role in a first-class research institution should equip him well for this task.
Dr. Moniz faces criticism from environmentalists for his views on nuclear power, natural gas and hydraulic fracturing ("fracking.") It's hard to imagine any nominee for this job who wouldn't spark some level of controversy, given the conflicting energy goals we've pursued over the years. I don't give much credence to the Post's inclusion of the views of Professor Howarth of Cornell on the Moniz nomination, considering that much of Dr. Howarth's widely-disseminated analysis of shale gas emissions has subsequently failed to withstand scrutiny. In any case I prefer the choice of a Secretary of Energy who has some appreciation of the importance of the energy sources that still supply roughly 90% of our energy needs, and possesses a clear understanding of the complexities of the long transition to cleaner sources, rather than one exclusively focused on the latter.
Secretary of Energy for a Leaner DOE?
Authored by:
Geoffrey Styles
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant and advisor, helping organizations and executives address systems-level challenges. His industry experience includes 22 years at Texaco Inc., culminating in a senior position on Texaco's leadership team for strategy development, ...
Other Posts by Geoffrey Styles
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
Ronald Wagner says:
Nuclear is not competitive with natural gas power, and has many safety and security problems that are extremely costly in the long run. They are not usually figured into the long range cost analysis. References: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xhPQIIW9xpOwn92z5hCGshSF7e6TP3R9sFBAAg-eQe4/edit
b cole says:
DOE Biomass Program's "lack of understanding algae technologies and commercial experience" is a key issue for Dr. Moniz.
You may want to check out these two articles.
Ronald Wagner says:
Do you really think that algae growing can compare to the simple,useful, productive, and proven technology of producing biogas from sewage, manure, waste, and other sources? I really doubt it. We are building a CNG infrastructure and CNG fits right in. Biodiesel from algae would be much more expensive IMHO.
Rick Engebretson says:
I don't know anything about Moniz, or care. What I do know is the silly numbers people use are leading us into a geometric carbon and economic bubble. And I'm delighted the stock market and corporate profits brushed off the "sequestration" to rise to new highs. Alternatives will be found for corporate self preservation.
The "90% of our energy needs" is a good example of inflated self importance. It ignores the role of sun and wind and many other energy types we put little to no value on to keep the world alive. These energy sources have been consistent for thousands of years, and we should hope they continue.
And much like my criticism of current windmills, the energy used to produce vendor energy products is growing geometrically. Not only do we need to dig deeper and process oil more, but the material steel use is growing rapidly. People have concerns about water, and frac sand. But producing steel from some of the hardest rock in the world is entirely coal dependent. The iron mines and processing facilities use coal energy before it is shipped by boat to steel mills in the eastern coal belt.
So we want pipeline, now thousands of rail-tank cars, deepwater drill rigs, compressed and liquid natural gas tanks, etc. All I see is incredible steel use for diminishing oil return. And some advocacy that loves to ignore the scale and risk of their undertaking. Steel is not cheap in energy, carbon, money, or any way. Taking it for granted is a mistake.
Geoffrey Styles says:
Rick,
You raise an important concern and measures of "energy return on energy invested", if done rigorously, capture it. EROEI for oil & gas is certainly lower than it was in the first half of the 20th century, when shallow wells yielded gushers. However, it's still far above the level necessary to provide the energy surplus on which civilization depends. That's more than can be said for conventional biofuels, even when protein byproducts are counted. As for the 90%, of course you're right that it's only 90% of produced energy, as distinct from the constant flux of sunlight and other background energy we take for granted, all of which provide services that we depend on. That doesn't diminish the importance of the 90% to the global economy. Someday it will be made up of solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, biomass and other renewables, and fossil energy will be the tail, but we're still decades away from that point.
Jesse Jenkins says:
We're sad to lose Ernie at MIT and there's much to do around here about who will end up taking over the reigns at the Energy Initiative, hub to much of the energy research that goes on at MIT. But I agree with Geoff that Ernie is an excellent choice to head the Department of Energy, and I hope he meets a straightforward confirmation.
Nathan Wilson says:
Hopefully Moniz can help the public warm up to nuclear power, now that the Fukushima panic is over.
Also, it would be a good time to think about matching up carbon capture & sequestration with a coal-to-liquid fuel program. The loss of electric power market share that the coal industry has lost recently could help motivate new interest in coal-to-liquids, which could do a lot to boost our (transportation) energy security. Of course the liquid fuel that's most interesting to me is carbon-free NH3 (ammonia), which as Geoffrey has pointed out, has safety challenges; but this is just the sort of thing that the DOE should be trying to address.
Wilmot McCutchen says:
I'm optimistic about the President's choice for DOE. Not a crony, not a stooge, not an ivory tower theorist, but a dynamic problem-solver. This from his last employer, MIT:
“President Obama has made an excellent choice in his selection of Professor Moniz as Energy Secretary,” said MIT President L. Rafael Reif. “His leadership of MITEI has been in the best tradition of the Institute—MIT students and faculty focusing their expertise and creativity on solving major societal challenges, a history of working with industry on high-impact solutions, and a culture of interdisciplinary research.” Reif continued, “We have been fortunate that Professor Moniz has put his enthusiasm, deep understanding of energy, and commitment to a clean energy future to work for MIT and the Energy Initiative—and we are certain he will do the same for the American people.” See http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/03/mit%E2%80%99s-ernest-j-moniz-nominated-secretary-energy
Especially interesting is his title: Professor of Physics and Engineering. DOE needs that practical emphasis.
John Miller says:
Geoffrey, hopefully our future new Secretary will refocus the DOE towards its primary mission of facilitating development and improvements in critical energy areas including energy efficiency, resources, and usage. What our country lacks is a comprehensive energy policy that will effectively and responsibly develop fossil fuels during the interim until alternative renewables become reasonably and technically feasible/cost effective solutions to both reducing the U.S. carbon emissions and increasing energy security in the future. Areas that need much more focus than they have received in the recent past include many of the following:
· Developing nuclear electric power generation based on state-of-art technologies. This also requires more safely and effectively dealing with existing and future spent fuels.
· Developing renewable power sources that can effectively replace baseload coal power. These include expanded hydropower, geothermal and biomass/wastes. The methane VOC and combustion (NOX, PM, CO, etc.) emissions from biomass/wastes fuel-power generation facilities also need to be addressed to the same standards of natural gas.
· Critically review the biofuels the EPA keeps imposing with the Renewable Fuel Standard to ensure the ‘net energy values’ are reasonably positive and cost effective, and the greenhouse gas emissions actually comply with the EISA 2007 20%/80% (conventional/advanced biofuel) requirements. This includes critically reviewing the current Navy’s biofuel program.
· Work with the NERC to ensure the EPA’s new regulations to curtail/shutdown coal power plants do not put the U.S. power grids reliabilities at significant risk. This same task needs to include addressing the risks of significant increases of variable wind/solar power penetration into existing power grids.
· Put more priority on developing the industrial scale power storage needed to make large penetrations of variable wind/solar power into existing power grids more feasible (without 100% backup natural gas peaking power). This includes significantly expanding hydropower pumped storage and supporting (R&D only) new technologies.
These and other future needed energy policy priorities have been neglected too long in the name of climate change or energy independence.
Jim Baird says:
John, the Subductive Waste Disposal Method was considered the state-of-the-art and most viable reponse to the nuclear waste problem. Had it not been buried in the bulldozing effort to push through Yucca Mountain, nuclear power might well be a lot further ahead.
Jim Baird says:
Methane leaks erode green credentials of natural gas"Losses of up to 9% show need for broader data on US gas industry’s environmental impact."
Geoff, NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory lends credence to Howarth.
Geoffrey Styles says:
Jim,
I'm familiar with that study, and wasn't impressed by the methodology. Michael Levi's critique has it right. Too many questionable assumptions required, as well as natural sources. If you want to measure leakage, do it at the well, rather than extrapolating from miles away. There are other studies underway with greater access to the producing facilities, so this certainly won't be the last word.
The good news is that whatever the leakage rate turns out to be, it is much more manageable than the CO2 from the coal it is displacing. The EPA requires "green completions" from 2014.
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. More »
Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. More »
Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Gary Hunt
- Jesse Jenkins
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Jim Pierobon
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- Dan Yurman

About Social Media Today




