MIT's Energy AgendaThe institute's energy council co-chair Ernest J. Moniz describes a sweeping agenda to meet a "remarkable challenge."
Satisfying a possible doubling of global energy demand while supplanting fossil fuels is "perhaps the greatest single challenge facing our nation and world in the 21st century," a Massachusetts Institute of Technology panel wrote today in a draft research strategy report for the institute.
The MIT Energy Research Council, appointed by MIT President Susan Hockfield last year, is calling for a sweeping array of multidisciplinary research programs. Its report covers everything from oil extraction to carbon dioxide sequestration, from nuclear fusion to efficient freight management systems. Its co-chair, Ernest J. Moniz, an MIT physicist and a former Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, explains the council's thinking and recommendations. Technology Review: Headlines these days are full of talk about $3-a-gallon gas. What are the fundamental energy issues facing the world today? Ernest Moniz: As we cast it in our report, there are three major drivers. The first is simply the supply and demand equation, particularly driven by developing and emerging economies. One sees in most projections a doubling of energy use and a tripling of electricity use by mid-century. This is a staggering problem, or challenge, particularly when you realize that today 86 percent of primary energy comes from fossil fuels and conventional oil production may be peaking. The second driver is security -- the security of oil supply and also nuclear proliferation. And third is environmental, especially climate change. If society gets serious about controlling greenhouse-gas emissions, this would be the most profound challenge to the structure of our energy supply, because that supply is based on fossil fuel. Controlling carbon dioxide, while also doubling energy use, is a rather remarkable challenge to contemplate. TR: What is the timetable for R&D and deployment to get the job done? EM: It's useful to think in terms of a 50-year timetable. For doing something about climate change, these next 50 years are critical. Fifty years is also the characteristic time for major changes of the energy supply system, if you look at the transition from wood to coal -- then oil coming in, then gas coming in. Well, if we have a challenge we need to meet in 50 years, and it takes 50 years to turn over the energy system, that defines a challenge that you must begin to meet today. The energy challenge is -- if not the primary area -- certainly one of the primary areas for the application of science, engineering, and policy to meet real human needs.
|
A Strategy for Coping with Climate Change
09/11/2008










Comments
05/03/2006
Posts:1
05/03/2006
Posts:1
05/03/2006
Posts:1
05/03/2006
Posts:1
05/07/2006
Posts:1
05/03/2006
Posts:1
PAOPIEN
11/11/2006
Posts:1
nada. zip. zilch. pure vapor and not one solution!
05/03/2006
Posts:1
Lawyers run the White House & Congress. They don't want Iranians and would prefer not to see Indians, Pakistanis, or the Chinese not to use fast breeder reactors.
But India will build them and sell them. Likewise Pakistan and China will do the same.
Only the US and Europe will lag behind, as the lawyers seek to extract their pound of flesh from the citzenry.
Love that new USS Ronald Reagan. Based on its 50 year life, it will only need to be refueled once. Wow! 25 years for a fill up on its two nuclear reactors. Too bad the public can't get the same technology.
05/03/2006
Posts:1
05/03/2006
Posts:1
05/04/2006
Posts:1
And you should perhaps read up on global warming, I can give you some pointers if you would like. Betting on fossil fuels as a long term strategy is foolish.
05/04/2006
Posts:1
Nexial's site also has the internet's first maps showing the results of flooding if all the ice and permafrost were to melt.
Regarding your offer to supply pointers - I have a very open mind and am willing to learn new facts. If yours is open you'll possibly even enjoy reading what www.sepp.org has to say.
Fossil fuels and all of Mankind's " CO2 emmissions ", by the way, amount to less than 2% with 98% Nature caused. The real threat is underestimating natural cycles, and the role of water vapor and clouds.
Regarding the soundness of the oil extraction technology - It turned out that a multidisciplinary approach and rigorous use of the Scientific Method made finding the solution almost easy.
05/04/2006
Posts:1
05/07/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
caruv
04/05/2008
Posts:1
07/27/2006
Posts:1
Seattle
01/31/2007
Posts:2
Seattle
01/31/2007
Posts:2
JAJansenJr
08/30/2006
Posts:7