By Peter M. Senge, Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, Katrin Kaeufer, Hilary Bradbury and John S. Carroll
January 1, 2007
Meeting the sustainability challenge will require the kind of cross-sector collaboration for which there is still no real precedent. It must be co-created by various stakeholders by interweaving work in three realms: the conceptual, the relational and the action-driven.
For more than a century and a half, industrial growth has been weaving an ever-thickening web of interdependence around the world. Today, consumer choices on one side of the planet affect living conditions for people on the other side. Complex supply chains span the globe; for example, the average pound of food travels between 1,500 and 2,500 miles before it reaches an American consumer.1 But these developments do not alter biological or social realities that have taken shape over thousands and millions of years. Consequently, businesses operating within this growing web are facing a host of “sustainability” problems: social and ecological imbalances created by this globalization, such as a widening social divide between haves and have-nots, global climate change, exponentially growing chemical and material waste and loss of habitat and species.
Traditionally, businesses have thought such problems to be the result of economic externalities that require governments’ attention. But while governments are a crucial part of lasting change, relying on governmental leadership to effectively deal with sustainability is questionable for many reasons. The first limitation is geography. Even the largest governmental institutions are limited by their borders and can’t attack sustainability problems that are global in nature. The second limitation is time. Elected officials are limited by their election cycles and struggle to deal with problems that develop over decades.
Today, as consumer choices on one side of the planet affect living conditions for people on the other side and complex supply chains span the globe, businesses are facing a host of "sustainability" problems--social and ecological imbalances created by that globalization. Beginning in the late 1990s, organizational members of the Society for Organizational Learning (SOL--including Shell, Harley-Davidson, HP, Xerox, and Nike, among others) began a series of initiatives focusing on collaborative solutions to a variety of sustainability issues. The group's goals have included the application of systems thinking, working with mental models, and fostering personal and shared vision to face these complex sustainability issues. Through its work, SOL (of which two of the authors are founding members) has learned that successful collaborative efforts embrace three interconnected types of work--conceptual, relational, and action-driven--which together build a healthy "learning ecology" for systemic change. In this article, the authors offer examples from particular projects in which learning ecology provided an important foundation for substantive progress, and they draw lessons for companies and managers regarding each of the three types of work. Ultimately, the authors conclude that conceptual, relational, and action-driven work must be systemically interwoven and that there is little real precedent for that. They offer several guidelines for how it can be accomplished, emphasizing leadership and transactional networks. Finally, they pose three questions that must be answered if systemic solutions are to be successful: (1) How can we get beyond benchmarking to building learning communities? (2) What is the right balance between specifying goals and creating space for reflection and innovation? and (3) What is the right balance between private interest and public knowledge?
Today, as consumer choices on one side of the planet affect living conditions for people on the other side and complex supply chains span the globe, businesses are facing a host of “sustainability” problems — social and ecological imbalances created by this globalization.
Beginning in the late 1990s, organizational members of the Society for Organizational Learning (including Shell, Harley-Davidson, HP, Xerox and Nike, among others) began a variety of initiatives focusing on collaborative solutions to a variety of sustainability issues. The group’s goals have included the application of systems thinking, working with mental models, and fostering personal and shared vision to face these complex sustainability issues.
Through its work, SoL (of which two of the authors are founding members) has learned that successful collaborative efforts embrace three interconnected types of work — conceptual, relational and action-driven — which together build a healthy “learning ecology” for systemic change. In this article, the authors offer examples from particular projects in which this learning ecology provided an important foundation for substantive progress, and they draw lessons for companies and managers regarding each of the three types of work.
Ultimately, the authors conclude that conceptual, relational and action-driven work must be systemically interwoven and that there is little real precedent for that. They offer several guidelines for how it can be accomplished, emphasizing leadership and transactional networks. Finally, they pose three questions that must be answered if systemic solutions are to be successful: (1) How can we get beyond benchmarking to building learning communities? (2) What is the right balance between specifying goals and creating space for reflection and innovation? (3) What is the right balance between private interest and public knowledge?
Peter M. Senge is the founding chairperson of the Society for Organizational Learning and a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Benyamin B. Lichtenstein is assistant professor of management and entrepreneurship at the College of Management, University of Massachusetts, Boston. Katrin Kaeufer is research director of the Presencing Institute and founding research member of SoL. Hilary Bradbury is the director of Sustainable Business Programs at the Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. John S. Carroll is a professor of behavioral and policy sciences, MIT Sloan School of Management.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
California's new power source a solar farm
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
An artist's rendering shows what solar panels might look ...
California's next source of renewable power could be an orbiting set of solar panels, high above the equator, that would beam electricity back to Earth via a receiving station in Fresno County.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has agreed to buy power from a startup company that wants to tap the strong, unfiltered sunlight found in space to solve the growing demand for clean energy.
Sometime before 2016, Solaren Corp. plans to launch the world's first orbiting solar farm. Unfurled in space, the panels would bask in near-constant sunshine and provide a steady flow of electricity day and night. Receivers on the ground would take the energy - transmitted through a beam of electromagnetic waves - and feed it into California's power grid.
The idea has been discussed for decades. It appeared in science fiction as far back as 1941 and later received serious study by NASA and the Pentagon. At times, it has been dismissed as fantasy.
But San Francisco's PG&E considers it realistic enough to support. The company asked the California Public Utilities Commission on Friday for permission to buy 200 megawatts of electricity from Solaren's orbiting power plant when and if it's built. That's enough electricity for 150,000 homes.
"We're convinced it's a very serious possibility that they can make this work," said PG&E spokesman Jonathan Marshall. "It's staggering how much power is potentially available in space. And I say 'potentially' because a lot remains unknown about the cost and other details."
Many of the project's details remain under wraps, and others haven't been decided yet, said Cal Boerman, Solaren's director of energy services. For example, Solaren still hasn't decided whether to use crystalline silicon solar cells or newer, thin-film cells that weigh less than silicon but aren't as efficient.
But the young company, a collection of aerospace engineers based in Manhattan Beach (Los Angeles County), has the technology and expertise to make it work, Boerman said.
"We'd all read about it, thought about it, and it seemed to be a good, next challenging project for the space industry," he said. "The timing is right."
Not a 'laser death ray'
He also dismissed fears, raised in the past, that the transmission beam could hurt birds or airline passengers who stray into its path. The beam would be too diffuse for that.
"This isn't a laser death ray," Boerman said. "With an airplane flying at altitude, the sun is putting about four or five times more energy on the airplane than we would be."
Placing solar panels in orbit would solve two of the biggest problems facing the solar industry.
Terrestrial large-scale solar farms only generate electricity during the day, and their output varies with the seasons. They also require large tracts of land, often hundreds of acres for a single installation.
Those problems vanish in space. The Solaren project would experience constant sunlight except for brief interruptions during the spring and fall equinox periods. Obviously, land wouldn't be an issue. And the sunlight hitting Solaren's facility would be eight to 10 times more powerful than the light reaching Earth through the planet's atmosphere.
Failure to launch
But orbiting solar installations face their own difficulties, problems that have kept the idea Earth-bound for decades.
Space is a harsh environment, and equipment sent there must be able to operate year after year without repairs. Lifting the gear into orbit is expensive and a bit risky, since some rocket launches fail. Boerman said the solar installation would require four rocket launches. It would not, however, require assembly by astronauts, instead unfolding on its own in space.
"Obviously, there are going to be a lot of very hard questions," said Ralph Cavanagh, head of the energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "My prediction is this is going to be much more about economics than the environment."
PG&E has not disclosed how much money it has agreed to spend on Solaren's electricity, money that would come from the utility's customers.
"I can say it will be comparable to other renewable energy that's been approved recently by the California Public Utilities Commission," Marshall said.
Global crunch
Like California's other utilities, PG&E is under state orders to expand its use of renewable power as part of California's fight against global warming. By the end of 2010, 20 percent of the electricity PG&E sells must come from renewable sources. The utility has been signing contracts with companies planning wind farms and large solar arrays, but some of those projects have been stalled by the global credit crisis.
Mark Toney, head of The Utility Reform Network watchdog group, fears that the difficulty of meeting the state's requirements has pushed PG&E into supporting an expensive distraction.
"It really seems like an act of desperation," he said. "We really think PG&E should be spending more time on proven technologies closer to home that we can really count on. This just seems so remote, in more ways than one."
Cavanagh said, however, that given the world's problems of global warming and rising demand for energy, utilities need to explore some unconventional ideas.
"You want to encourage them to try lots of different things," he said. "But the caution is that some of these things won't work."
E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
An artist's rendering shows what solar panels might look ...
California's next source of renewable power could be an orbiting set of solar panels, high above the equator, that would beam electricity back to Earth via a receiving station in Fresno County.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has agreed to buy power from a startup company that wants to tap the strong, unfiltered sunlight found in space to solve the growing demand for clean energy.
Sometime before 2016, Solaren Corp. plans to launch the world's first orbiting solar farm. Unfurled in space, the panels would bask in near-constant sunshine and provide a steady flow of electricity day and night. Receivers on the ground would take the energy - transmitted through a beam of electromagnetic waves - and feed it into California's power grid.
The idea has been discussed for decades. It appeared in science fiction as far back as 1941 and later received serious study by NASA and the Pentagon. At times, it has been dismissed as fantasy.
But San Francisco's PG&E considers it realistic enough to support. The company asked the California Public Utilities Commission on Friday for permission to buy 200 megawatts of electricity from Solaren's orbiting power plant when and if it's built. That's enough electricity for 150,000 homes.
"We're convinced it's a very serious possibility that they can make this work," said PG&E spokesman Jonathan Marshall. "It's staggering how much power is potentially available in space. And I say 'potentially' because a lot remains unknown about the cost and other details."
Many of the project's details remain under wraps, and others haven't been decided yet, said Cal Boerman, Solaren's director of energy services. For example, Solaren still hasn't decided whether to use crystalline silicon solar cells or newer, thin-film cells that weigh less than silicon but aren't as efficient.
But the young company, a collection of aerospace engineers based in Manhattan Beach (Los Angeles County), has the technology and expertise to make it work, Boerman said.
"We'd all read about it, thought about it, and it seemed to be a good, next challenging project for the space industry," he said. "The timing is right."
Not a 'laser death ray'
He also dismissed fears, raised in the past, that the transmission beam could hurt birds or airline passengers who stray into its path. The beam would be too diffuse for that.
"This isn't a laser death ray," Boerman said. "With an airplane flying at altitude, the sun is putting about four or five times more energy on the airplane than we would be."
Placing solar panels in orbit would solve two of the biggest problems facing the solar industry.
Terrestrial large-scale solar farms only generate electricity during the day, and their output varies with the seasons. They also require large tracts of land, often hundreds of acres for a single installation.
Those problems vanish in space. The Solaren project would experience constant sunlight except for brief interruptions during the spring and fall equinox periods. Obviously, land wouldn't be an issue. And the sunlight hitting Solaren's facility would be eight to 10 times more powerful than the light reaching Earth through the planet's atmosphere.
Failure to launch
But orbiting solar installations face their own difficulties, problems that have kept the idea Earth-bound for decades.
Space is a harsh environment, and equipment sent there must be able to operate year after year without repairs. Lifting the gear into orbit is expensive and a bit risky, since some rocket launches fail. Boerman said the solar installation would require four rocket launches. It would not, however, require assembly by astronauts, instead unfolding on its own in space.
"Obviously, there are going to be a lot of very hard questions," said Ralph Cavanagh, head of the energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "My prediction is this is going to be much more about economics than the environment."
PG&E has not disclosed how much money it has agreed to spend on Solaren's electricity, money that would come from the utility's customers.
"I can say it will be comparable to other renewable energy that's been approved recently by the California Public Utilities Commission," Marshall said.
Global crunch
Like California's other utilities, PG&E is under state orders to expand its use of renewable power as part of California's fight against global warming. By the end of 2010, 20 percent of the electricity PG&E sells must come from renewable sources. The utility has been signing contracts with companies planning wind farms and large solar arrays, but some of those projects have been stalled by the global credit crisis.
Mark Toney, head of The Utility Reform Network watchdog group, fears that the difficulty of meeting the state's requirements has pushed PG&E into supporting an expensive distraction.
"It really seems like an act of desperation," he said. "We really think PG&E should be spending more time on proven technologies closer to home that we can really count on. This just seems so remote, in more ways than one."
Cavanagh said, however, that given the world's problems of global warming and rising demand for energy, utilities need to explore some unconventional ideas.
"You want to encourage them to try lots of different things," he said. "But the caution is that some of these things won't work."
E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Calif. offset firm seeks to nationalize its reach
Debra Kahn – E&E News
April 6, 2009
SAN DIEGO -- By playing their cards right, offset firms -- which have until now marketed to a small niche of environmentally conscious businesses and consumers -- have a chance to turn their voluntary programs into huge opportunities if the mandatory House cap-and-trade bill passes.
At the "Navigating the American Carbon World" conference here, the mood was jubilant, thanks to the bill introduced last week by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The draft legislation would permit covered industries to use offsets -- reductions in emissions not covered by the cap -- for up to 2 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, as a cost-lowering mechanism.
For the California Climate Action Registry, a state-created nonprofit that monitors voluntary emissions reporting, the news was especially timely. Less than 48 hours after the new House cap-and-trade bill dropped, CCAR announced it was changing its name from the California Climate Action Registry to the Climate Action Reserve. The nonprofit has shifted its focus from reporting to verifying offset projects in recent years, and wanted its name to reflect that shift, group President Gary Gero said.
The group is also pushing to have its projects' emissions reductions recognized as legitimate reductions under California and the West Coast's budding cap-and-trade system, by setting aside some allowances specifically for reductions taken before 2012.
"We are now well beyond the borders of California, and our focus has shifted from being a registry for emission inventories to focus on offsets and project reductions," he said. "What we have been saying now is our members should be recognized by the state of California as they develop their cap-and-trade program by the allocation of set-aside allowances from the cap. That is a fundamental promise that we need to make sure is kept."
Offsets are one of several thorny issues in any cap-and-trade system. Originally conceived as a way for environmentally minded businesses and individuals to support emissions-reducing efforts outside of their own actions, they have given rise to a national market that reached $254 million in 2007, or 42 megatons of CO2 equivalent, according to Ecosystems Marketplace. Whether the emissions reductions would have happened anyway, without the project's sponsorship, is notoriously difficult to prove, and various standards have emerged to give buyers a sense of authenticity.
Now advocates are trying to ensure a niche for offsets in a mandatory emissions program, arguing that they can be a cheaper way for businesses to meet their obligations. An alliance of businesses and environmental groups including General Motors, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Shell, BP, Duke Energy and the Nature Conservancy has been particularly influential. The Waxman-Markey discussion draft includes several of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership's recommendations, such as unlimited banking of credits, multi-year compliance periods and incentives for research into carbon capture and storage.
Gero said the timing of CCAR's rebranding, two days after the release of a major cap-and-trade bill, was coincidental. "It's just reflective of how fast things are moving," he said. "We had developed a strategic plan to do this about 6 months ago, and were planning to do it over the course of 12 to 18 months," he said. "But just as the world has taken off, our board said it's time for us to do this sooner."
Leading the pack in a complex, potentially lucrative business
It appears the Climate Action Registry is well-placed to take a leading role in offset verification if Waxman-Markey's offset provisions remain intact. According to the World Resources Institute, of the 17 existing voluntary standards for offsets, only two meet the bill's requirements: the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and CCAR.
"Offsets will unquestionably play a role, and likely a significant one," said WRI Senior Associate Alexia Kelly.
"We're awfully proud of the way the bill recognizes us for the quality work we do," said Gero, who testified to Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee last month on the environmental integrity of offsets and has answered technical questions for committee staffers. While the bill does not recognize CCAR by name, he noted, "we're absolutely thrilled and excited and proud that WRI would think we're one of the only two that qualify."
Gero compared the potential relationship between government and nonprofit offset verifiers to that of the North American Electric Reliability Corp. and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which recognized NERC as an enforcer of mandatory reliability standards in 2006.
If the bill passes and EPA decides to give the Climate Action Reserve an official role verifying offset projects, the group will have its work cut out for it in terms of meeting demand. It's aiming to have 1.5 million tons of projects registered by this fall and 4-5 million tons by 2010 -- compared to the 1 billion tons per year that the bill gives domestic offsets. "That's still clearly not a billion, but we're not the only game in town, and we don't cover all sectors yet," Gero said.
Agriculture and forestry are ripe for expansion of offset projects, he said, as are ozone-depleting substances and gases with high global warming potential. "I don't know whether we can get a billion, but there's an awful lot of domestic opportunity," he said. "We're one little ice cube on the tip of the iceberg."
On the state level, California is under pressure to figure out how to reward businesses that have already taken action to reduce their emissions below business-as-usual levels. It's working on a list of "additional" actions that would qualify, but might not finish the process until the regional cap-and-trade program takes effect in 2012 -- or is superseded by a national system.
"It's unfortunate that we do have to go through a set procedure to do these things, and it is going to take time," said Michael Gibbs, California EPA's assistant secretary for climate change. "We could end up not finishing the early action rules until it's too late, and that's clearly not acceptable. Then, we're always faced with the question of how much to invest in what we're doing locally as a national program comes into existence, as well."
"The pressure for quick action is of course hugely intense," he said. "An entity that's going to have a regulatory compliance obligation decides to take action in advance and wants that action recognized and reported. It's the single largest pressure point in terms of trying to move quickly."
April 6, 2009
SAN DIEGO -- By playing their cards right, offset firms -- which have until now marketed to a small niche of environmentally conscious businesses and consumers -- have a chance to turn their voluntary programs into huge opportunities if the mandatory House cap-and-trade bill passes.
At the "Navigating the American Carbon World" conference here, the mood was jubilant, thanks to the bill introduced last week by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The draft legislation would permit covered industries to use offsets -- reductions in emissions not covered by the cap -- for up to 2 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, as a cost-lowering mechanism.
For the California Climate Action Registry, a state-created nonprofit that monitors voluntary emissions reporting, the news was especially timely. Less than 48 hours after the new House cap-and-trade bill dropped, CCAR announced it was changing its name from the California Climate Action Registry to the Climate Action Reserve. The nonprofit has shifted its focus from reporting to verifying offset projects in recent years, and wanted its name to reflect that shift, group President Gary Gero said.
The group is also pushing to have its projects' emissions reductions recognized as legitimate reductions under California and the West Coast's budding cap-and-trade system, by setting aside some allowances specifically for reductions taken before 2012.
"We are now well beyond the borders of California, and our focus has shifted from being a registry for emission inventories to focus on offsets and project reductions," he said. "What we have been saying now is our members should be recognized by the state of California as they develop their cap-and-trade program by the allocation of set-aside allowances from the cap. That is a fundamental promise that we need to make sure is kept."
Offsets are one of several thorny issues in any cap-and-trade system. Originally conceived as a way for environmentally minded businesses and individuals to support emissions-reducing efforts outside of their own actions, they have given rise to a national market that reached $254 million in 2007, or 42 megatons of CO2 equivalent, according to Ecosystems Marketplace. Whether the emissions reductions would have happened anyway, without the project's sponsorship, is notoriously difficult to prove, and various standards have emerged to give buyers a sense of authenticity.
Now advocates are trying to ensure a niche for offsets in a mandatory emissions program, arguing that they can be a cheaper way for businesses to meet their obligations. An alliance of businesses and environmental groups including General Motors, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Shell, BP, Duke Energy and the Nature Conservancy has been particularly influential. The Waxman-Markey discussion draft includes several of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership's recommendations, such as unlimited banking of credits, multi-year compliance periods and incentives for research into carbon capture and storage.
Gero said the timing of CCAR's rebranding, two days after the release of a major cap-and-trade bill, was coincidental. "It's just reflective of how fast things are moving," he said. "We had developed a strategic plan to do this about 6 months ago, and were planning to do it over the course of 12 to 18 months," he said. "But just as the world has taken off, our board said it's time for us to do this sooner."
Leading the pack in a complex, potentially lucrative business
It appears the Climate Action Registry is well-placed to take a leading role in offset verification if Waxman-Markey's offset provisions remain intact. According to the World Resources Institute, of the 17 existing voluntary standards for offsets, only two meet the bill's requirements: the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and CCAR.
"Offsets will unquestionably play a role, and likely a significant one," said WRI Senior Associate Alexia Kelly.
"We're awfully proud of the way the bill recognizes us for the quality work we do," said Gero, who testified to Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee last month on the environmental integrity of offsets and has answered technical questions for committee staffers. While the bill does not recognize CCAR by name, he noted, "we're absolutely thrilled and excited and proud that WRI would think we're one of the only two that qualify."
Gero compared the potential relationship between government and nonprofit offset verifiers to that of the North American Electric Reliability Corp. and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which recognized NERC as an enforcer of mandatory reliability standards in 2006.
If the bill passes and EPA decides to give the Climate Action Reserve an official role verifying offset projects, the group will have its work cut out for it in terms of meeting demand. It's aiming to have 1.5 million tons of projects registered by this fall and 4-5 million tons by 2010 -- compared to the 1 billion tons per year that the bill gives domestic offsets. "That's still clearly not a billion, but we're not the only game in town, and we don't cover all sectors yet," Gero said.
Agriculture and forestry are ripe for expansion of offset projects, he said, as are ozone-depleting substances and gases with high global warming potential. "I don't know whether we can get a billion, but there's an awful lot of domestic opportunity," he said. "We're one little ice cube on the tip of the iceberg."
On the state level, California is under pressure to figure out how to reward businesses that have already taken action to reduce their emissions below business-as-usual levels. It's working on a list of "additional" actions that would qualify, but might not finish the process until the regional cap-and-trade program takes effect in 2012 -- or is superseded by a national system.
"It's unfortunate that we do have to go through a set procedure to do these things, and it is going to take time," said Michael Gibbs, California EPA's assistant secretary for climate change. "We could end up not finishing the early action rules until it's too late, and that's clearly not acceptable. Then, we're always faced with the question of how much to invest in what we're doing locally as a national program comes into existence, as well."
"The pressure for quick action is of course hugely intense," he said. "An entity that's going to have a regulatory compliance obligation decides to take action in advance and wants that action recognized and reported. It's the single largest pressure point in terms of trying to move quickly."
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Show Us the Ball
Thomas L. Friedman – New York Times Op-Ed
April 8, 2009
I am really encouraged by President Obama’s commitment to clean energy and combating climate change. I just have three worries: whether he has the right policies, the right politics and the right official to sell his program to the country. Other than that, things look great!
Last week, House Democrats, with administration support, introduced a 600-page draft bill on energy and climate. At the center of it is a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through a complicated cap-and-trade system. These people have the very best of intentions, but I wish they would step back and ask again: Can cap-and-trade pass? Will it really work? And is it the best strategy, with all the bureaucracy it will require to monitor, auction emissions permits and manage the trading?
Advocates of cap-and-trade argue that it is preferable to a simple carbon tax because it fixes a national cap on carbon emissions and it “hides the ball” — it doesn’t use the word “tax” — even though it amounts to one. So it can get through Congress. That was true as long as no one thought cap-and-trade could ever pass, but now that it might under Mr. Obama, opponents are not playing hide the ball anymore.
In the past two weeks, you could hear a chorus of Republicans, coal-state Democrats, right-wing think tanks and enviro-skeptics all singing the same tune: “Cap-and-trade is a tax. Obama is going to raise your taxes and sacrifice U.S. jobs to combat this global-warming charade, which many scientists think is nonsense. Worse, cap-and-trade will be managed by Wall Street. If you liked credit-default swaps, you’re going to love carbon-offset swaps.”
Some of the refrains from this song have a very catchy appeal. They could easily kill this effort. So, if the Obama team cares about the “ends” of a stronger America and a more livable planet, as much as the “means,” I hope it will consider an alternative strategy, message and messenger.
STRATEGY
Since the opponents of cap-and-trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing — a simple, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax?
Representative John B. Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, has circulated a draft bill that would impose “a per-unit tax on the carbon-dioxide content of fossil fuels, beginning at a rate of $15 per metric ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year.” The bill sets a goal, rather than a cap, on emissions at 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, and if the goal for the first five years is not met, the tax automatically increases by an additional $5 per metric ton. The bill implements a fee on carbon-intensive imports, as well, to press China to follow suit. Larson would use most of the income to reduce people’s payroll taxes: We tax your carbon sins and un-tax your payroll wins.
People get that — and simplicity matters. Americans will be willing to pay a tax for their children to be less threatened, breathe cleaner air and live in a more sustainable world with a stronger America. They are much less likely to support a firm in London trading offsets from an electric bill in Boston with a derivatives firm in New York in order to help fund an aluminum smelter in Beijing, which is what cap-and-trade is all about. People won’t support what they can’t explain.
MESSAGE
Climate change is a real threat to a healthy planet Earth — the only home we have. But because the worst effects are in the future, many Americans have more immediate concerns. That is why our energy policy should be focused around “American renewal,” not mitigating climate change.
We need a price on carbon because it will stimulate massive innovation in the next great global industry — E.T. — energy technology. In a warming world with huge population growth, clean power systems are going to be in huge demand. The scientific research and innovation needed for America to dominate E.T. the way it did I.T. could be the foundation for a second American industrial revolution, plus it would tip the whole planet onto a greener path. So American economic renewal is the goal, but mitigating climate change would be the great byproduct.
MESSENGER
The Obama administration’s carbon tax spokesman — the one who should sell this to the country — should be the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, not the environmentalists. The imposing former head of the Marine Corps could make a powerful case that a carbon tax is vitally necessary to stimulate investments in the clean technologies that would enable the U.S. to dominate E.T., while also shifting consumers to buy these new, more efficient and cleaner power systems, homes and cars.
He could make the case that the country with the most powerful clean-technology industry in the 21st century will have the most energy security, national security, economic security, healthy environment, innovative companies and global respect. That country must be America. So let’s stop hiding the ball and have a strategy, message and messenger that tell it like it is — and make it so.
April 8, 2009
I am really encouraged by President Obama’s commitment to clean energy and combating climate change. I just have three worries: whether he has the right policies, the right politics and the right official to sell his program to the country. Other than that, things look great!
Last week, House Democrats, with administration support, introduced a 600-page draft bill on energy and climate. At the center of it is a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through a complicated cap-and-trade system. These people have the very best of intentions, but I wish they would step back and ask again: Can cap-and-trade pass? Will it really work? And is it the best strategy, with all the bureaucracy it will require to monitor, auction emissions permits and manage the trading?
Advocates of cap-and-trade argue that it is preferable to a simple carbon tax because it fixes a national cap on carbon emissions and it “hides the ball” — it doesn’t use the word “tax” — even though it amounts to one. So it can get through Congress. That was true as long as no one thought cap-and-trade could ever pass, but now that it might under Mr. Obama, opponents are not playing hide the ball anymore.
In the past two weeks, you could hear a chorus of Republicans, coal-state Democrats, right-wing think tanks and enviro-skeptics all singing the same tune: “Cap-and-trade is a tax. Obama is going to raise your taxes and sacrifice U.S. jobs to combat this global-warming charade, which many scientists think is nonsense. Worse, cap-and-trade will be managed by Wall Street. If you liked credit-default swaps, you’re going to love carbon-offset swaps.”
Some of the refrains from this song have a very catchy appeal. They could easily kill this effort. So, if the Obama team cares about the “ends” of a stronger America and a more livable planet, as much as the “means,” I hope it will consider an alternative strategy, message and messenger.
STRATEGY
Since the opponents of cap-and-trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing — a simple, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax?
Representative John B. Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, has circulated a draft bill that would impose “a per-unit tax on the carbon-dioxide content of fossil fuels, beginning at a rate of $15 per metric ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year.” The bill sets a goal, rather than a cap, on emissions at 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, and if the goal for the first five years is not met, the tax automatically increases by an additional $5 per metric ton. The bill implements a fee on carbon-intensive imports, as well, to press China to follow suit. Larson would use most of the income to reduce people’s payroll taxes: We tax your carbon sins and un-tax your payroll wins.
People get that — and simplicity matters. Americans will be willing to pay a tax for their children to be less threatened, breathe cleaner air and live in a more sustainable world with a stronger America. They are much less likely to support a firm in London trading offsets from an electric bill in Boston with a derivatives firm in New York in order to help fund an aluminum smelter in Beijing, which is what cap-and-trade is all about. People won’t support what they can’t explain.
MESSAGE
Climate change is a real threat to a healthy planet Earth — the only home we have. But because the worst effects are in the future, many Americans have more immediate concerns. That is why our energy policy should be focused around “American renewal,” not mitigating climate change.
We need a price on carbon because it will stimulate massive innovation in the next great global industry — E.T. — energy technology. In a warming world with huge population growth, clean power systems are going to be in huge demand. The scientific research and innovation needed for America to dominate E.T. the way it did I.T. could be the foundation for a second American industrial revolution, plus it would tip the whole planet onto a greener path. So American economic renewal is the goal, but mitigating climate change would be the great byproduct.
MESSENGER
The Obama administration’s carbon tax spokesman — the one who should sell this to the country — should be the president’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, not the environmentalists. The imposing former head of the Marine Corps could make a powerful case that a carbon tax is vitally necessary to stimulate investments in the clean technologies that would enable the U.S. to dominate E.T., while also shifting consumers to buy these new, more efficient and cleaner power systems, homes and cars.
He could make the case that the country with the most powerful clean-technology industry in the 21st century will have the most energy security, national security, economic security, healthy environment, innovative companies and global respect. That country must be America. So let’s stop hiding the ball and have a strategy, message and messenger that tell it like it is — and make it so.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Archer Daniels Midland project aims to bury carbon dioxide
The experiment will help determine whether storing greenhouse gases underground, or sequestration, is a viable solution for global warming.
Joshua Boak – Los Angeles Times
April 6, 2009
Decatur, Ill. — The drillers have gnawed through a mile of rock here, almost down to a 600-million-year-old layer of sandstone where they hope to bury about 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide -- equal to the annual emissions of 220,000 automobiles.
The $84-million project, of which $66.7 million comes from the Energy Department, will help determine whether storing greenhouse gases underground, so-called sequestration, is a viable solution for global warming.
The project by Archer Daniels Midland Co., in which greenhouses gases from a corn mill will be buried beneath shale, is important because it's the furthest along of the seven federally sponsored partnerships nationwide to study the matter.
Near the drilling derrick are steel drill bits caked with mud and worn to nubs. Drillers have already burrowed 5,300 feet deep, and they have 2,700 feet left to go.
The idea is that by burying emissions, coal power plants and factories would cause less damage to the environment.
"The day has to come when we can remove coal from the ground and return carbon dioxide" to the ground, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said at the official groundbreaking Monday of ADM's project.
Durbin has been a proponent of sequestration on Capitol Hill, having included $1 billion in the stimulus package to potentially restart FutureGen, an experimental coal power plant to be built in Mattoon, Ill., that would use sequestration. The Bush administration had pulled the plug on FutureGen.
Yet environmental groups say the government should not fund sequestration projects because of the risk of leaks.
"It is complete hubris to believe we can sink carbon dioxide into the ground and think there will be no leakage," said Carroll Muffett, a Greenpeace deputy campaigns director. "We see carbon capture as a serious distraction from real solutions. It's certainly not where public money should be going."
A gushing leak not only could release the emissions back into the atmosphere, it might also pose health risks to people in the form of "immediate death from asphyxiation" or prolonged exposure to high amounts of carbon dioxide, said David Gerard, executive director of the Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
The major question is whether shale will stop the waste from escaping. Shale resembles a series of overlapping flat plates that contain no room for the gases to pass through; the shale is a rock layer just above the sandstone at the ADM site.
"Right now we're evaluating the shale to make sure it will hold the carbon dioxide," said Jared Walker, a supervisor on the site for Schlumberger Carbon Services.
"With carbon dioxide, it's important that if we put it in the ground, it stays in the ground," said Scott Marsteller, a project manager for Schlumberger Carbon Services. "We're doing a lot of monitoring."
Also at stake with the ADM project is whether similar geological formations around the country and world can be used for sequestration.
If storage cannot be duplicated on a widespread basis, "it's not the option we're going to pursue," said Scott Klara, director of the Energy Department's Strategic Center for Coal.
The key to sequestration is dealing with different types of rock beneath the Earth's surface. Sandstone is porous, sort of like a box of marbles, explained Robert Finley, director of the Energy and Earth Resources Center of the Illinois State Geological Survey.
ADM plans to inject a liquid form of carbon dioxide waste from its mill into the space between the "marbles." Beginning about a year from now, ADM would deposit 1,000 metric tons of emissions each day, shooting them about 8,000 feet into the ground.
The injections at the ADM project would stop in 2013 with about 1 million metric tons, at which point the partnership would continue to study the site for potential leaks.
Joshua Boak – Los Angeles Times
April 6, 2009
Decatur, Ill. — The drillers have gnawed through a mile of rock here, almost down to a 600-million-year-old layer of sandstone where they hope to bury about 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide -- equal to the annual emissions of 220,000 automobiles.
The $84-million project, of which $66.7 million comes from the Energy Department, will help determine whether storing greenhouse gases underground, so-called sequestration, is a viable solution for global warming.
The project by Archer Daniels Midland Co., in which greenhouses gases from a corn mill will be buried beneath shale, is important because it's the furthest along of the seven federally sponsored partnerships nationwide to study the matter.
Near the drilling derrick are steel drill bits caked with mud and worn to nubs. Drillers have already burrowed 5,300 feet deep, and they have 2,700 feet left to go.
The idea is that by burying emissions, coal power plants and factories would cause less damage to the environment.
"The day has to come when we can remove coal from the ground and return carbon dioxide" to the ground, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said at the official groundbreaking Monday of ADM's project.
Durbin has been a proponent of sequestration on Capitol Hill, having included $1 billion in the stimulus package to potentially restart FutureGen, an experimental coal power plant to be built in Mattoon, Ill., that would use sequestration. The Bush administration had pulled the plug on FutureGen.
Yet environmental groups say the government should not fund sequestration projects because of the risk of leaks.
"It is complete hubris to believe we can sink carbon dioxide into the ground and think there will be no leakage," said Carroll Muffett, a Greenpeace deputy campaigns director. "We see carbon capture as a serious distraction from real solutions. It's certainly not where public money should be going."
A gushing leak not only could release the emissions back into the atmosphere, it might also pose health risks to people in the form of "immediate death from asphyxiation" or prolonged exposure to high amounts of carbon dioxide, said David Gerard, executive director of the Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.
The major question is whether shale will stop the waste from escaping. Shale resembles a series of overlapping flat plates that contain no room for the gases to pass through; the shale is a rock layer just above the sandstone at the ADM site.
"Right now we're evaluating the shale to make sure it will hold the carbon dioxide," said Jared Walker, a supervisor on the site for Schlumberger Carbon Services.
"With carbon dioxide, it's important that if we put it in the ground, it stays in the ground," said Scott Marsteller, a project manager for Schlumberger Carbon Services. "We're doing a lot of monitoring."
Also at stake with the ADM project is whether similar geological formations around the country and world can be used for sequestration.
If storage cannot be duplicated on a widespread basis, "it's not the option we're going to pursue," said Scott Klara, director of the Energy Department's Strategic Center for Coal.
The key to sequestration is dealing with different types of rock beneath the Earth's surface. Sandstone is porous, sort of like a box of marbles, explained Robert Finley, director of the Energy and Earth Resources Center of the Illinois State Geological Survey.
ADM plans to inject a liquid form of carbon dioxide waste from its mill into the space between the "marbles." Beginning about a year from now, ADM would deposit 1,000 metric tons of emissions each day, shooting them about 8,000 feet into the ground.
The injections at the ADM project would stop in 2013 with about 1 million metric tons, at which point the partnership would continue to study the site for potential leaks.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Stern's approach to climate talks cautious but optimistic
Lisa Friedman – ClimateWire
April 6, 2009
The cheering that greeted America's presence at U.N. global warming talks last week was "gratifying" and a little surprising, President Obama's climate envoy, Todd Stern, said upon returning to Washington, D.C., after his first foray into international negotiations.
"I was quite taken aback for a moment, because it's not typical for people in that world to do that," Stern said of the loud applause that broke out in Bonn, Germany, after he pledged to a crowd of staid diplomats that America will "make up for lost time" in reaching a global emissions treaty.
"I was just kind of cranking through my speech, and I looked up a bit surprised and pleased," Stern recalled. "It was quite gratifying to get a good reception. There's no question that in the absence of U.S. leadership and engagement for the past eight years, there was a lot of pent-up hopefulness and desire for the United States to indicate that we're back."
In his first interview since being tapped to lead the global negotiations toward a new international emissions treaty, Stern acknowledged criticism from Europe's left and America's right on everything from emissions targets to raising money to help vulnerable countries confront climate change amid the newfound international goodwill. He also distanced the administration from the possibility that the United States could impose an import tax on countries that don't put a price on carbon.
But he stood firm on the main goals he has twice outlined since joining the Obama administration: that America will return to 1990 emissions levels by 2020, that the government is intent upon building a clean-energy, low-carbon economy, and that fast-developing nations like China must take serious -- but still unspecified -- steps to brake their output of greenhouse gas emissions.
'The Chinese are actually doing a lot'
"It is important to take cognizance of the fact that the Chinese are actually doing a lot," Stern said. "They have a significant energy intensity target, renewable target and auto standards that, to date, are higher than our own, and a whole number of not insignificant efficiency standards. So they are doing things, without a doubt."
Together, the United States and China release about 41 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. Neither is currently bound by international commitments to reduce emissions. In hammering out a new treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, world leaders are aiming to craft a measure that demands serious actions from both countries.
For the United States, that will mean ambitious targets. Less clear is what form the "actions" from China, India, and other countries whose economies are growing fast but where millions of people still live without electricity and on less than $2 per day will take. Some proposals call for the so-called "emerging economies" to slow the rate of growth and agree to take actual caps on emissions in two or three decades. Others are calling for full commitments -- U.N. climate code for legally binding acts.
America's new negotiating team under Obama has not spelled out precisely what it hopes to see from China, and Stern only pointed out -- as he did in a major speech in Washington, D.C., last month -- that if unchecked, developing country emissions could push the world to dangerous levels of warming even with major action from the United States and others (ClimateWire, March 4).
"The Chinese need to take action at a level of ambition that keeps it possible for the world to be on the longer-range trajectory that it needs to be on," he said.
Stern also put some space between the administration and the threat that U.S. legislation capping emissions could include a tax on imports from countries that do not also put a price on carbon. The proposal, backed by steel and manufacturing interests as well as many Democrats on Capitol Hill, is aimed at protecting American industry from Chinese competition. Analysts worry that such a move could spark a trade war.
Last month, Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged that the so-called border adjustment tax would "level the playing field" between U.S. companies and those not obligated to reduce emissions under proposed domestic law.
No administration position on border tax
"That's not administration policy at this point," Stern said of the carbon levy. "It's out there, and it's undoubtedly going to be debated. I'm sure if it happens, it's not going to be popular with other countries," he said.
But, he added, "We haven't taken any administration position in support of a policy like that, and we do as a general matter take as a given ... that whatever we mean to do, be consistent with our trade obligations."
Right now the major vehicle for enacting a cap-and-trade system is a sweeping climate and energy bill (pdf) that House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) unveiled last week.
The proposal aims to curb U.S. emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, with a midcentury target of 83 percent reductions of greenhouse gases. While the long-term goal is consistent with the Obama aministration's plan to curb heat-trapping gases, it goes further over the course of this decade.
Delegates at the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change talks in Bonn hailed the more powerful midterm targets, calling them a strong sign as countries work toward a final deal in Copenhagen at the end of the year. Stern -- who has warned repeatedly that America is politically unable to curb greenhouse gas output 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, as Europe would like -- declined to say whether the Democrats' target is reachable.
"I think that generally, the administration sees the Waxman-Markey bill as pointing in exactly the same direction that the president is trying to point in terms of building a low-carbon economy, which is a huge endeavor with enormous economic potential," Stern said.
It remains unclear still, Stern said, whether the U.S. commitment in a Copenhagen agreement will be reflected in a specific target or other actions. He also claimed ignorance as to whether President Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would attend the December talks in Copenhagen.
"I have no idea," Stern said. "All I know is that I'll be there with a big U.S. delegation behind me."
April 6, 2009
The cheering that greeted America's presence at U.N. global warming talks last week was "gratifying" and a little surprising, President Obama's climate envoy, Todd Stern, said upon returning to Washington, D.C., after his first foray into international negotiations.
"I was quite taken aback for a moment, because it's not typical for people in that world to do that," Stern said of the loud applause that broke out in Bonn, Germany, after he pledged to a crowd of staid diplomats that America will "make up for lost time" in reaching a global emissions treaty.
"I was just kind of cranking through my speech, and I looked up a bit surprised and pleased," Stern recalled. "It was quite gratifying to get a good reception. There's no question that in the absence of U.S. leadership and engagement for the past eight years, there was a lot of pent-up hopefulness and desire for the United States to indicate that we're back."
In his first interview since being tapped to lead the global negotiations toward a new international emissions treaty, Stern acknowledged criticism from Europe's left and America's right on everything from emissions targets to raising money to help vulnerable countries confront climate change amid the newfound international goodwill. He also distanced the administration from the possibility that the United States could impose an import tax on countries that don't put a price on carbon.
But he stood firm on the main goals he has twice outlined since joining the Obama administration: that America will return to 1990 emissions levels by 2020, that the government is intent upon building a clean-energy, low-carbon economy, and that fast-developing nations like China must take serious -- but still unspecified -- steps to brake their output of greenhouse gas emissions.
'The Chinese are actually doing a lot'
"It is important to take cognizance of the fact that the Chinese are actually doing a lot," Stern said. "They have a significant energy intensity target, renewable target and auto standards that, to date, are higher than our own, and a whole number of not insignificant efficiency standards. So they are doing things, without a doubt."
Together, the United States and China release about 41 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. Neither is currently bound by international commitments to reduce emissions. In hammering out a new treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, world leaders are aiming to craft a measure that demands serious actions from both countries.
For the United States, that will mean ambitious targets. Less clear is what form the "actions" from China, India, and other countries whose economies are growing fast but where millions of people still live without electricity and on less than $2 per day will take. Some proposals call for the so-called "emerging economies" to slow the rate of growth and agree to take actual caps on emissions in two or three decades. Others are calling for full commitments -- U.N. climate code for legally binding acts.
America's new negotiating team under Obama has not spelled out precisely what it hopes to see from China, and Stern only pointed out -- as he did in a major speech in Washington, D.C., last month -- that if unchecked, developing country emissions could push the world to dangerous levels of warming even with major action from the United States and others (ClimateWire, March 4).
"The Chinese need to take action at a level of ambition that keeps it possible for the world to be on the longer-range trajectory that it needs to be on," he said.
Stern also put some space between the administration and the threat that U.S. legislation capping emissions could include a tax on imports from countries that do not also put a price on carbon. The proposal, backed by steel and manufacturing interests as well as many Democrats on Capitol Hill, is aimed at protecting American industry from Chinese competition. Analysts worry that such a move could spark a trade war.
Last month, Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged that the so-called border adjustment tax would "level the playing field" between U.S. companies and those not obligated to reduce emissions under proposed domestic law.
No administration position on border tax
"That's not administration policy at this point," Stern said of the carbon levy. "It's out there, and it's undoubtedly going to be debated. I'm sure if it happens, it's not going to be popular with other countries," he said.
But, he added, "We haven't taken any administration position in support of a policy like that, and we do as a general matter take as a given ... that whatever we mean to do, be consistent with our trade obligations."
Right now the major vehicle for enacting a cap-and-trade system is a sweeping climate and energy bill (pdf) that House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) unveiled last week.
The proposal aims to curb U.S. emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, with a midcentury target of 83 percent reductions of greenhouse gases. While the long-term goal is consistent with the Obama aministration's plan to curb heat-trapping gases, it goes further over the course of this decade.
Delegates at the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change talks in Bonn hailed the more powerful midterm targets, calling them a strong sign as countries work toward a final deal in Copenhagen at the end of the year. Stern -- who has warned repeatedly that America is politically unable to curb greenhouse gas output 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, as Europe would like -- declined to say whether the Democrats' target is reachable.
"I think that generally, the administration sees the Waxman-Markey bill as pointing in exactly the same direction that the president is trying to point in terms of building a low-carbon economy, which is a huge endeavor with enormous economic potential," Stern said.
It remains unclear still, Stern said, whether the U.S. commitment in a Copenhagen agreement will be reflected in a specific target or other actions. He also claimed ignorance as to whether President Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would attend the December talks in Copenhagen.
"I have no idea," Stern said. "All I know is that I'll be there with a big U.S. delegation behind me."
Friday, April 3, 2009
A Catalyst for Cheaper Fuel Cells
Thursday, April 02, 2009
The material could replace platinum in hydrogen vehicles.
By Kevin Bullis
A new catalyst based on iron works as well as platinum-based catalysts for accelerating the chemical reactions inside hydrogen fuel cells. The finding could help make fuel cells for electric cars cheaper and more practical.
Fuel cell researchers have been looking for cheaper, more abundant alternatives to platinum, which costs between $1,000 and $2,000 an ounce and is mined almost exclusively in just two countries: South Africa and Russia. One promising catalyst that uses far less expensive materials--iron, nitrogen, and carbon--has long been known to promote the necessary reactions, but at rates that are far too slow to be practical.
Now researchers at the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (INRS) in Quebec have dramatically increased the performance of this type of iron-based catalyst. Their material produces 99 amps per cubic centimeter at 0.8 volts, a key measurement of catalytic activity. That is 35 times better than the best nonprecious metal catalyst so far, and close to the Department of Energy's goal for fuel-cell catalysts: 130 amps per cubic centimeter. It also matches the performance of typical platinum catalysts, says Jean-Pol Dodelet, a professor of energy, materials, and telecommunications at INRS who led the work.
The improvement, reported in the latest issue of the journal Science, is "quite surprising," says Radoslav Adzic, a senior chemist at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, NY, who also develops catalysts for fuel cells. The new material meets a benchmark for hydrogen fuel cells set five years ago that "we thought nobody would ever meet," adds Hubert Gasteiger, a visiting professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. "For the very first time, a nonprecious metal catalyst makes sense."
The INRS researchers' key insight was finding a way to increase the number of active catalytic sites within the material--with more sites for chemical reactions, the overall rate of the reactions in the material increases. In previous work, the researchers had shown that heating carbon black (a powdery form of carbon similar to graphite) to high temperatures in the presence of ammonia and iron acetate created gaps in the carbon that are just a few atoms wide. Nitrogen atoms bind to opposite sides of these tiny gaps, and an iron ion bridges these atoms, forming an active site for catalysis.
To increase the number of these sites, the researchers used a commercially available form of carbon that already has a large number of similarly narrow pores. Filling these pores with a nitrogen-and-iron-containing material and then heating up the mixture resulted in the much improved reaction rates.
The catalyst is designed to work in proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells, a type of fuel cell favored by automakers because it operates at relatively low temperatures and has high power density--that is, a relatively small fuel cell can produce enough electricity to propel a car. PEM fuel cells use catalysts at two electrodes. One catalyst splits hydrogen and the other promotes a reaction that combines protons and oxygen to produce water. The second reaction is more difficult to perform: in conventional fuel cells, platinum is used in both electrodes, but 10 times as much is needed on the water-producing side. The new catalyst replaces platinum on the water-producing side, eliminating almost all of the platinum in the fuel cell.
Recently, other nonprecious metal catalysts have been demonstrated in another type of fuel cell, called an alkaline cell, but these may not work in the acidic environment in PEM fuel cells. At the same time, many researchers are finding ways to reduce the amount of platinum needed, rather than replacing the material altogether. This could make fuel cells more affordable in the short term, although eventually, if fuel cells are to be used widely, a nonprecious metal catalyst will be needed, Adzic says.
Dodelet believes that while his group has "solved the problem" of increasing the activity of the catalyst, two more significant hurdles remain before it can be practical in fuel cells. First, the catalyst's durability needs to be improved. After 100 hours of testing, the reaction rates decreased by half. Second, because the catalyst can only work as fast as the reactants are provided, the transport of oxygen and protons into the material needs to be improved, something Dodelet plans to leave to fuel-cell engineers. Adzic says that the first step toward addressing the materials' durability will be closely studying the catalyst to better understand how it works.
The material could replace platinum in hydrogen vehicles.
By Kevin Bullis
A new catalyst based on iron works as well as platinum-based catalysts for accelerating the chemical reactions inside hydrogen fuel cells. The finding could help make fuel cells for electric cars cheaper and more practical.
Fuel cell researchers have been looking for cheaper, more abundant alternatives to platinum, which costs between $1,000 and $2,000 an ounce and is mined almost exclusively in just two countries: South Africa and Russia. One promising catalyst that uses far less expensive materials--iron, nitrogen, and carbon--has long been known to promote the necessary reactions, but at rates that are far too slow to be practical.
Now researchers at the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique (INRS) in Quebec have dramatically increased the performance of this type of iron-based catalyst. Their material produces 99 amps per cubic centimeter at 0.8 volts, a key measurement of catalytic activity. That is 35 times better than the best nonprecious metal catalyst so far, and close to the Department of Energy's goal for fuel-cell catalysts: 130 amps per cubic centimeter. It also matches the performance of typical platinum catalysts, says Jean-Pol Dodelet, a professor of energy, materials, and telecommunications at INRS who led the work.
The improvement, reported in the latest issue of the journal Science, is "quite surprising," says Radoslav Adzic, a senior chemist at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, NY, who also develops catalysts for fuel cells. The new material meets a benchmark for hydrogen fuel cells set five years ago that "we thought nobody would ever meet," adds Hubert Gasteiger, a visiting professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. "For the very first time, a nonprecious metal catalyst makes sense."
The INRS researchers' key insight was finding a way to increase the number of active catalytic sites within the material--with more sites for chemical reactions, the overall rate of the reactions in the material increases. In previous work, the researchers had shown that heating carbon black (a powdery form of carbon similar to graphite) to high temperatures in the presence of ammonia and iron acetate created gaps in the carbon that are just a few atoms wide. Nitrogen atoms bind to opposite sides of these tiny gaps, and an iron ion bridges these atoms, forming an active site for catalysis.
To increase the number of these sites, the researchers used a commercially available form of carbon that already has a large number of similarly narrow pores. Filling these pores with a nitrogen-and-iron-containing material and then heating up the mixture resulted in the much improved reaction rates.
The catalyst is designed to work in proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells, a type of fuel cell favored by automakers because it operates at relatively low temperatures and has high power density--that is, a relatively small fuel cell can produce enough electricity to propel a car. PEM fuel cells use catalysts at two electrodes. One catalyst splits hydrogen and the other promotes a reaction that combines protons and oxygen to produce water. The second reaction is more difficult to perform: in conventional fuel cells, platinum is used in both electrodes, but 10 times as much is needed on the water-producing side. The new catalyst replaces platinum on the water-producing side, eliminating almost all of the platinum in the fuel cell.
Recently, other nonprecious metal catalysts have been demonstrated in another type of fuel cell, called an alkaline cell, but these may not work in the acidic environment in PEM fuel cells. At the same time, many researchers are finding ways to reduce the amount of platinum needed, rather than replacing the material altogether. This could make fuel cells more affordable in the short term, although eventually, if fuel cells are to be used widely, a nonprecious metal catalyst will be needed, Adzic says.
Dodelet believes that while his group has "solved the problem" of increasing the activity of the catalyst, two more significant hurdles remain before it can be practical in fuel cells. First, the catalyst's durability needs to be improved. After 100 hours of testing, the reaction rates decreased by half. Second, because the catalyst can only work as fast as the reactants are provided, the transport of oxygen and protons into the material needs to be improved, something Dodelet plans to leave to fuel-cell engineers. Adzic says that the first step toward addressing the materials' durability will be closely studying the catalyst to better understand how it works.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
