Climate

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares88 Views

    Making solar projects cheaper and faster with portable factories

    by

    As the price of solar panels has plummeted in recent decades, installation costs have taken up a greater share of the technology’s overall price tag. The long installation process for solar farms is also emerging as a key bottleneck in the deployment of solar energy.Now the startup Charge Robotics is developing solar installation factories to speed up the process of building large-scale solar farms. The company’s factories are shipped to the site of utility solar projects, where equipment including tracks, mounting brackets, and panels are fed into the system and automatically assembled. A robotic vehicle autonomously puts the finished product — which amounts to a completed section of solar farm — in its final place.“We think of this as the Henry Ford moment for solar,” says CEO Banks Hunter ’15, who founded Charge Robotics with fellow MIT alumnus Max Justicz ’17. “We’re going from a very bespoke, hands on, manual installation process to something much more streamlined and set up for mass manufacturing. There are all kinds of benefits that come along with that, including consistency, quality, speed, cost, and safety.”Last year, solar energy accounted for 81 percent of new electric capacity in the U.S., and Hunter and Justicz see their factories as necessary for continued acceleration in the industry.The founders say they were met with skepticism when they first unveiled their plans. But in the beginning of last year, they deployed a prototype system that successfully built a solar farm with SOLV Energy, one of the largest solar installers in the U.S. Now, Charge has raised $22 million for its first commercial deployments later this year.From surgical robots to solar robotsWhile majoring in mechanical engineering at MIT, Hunter found plenty of excuses to build things. One such excuse was Course 2.009 (Product Engineering Processes), where he and his classmates built a smart watch for communication in remote areas.After graduation, Hunter worked for the MIT alumni-founded startups Shaper Tools and Vicarious Surgical. Vicarious Surgical is a medical robotics company that has raised more than $450 million to date. Hunter was the second employee and worked there for five years.“A lot of really hands on, project-based classes at MIT translated directly into my first roles coming out of school and set me up to be very independent and run large engineering projects,” Hunter says, “Course 2.009, in particular, was a big launch point for me. The founders of Vicarious Surgical got in touch with me through the 2.009 network.”As early as 2017, Hunter and Justicz, who majored in mechanical engineering and computer science, had discussed starting a company together. But they had to decide where to apply their broad engineering and product skillsets.“Both of us care a lot about climate change. We see climate change as the biggest problem impacting the greatest number of people on the planet,” Hunter says. “Our mentality was if we can build anything, we might as well build something that really matters.”In the process of cold calling hundreds of people in the energy industry, the founders decided solar was the future of energy production because its price was decreasing so quickly.“It’s becoming cheaper faster than any other form of energy production in human history,” Hunter says.When the founders began visiting construction sites for the large, utility-scale solar farms that make up the bulk of energy generation, it wasn’t hard to find the bottlenecks. The first site they traveled to was in the Mojave Desert in California. Hunter describes it as a massive dust bowl where thousands of workers spent months repeating tasks like moving material and assembling the same parts, over and over again.“The site had something like 2 million panels on it, and every single one was assembled and fastened the same way by hand,” Hunter says. “Max and I thought it was insane. There’s no way that can scale to transform the energy grid in a short window of time.”Hunter says he heard from each of the largest solar companies in the U.S. that their biggest limitation for scaling was labor shortages. The problem was slowing growth and killing projects.Hunter and Justicz founded Charge Robotics in 2021 to break through that bottleneck. Their first step was to order utility solar parts and assemble them by hand in their backyards.“From there, we came up with this portable assembly line that we could ship out to construction sites and then feed in the entire solar system, including the steel tracks, mounting brackets, fasteners, and the solar panels,” Hunter explains. “The assembly line robotically assembles all those pieces to produce completed solar bays, which are chunks of a solar farm.”

    Charge Robotics’ machine transports an autonomously assembled portion of solar farm to its final place in a solar farm.

    Credit: Courtesy of Charge Robotics

    Previous item
    Next item

    Each bay represents a 40-foot piece of the solar farm and weighs about 800 pounds. A robotic vehicle brings it to its final location in the field. Hunter says Charge’s system automates all mechanical installation except for the process of pile driving the first metal stakes into the ground.Charge’s assembly lines also have machine-vision systems that scan each part to ensure quality, and the systems work with the most common solar parts and panel sizes.From pilot to productWhen the founders started pitching their plans to investors and construction companies, people didn’t believe it was possible.“The initial feedback was basically, ‘This will never work,’” Hunter says. “But as soon as we took our first system out into the field and people saw it operating, they got much more excited and started believing it was real.”Since that first deployment, Charge’s team has been making its system faster and easier to operate. The company plans to set up its factories at project sites and run them in partnership with solar construction companies. The factories could even run alongside human workers.“With our system, people are operating robotic equipment remotely rather than putting in the screws themselves,” Hunter explains. “We can essentially deliver the assembled solar to customers. Their only responsibility is to deliver the materials and parts on big pallets that we feed into our system.”Hunter says multiple factories could be deployed at the same site and could also operate 24/7 to dramatically speed up projects.“We are hitting the limits of solar growth because these companies don’t have enough people,” Hunter says. “We can build much bigger sites much faster with the same number of people by just shipping out more of our factories. It’s a fundamentally new way of scaling solar energy.” More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares165 Views

      in Environment

      Study: The ozone hole is healing, thanks to global reduction of CFCs

      by

      A new MIT-led study confirms that the Antarctic ozone layer is healing, as a direct result of global efforts to reduce ozone-depleting substances.Scientists including the MIT team have observed signs of ozone recovery in the past. But the new study is the first to show, with high statistical confidence, that this recovery is due primarily to the reduction of ozone-depleting substances, versus other influences such as natural weather variability or increased greenhouse gas emissions to the stratosphere.“There’s been a lot of qualitative evidence showing that the Antarctic ozone hole is getting better. This is really the first study that has quantified confidence in the recovery of the ozone hole,” says study author Susan Solomon, the Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of Environmental Studies and Chemistry. “The conclusion is, with 95 percent confidence, it is recovering. Which is awesome. And it shows we can actually solve environmental problems.”The new study appears today in the journal Nature. Graduate student Peidong Wang from the Solomon group in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) is the lead author. His co-authors include Solomon and EAPS Research Scientist Kane Stone, along with collaborators from multiple other institutions.Roots of ozone recoveryWithin the Earth’s stratosphere, ozone is a naturally occurring gas that acts as a sort of sunscreen, protecting the planet from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. In 1985, scientists discovered a “hole” in the ozone layer over Antarctica that opened up during the austral spring, between September and December. This seasonal ozone depletion was suddenly allowing UV rays to filter down to the surface, leading to skin cancer and other adverse health effects.In 1986, Solomon, who was then working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), led expeditions to the Antarctic, where she and her colleagues gathered evidence that quickly confirmed the ozone hole’s cause: chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs — chemicals that were then used in refrigeration, air conditioning, insulation, and aerosol propellants. When CFCs drift up into the stratosphere, they can break down ozone under certain seasonal conditions.The following year, those relevations led to the drafting of the Montreal Protocol — an international treaty that aimed to phase out the production of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances, in hopes of healing the ozone hole.In 2016, Solomon led a study reporting key signs of ozone recovery. The ozone hole seemed to be shrinking with each year, especially in September, the time of year when it opens up. Still, these observations were qualitative. The study showed large uncertainties regarding how much of this recovery was due to concerted efforts to reduce ozone-depleting substances, or if the shrinking ozone hole was a result of other “forcings,” such as year-to-year weather variability from El Niño, La Niña, and the polar vortex.“While detecting a statistically significant increase in ozone is relatively straightforward, attributing these changes to specific forcings is more challenging,” says Wang.Anthropogenic healingIn their new study, the MIT team took a quantitative approach to identify the cause of Antarctic ozone recovery. The researchers borrowed a method from the climate change community, known as “fingerprinting,” which was pioneered by Klaus Hasselmann, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021 for the technique. In the context of climate, fingerprinting refers to a method that isolates the influence of specific climate factors, apart from natural, meteorological noise. Hasselmann applied fingerprinting to identify, confirm, and quantify the anthropogenic fingerprint of climate change.Solomon and Wang looked to apply the fingerprinting method to identify another anthropogenic signal: the effect of human reductions in ozone-depleting substances on the recovery of the ozone hole.“The atmosphere has really chaotic variability within it,” Solomon says. “What we’re trying to detect is the emerging signal of ozone recovery against that kind of variability, which also occurs in the stratosphere.”The researchers started with simulations of the Earth’s atmosphere and generated multiple “parallel worlds,” or simulations of the same global atmosphere, under different starting conditions. For instance, they ran simulations under conditions that assumed no increase in greenhouse gases or ozone-depleting substances. Under these conditions, any changes in ozone should be the result of natural weather variability. They also ran simulations with only increasing greenhouse gases, as well as only decreasing ozone-depleting substances.They compared these simulations to observe how ozone in the Antarctic stratosphere changed, both with season, and across different altitudes, in response to different starting conditions. From these simulations, they mapped out the times and altitudes where ozone recovered from month to month, over several decades, and identified a key “fingerprint,” or pattern, of ozone recovery that was specifically due to conditions of declining ozone-depleting substances.The team then looked for this fingerprint in actual satellite observations of the Antarctic ozone hole from 2005 to the present day. They found that, over time, the fingerprint that they identified in simulations became clearer and clearer in observations. In 2018, the fingerprint was at its strongest, and the team could say with 95 percent confidence that ozone recovery was due mainly to reductions in ozone-depleting substances.“After 15 years of observational records, we see this signal to noise with 95 percent confidence, suggesting there’s only a very small chance that the observed pattern similarity can be explained by variability noise,” Wang says. “This gives us confidence in the fingerprint. It also gives us confidence that we can solve environmental problems. What we can learn from ozone studies is how different countries can swiftly follow these treaties to decrease emissions.”If the trend continues, and the fingerprint of ozone recovery grows stronger, Solomon anticipates that soon there will be a year, here and there, when the ozone layer stays entirely intact. And eventually, the ozone hole should stay shut for good.“By something like 2035, we might see a year when there’s no ozone hole depletion at all in the Antarctic. And that will be very exciting for me,” she says. “And some of you will see the ozone hole go away completely in your lifetimes. And people did that.”This research was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation and NASA. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in Energy

      Rooftop panels, EV chargers, and smart thermostats could chip in to boost power grid resilience

      by

      There’s a lot of untapped potential in our homes and vehicles that could be harnessed to reinforce local power grids and make them more resilient to unforeseen outages, a new study shows.In response to a cyber attack or natural disaster, a backup network of decentralized devices — such as residential solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and water heaters — could restore electricity or relieve stress on the grid, MIT engineers say.Such devices are “grid-edge” resources found close to the consumer rather than near central power plants, substations, or transmission lines. Grid-edge devices can independently generate, store, or tune their consumption of power. In their study, the research team shows how such devices could one day be called upon to either pump power into the grid, or rebalance it by dialing down or delaying their power use.In a paper appearing this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the engineers present a blueprint for how grid-edge devices could reinforce the power grid through a “local electricity market.” Owners of grid-edge devices could subscribe to a regional market and essentially loan out their device to be part of a microgrid or a local network of on-call energy resources.In the event that the main power grid is compromised, an algorithm developed by the researchers would kick in for each local electricity market, to quickly determine which devices in the network are trustworthy. The algorithm would then identify the combination of trustworthy devices that would most effectively mitigate the power failure, by either pumping power into the grid or reducing the power they draw from it, by an amount that the algorithm would calculate and communicate to the relevant subscribers. The subscribers could then be compensated through the market, depending on their participation.The team illustrated this new framework through a number of grid attack scenarios, in which they considered failures at different levels of a power grid, from various sources such as a cyber attack or a natural disaster. Applying their algorithm, they showed that various networks of grid-edge devices were able to dissolve the various attacks.The results demonstrate that grid-edge devices such as rooftop solar panels, EV chargers, batteries, and smart thermostats (for HVAC devices or heat pumps) could be tapped to stabilize the power grid in the event of an attack.“All these small devices can do their little bit in terms of adjusting their consumption,” says study co-author Anu Annaswamy, a research scientist in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering. “If we can harness our smart dishwashers, rooftop panels, and EVs, and put our combined shoulders to the wheel, we can really have a resilient grid.”The study’s MIT co-authors include lead author Vineet Nair and John Williams, along with collaborators from multiple institutions including the Indian Institute of Technology, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and elsewhere.Power boostThe team’s study is an extension of their broader work in adaptive control theory and designing systems to automatically adapt to changing conditions. Annaswamy, who leads the Active-Adaptive Control Laboratory at MIT, explores ways to boost the reliability of renewable energy sources such as solar power.“These renewables come with a strong temporal signature, in that we know for sure the sun will set every day, so the solar power will go away,” Annaswamy says. “How do you make up for the shortfall?”The researchers found the answer could lie in the many grid-edge devices that consumers are increasingly installing in their own homes.“There are lots of distributed energy resources that are coming up now, closer to the customer rather than near large power plants, and it’s mainly because of individual efforts to decarbonize,” Nair says. “So you have all this capability at the grid edge. Surely we should be able to put them to good use.”While considering ways to deal with drops in energy from the normal operation of renewable sources, the team also began to look into other causes of power dips, such as from cyber attacks. They wondered, in these malicious instances, whether and how the same grid-edge devices could step in to stabilize the grid following an unforeseen, targeted attack.Attack modeIn their new work, Annaswamy, Nair, and their colleagues developed a framework for incorporating grid-edge devices, and in particular, internet-of-things (IoT) devices, in a way that would support the larger grid in the event of an attack or disruption. IoT devices are physical objects that contain sensors and software that connect to the internet.For their new framework, named EUREICA (Efficient, Ultra-REsilient, IoT-Coordinated Assets), the researchers start with the assumption that one day, most grid-edge devices will also be IoT devices, enabling rooftop panels, EV chargers, and smart thermostats to wirelessly connect to a larger network of similarly independent and distributed devices. The team envisions that for a given region, such as a community of 1,000 homes, there exists a certain number of IoT devices that could potentially be enlisted in the region’s local network, or microgrid. Such a network would be managed by an operator, who would be able to communicate with operators of other nearby microgrids.If the main power grid is compromised or attacked, operators would run the researchers’ decision-making algorithm to determine trustworthy devices within the network that can pitch in to help mitigate the attack.The team tested the algorithm on a number of scenarios, such as a cyber attack in which all smart thermostats made by a certain manufacturer are hacked to raise their setpoints simultaneously to a degree that dramatically alters a region’s energy load and destabilizes the grid. The researchers also considered attacks and weather events that would shut off the transmission of energy at various levels and nodes throughout a power grid.“In our attacks we consider between 5 and 40 percent of the power being lost. We assume some nodes are attacked, and some are still available and have some IoT resources, whether a battery with energy available or an EV or HVAC device that’s controllable,” Nair explains. “So, our algorithm decides which of those houses can step in to either provide extra power generation to inject into the grid or reduce their demand to meet the shortfall.”In every scenario that they tested, the team found that the algorithm was able to successfully restabilize the grid and mitigate the attack or power failure. They acknowledge that to put in place such a network of grid-edge devices will require buy-in from customers, policymakers, and local officials, as well as innovations such as advanced power inverters that enable EVs to inject power back into the grid.“This is just the first of many steps that have to happen in quick succession for this idea of local electricity markets to be implemented and expanded upon,” Annaswamy says. “But we believe it’s a good start.”This work was supported, in part, by the U.S. Department of Energy and the MIT Energy Initiative. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Energy

      3 Questions: What the laws of physics tell us about CO2 removal

      by

      Human activities continue to pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, raising global temperatures and driving extreme weather events. As countries grapple with climate impacts and ways to significantly reduce carbon emissions, there have been various efforts to advance carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies that directly remove carbon dioxide from the air and sequester it for long periods of time.Unlike carbon capture and storage technologies, which are designed to remove carbon dioxide at point sources such as fossil-fuel plants, CDR aims to remove carbon dioxide molecules that are already circulating in the atmosphere.A new report by the American Physical Society and led by an MIT physicist provides an overview of the major experimental CDR approaches and determines their fundamental physical limits. The report focuses on methods that have the biggest potential for removing carbon dioxide, at the scale of gigatons per year, which is the magnitude that would be required to have a climate-stabilizing impact.The new report was commissioned by the American Physical Society’s Panel on Public Affairs, and appeared last week in the journal PRX. The report was chaired by MIT professor of physics Washington Taylor, who spoke with MIT News about CDR’s physical limitations and why it’s worth pursuing in tandem with global efforts to reduce carbon emissions.Q: What motivated you to look at carbon dioxide removal systems from a physical science perspective?A: The number one thing driving climate change is the fact that we’re taking carbon that has been stuck in the ground for 100 million years, and putting it in the atmosphere, and that’s causing warming. In the last few years there’s been a lot of interest both by the government and private entities in finding technologies to directly remove the CO2 from the air.How to manage atmospheric carbon is the critical question in dealing with our impact on Earth’s climate. So, it’s very important for us to understand whether we can affect the carbon levels not just by changing our emissions profile but also by directly taking carbon out of the atmosphere. Physics has a lot to say about this because the possibilities are very strongly constrained by thermodynamics, mass issues, and things like that.Q: What carbon dioxide removal methods did you evaluate?A: They’re all at an early stage. It’s kind of the Wild West out there in terms of the different ways in which companies are proposing to remove carbon from the atmosphere. In this report, we break down CDR processes into two classes: cyclic and once-through.Imagine we are in a boat that has a hole in the hull and is rapidly taking on water. Of course, we want to plug the hole as quickly as we can. But even once we have fixed the hole, we need to get the water out so we aren’t in danger of sinking or getting swamped. And this is particularly urgent if we haven’t completely fixed the hole so we still have a slow leak. Now, imagine we have a couple of options for how to get the water out so we don’t sink.The first is a sponge that we can use to absorb water, that we can then squeeze out and reuse. That’s a cyclic process in the sense that we have some material that we’re using over and over. There are cyclic CDR processes like chemical “direct air capture” (DAC), which acts basically like a sponge. You set up a big system with fans that blow air past some material that captures carbon dioxide. When the material is saturated, you close off the system and then use energy to essentially squeeze out the carbon and store it in a deep repository. Then you can reuse the material, in a cyclic process.The second class of approaches is what we call “once-through.” In the boat analogy, it would be as if you try to fix the leak using cartons of paper towels. You let them saturate and then throw them overboard, and you use each roll once.There are once-through CDR approaches, like enhanced rock weathering, that are designed to accelerate a natural process, by which certain rocks, when exposed to air, will absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Worldwide, this natural rock weathering is estimated to remove about 1 gigaton of carbon each year. “Enhanced rock weathering” is a CDR approach where you would dig up a lot of this rock, grind it up really small, to less than the width of a human hair, to get the process to happen much faster. The idea is, you dig up something, spread it out, and absorb CO2 in one go.The key difference between these two processes is that the cyclic process is subject to the second law of thermodynamics and there’s an energy constraint. You can set an actual limit from physics, saying any cyclic process is going to take a certain amount of energy, and that cannot be avoided. For example, we find that for cyclic direct-air-capture (DAC) plants, based on second law limits, the absolute minimum amount of energy you would need to capture a gigaton of carbon is comparable to the total yearly electric energy consumption of the state of Virginia. Systems currently under development use at least three to 10 times this much energy on a per ton basis (and capture tens of thousands, not billions, of tons). Such systems also need to move a lot of air; the air that would need to pass through a DAC system to capture a gigaton of CO2 is comparable to the amount of air that passes through all the air cooling systems on the planet.On the other hand, if you have a once-through process, you could in some respects avoid the energy constraint, but now you’ve got a materials constraint due to the central laws of chemistry. For once-through processes like enhanced rock weathering, that means that if you want to capture a gigaton of CO2, roughly speaking, you’re going to need a billion tons of rock.So, to capture gigatons of carbon through engineered methods requires tremendous amounts of physical material, air movement, and energy. On the other hand, everything we’re doing to put that CO2 in the atmosphere is extensive too, so large-scale emissions reductions face comparable challenges.Q: What does the report conclude, in terms of whether and how to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?A: Our initial prejudice was, CDR is just going to take so much energy, and there’s no way around that because of the second law of thermodynamics, regardless of the method.But as we discussed, there is this nuance about cyclic versus once-through systems. And there are two points of view that we ended up threading a needle between. One is the view that CDR is a silver bullet, and we’ll just do CDR and not worry about emissions — we’ll just suck it all out of the atmosphere. And that’s not the case. It will be really expensive, and will take a lot of energy and materials to do large-scale CDR. But there’s another view, where people say, don’t even think about CDR. Even thinking about CDR will compromise our efforts toward emissions reductions. The report comes down somewhere in the middle, saying that CDR is not a magic bullet, but also not a no-go.If we are serious about managing climate change, we will likely want substantial CDR in addition to aggressive emissions reductions. The report concludes that research and development on CDR methods should be selectively and prudently pursued despite the expected cost and energy and material requirements.At a policy level, the main message is that we need an economic and policy framework that incentivizes emissions reductions and CDR in a common framework; this would naturally allow the market to optimize climate solutions. Since in many cases it is much easier and cheaper to cut emissions than it will likely ever be to remove atmospheric carbon, clearly understanding the challenges of CDR should help motivate rapid emissions reductions.For me, I’m optimistic in the sense that scientifically we understand what it will take to reduce emissions and to use CDR to bring CO2 levels down to a slightly lower level. Now, it’s really a societal and economic problem. I think humanity has the potential to solve these problems. I hope that we can find common ground so that we can take actions as a society that will benefit both humanity and the broader ecosystems on the planet, before we end up having bigger problems than we already have.  More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Environment

      Seeking climate connections among the oceans’ smallest organisms

      by

      Andrew Babbin tries to pack light for work trips. Along with the travel essentials, though, he also brings a roll each of electrical tape, duct tape, lab tape, a pack of cable ties, and some bungee cords.“It’s my MacGyver kit: You never know when you have to rig something on the fly in the field or fix a broken bag,” Babbin says.The trips Babbin takes are far out to sea, on month-long cruises, where he works to sample waters off the Pacific coast and out in the open ocean. In remote locations, repair essentials often come in handy, as when Babbin had to zip-tie a wrench to a sampling device to help it sink through an icy Antarctic lake.Babbin is an oceanographer and marine biogeochemist who studies marine microbes and the ways in which they control the cycling of nitrogen between the ocean and the atmosphere. This exchange helps maintain healthy ocean ecosystems and supports the ocean’s capacity to store carbon.By combining measurements that he takes in the ocean with experiments in his MIT lab, Babbin is working to understand the connections between microbes and ocean nitrogen, which could in turn help scientists identify ways to maintain the ocean’s health and productivity. His work has taken him to many coastal and open-ocean regions around the globe.“You really become an oceanographer and an Earth scientist to see the world,” says Babbin, who recently earned tenure as the Cecil and Ida Green Career Development Professor in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. “We embrace the diversity of places and cultures on this planet. To see just a small fraction of that is special.”A powerful cycleThe ocean has been a constant presence for Babbin since childhood. His family is from Monmouth County, New Jersey, where he and his twin sister grew up playing along the Jersey shore. When they were teenagers, their parents took the kids on family cruise vacations.“I always loved being on the water,” he says. “My favorite parts of any of those cruises were the days at sea, where you were just in the middle of some ocean basin with water all around you.”In school, Babbin gravitated to the sciences, and chemistry in particular. After high school, he attended Columbia University, where a visit to the school’s Earth and environmental engineering department catalyzed a realization.“For me, it was always this excitement about the water and about chemistry, and it was this pop of, ‘Oh wow, it doesn’t have to be one or the other,’” Babbin says.He chose to major in Earth and environmental engineering, with a concentration in water resources and climate risks. After graduating in 2008, Babbin returned to his home state, where he attended Princeton University and set a course for a PhD in geosciences, with a focus on chemical oceanography and environmental microbiology. His advisor, oceanographer Bess Ward, took Babbin on as a member of her research group and invited him on several month-long cruises to various parts of the eastern tropical Pacific.“I still remember that first trip,” Babbin recalls. “It was a whirlwind. Everyone else had been to sea a gazillion times and was loading the boat and strapping things down, and I had no idea of anything. And within a few hours, I was doing an experiment as the ship rocked back and forth!”Babbin learned to deploy sampling cannisters overboard, then haul them back up and analyze the seawater inside for signs of nitrogen — an essential nutrient for all living things on Earth.As it turns out, the plants and animals that depend on nitrogen to survive are unable to take it up from the atmosphere themselves. They require a sort of go-between, in the form of microbes that “fix” nitrogen, converting it from nitrogen gas to more digestible forms. In the ocean, this nitrogen fixation is done by highly specialized microbial species, which work to make nitrogen available to phytoplankton — microscopic plant-like organisms that are the foundation of the marine food chain. Phytoplankton are also a main route by which the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.Microorganisms may also use these biologically available forms of nitrogen for energy under certain conditions, returning nitrogen to the atmosphere. These microbes can also release a byproduct of nitrous oxide, which is a potent greenhouse gas that also can catalyze ozone loss in the stratosphere.Through his graduate work, at sea and in the lab, Babbin became fascinated with the cycling of nitrogen and the role that nitrogen-fixing microbes play in supporting the ocean’s ecosystems and the climate overall. A balance of nitrogen inputs and outputs sustains phytoplankton and maintains the ocean’s ability to soak up carbon dioxide.“Some of the really pressing questions in ocean biogeochemistry pertain to this cycling of nitrogen,” Babbin says. “Understanding the ways in which this one element cycles through the ocean, and how it is central to ecosystem health and the planet’s climate, has been really powerful.”In the lab and out to seaAfter completing his PhD in 2014, Babbin arrived at MIT as a postdoc in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.“My first feeling when I came here was, wow, this really is a nerd’s playground,” Babbin says. “I embraced being part of a culture where we seek to understand the world better, while also doing the things we really want to do.”In 2017, he accepted a faculty position in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. He set up his laboratory space, painted in his favorite brilliant orange, on the top floor of the Green Building.His group uses 3D printers to fabricate microfluidic devices in which they reproduce the conditions of the ocean environment and study microbe metabolism and its effects on marine chemistry. In the field, Babbin has led research expeditions to the Galapagos Islands and parts of the eastern Pacific, where he has collected and analyzed samples of air and water for signs of nitrogen transformations and microbial activity. His new measuring station in the Galapagos is able to infer marine emissions of nitrous oxide across a large swath of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. His group has also sailed to southern Cuba, where the researchers studied interactions of microbes in coral reefs.Most recently, Babbin traveled to Antarctica, where he set up camp next to frozen lakes and plumbed for samples of pristine ice water that he will analyze for genetic remnants of ancient microbes. Such preserved bacterial DNA could help scientists understand how microbes evolved and influenced the Earth’s climate over billions of years.“Microbes are the terraformers,” Babbin notes. “They have been, since life evolved more than 3 billion years ago. We have to think about how they shape the natural world and how they will respond to the Anthropocene as humans monkey with the planet ourselves.”Collective actionBabbin is now charting new research directions. In addition to his work at sea and in the lab, he is venturing into engineering, with a new project to design denitrifying capsules. While nitrogen is an essential nutrient for maintaining a marine ecosystem, too much nitrogen, such as from fertilizer that runs off into lakes and streams, can generate blooms of toxic algae. Babbin is looking to design eco-friendly capsules that scrub excess anthropogenic nitrogen from local waterways. He’s also beginning the process of designing a new sensor to measure low-oxygen concentrations in the ocean. As the planet warms, the oceans are losing oxygen, creating “dead zones” where fish cannot survive. While others including Babbin have tried to map these oxygen minimum zones, or OMZs, they have done so sporadically, by dropping sensors into the ocean over limited range, depth, and times. Babbin’s sensors could potentially provide a more complete map of OMZs, as they would be deployed on wide-ranging, deep-diving, and naturally propulsive vehicles: sharks.“We want to measure oxygen. Sharks need oxygen. And if you look at where the sharks don’t go, you might have a sense of where the oxygen is not,” says Babbin, who is working with marine biologists on ways to tag sharks with oxygen sensors. “A number of these large pelagic fish move up and down the water column frequently, so you can map the depth to which they dive to, and infer something about the behavior. And my suggestion is, you might also infer something about the ocean’s chemistry.”When he reflects on what stimulates new ideas and research directions, Babbin credits working with others, in his own group and across MIT.“My best thoughts come from this collective action,” Babbin says. “Particularly because we all have different upbringings and approach things from a different perspective.”He’s bringing this collaborative spirit to his new role, as a mission director for MIT’s Climate Project. Along with Jesse Kroll, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering and of chemical engineering, Babbin co-leads one of the project’s six missions: Restoring the Atmosphere, Protecting the Land and Oceans. Babbin and Kroll are planning a number of workshops across campus that they hope will generate new connections, and spark new ideas, particularly around ways to evaluate the effectiveness of different climate mitigation strategies and better assess the impacts of climate on society.“One area we want to promote is thinking of climate science and climate interventions as two sides of the same coin,” Babbin says. “There’s so much action that’s trying to be catalyzed. But we want it to be the best action. Because we really have one shot at doing this. Time is of the essence.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Environment

      David McGee named head of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

      by

      David McGee, the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at MIT, was recently appointed head of the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS), effective Jan. 15. He assumes the role from Professor Robert van der Hilst, the Schlumberger Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, who led the department for 13 years.McGee specializes in applying isotope geochemistry and geochronology to reconstruct Earth’s climate history, helping to ground-truth our understanding of how the climate system responds during periods of rapid change. He has also been instrumental in the growth of the department’s community and culture, having served as EAPS associate department head since 2020.“David is an amazing researcher who brings crucial, data-based insights to aid our response to climate change,” says dean of the School of Science and the Curtis (1963) and Kathleen Marble Professor of Astrophysics Nergis Mavalvala. “He is also a committed and caring educator, providing extraordinary investment in his students’ learning experiences, and through his direction of Terrascope, one of our unique first-year learning communities focused on generating solutions to sustainability challenges.”   “I am energized by the incredible EAPS community, by Rob’s leadership over the last 13 years, and by President Kornbluth’s call for MIT to innovate effective and wise responses to climate change,” says McGee. “EAPS has a unique role in this time of reckoning with planetary boundaries — our collective path forward needs to be guided by a deep understanding of the Earth system and a clear sense of our place in the universe.”McGee’s research seeks to understand the Earth system’s response to past climate changes. Using geochemical analysis and uranium-series dating, McGee and his group investigate stalagmites, ancient lake deposits, and deep-sea sediments from field sites around the world to trace patterns of wind and precipitation, water availability in drylands, and permafrost stability through space and time. Armed with precise chronologies, he aims to shed light on drivers of historical hydroclimatic shifts and provide quantitative tests of climate model performance.Beyond research, McGee has helped shape numerous Institute initiatives focused on environment, climate, and sustainability, including serving on the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium Faculty Steering Committee and the faculty advisory board for the MIT Environment and Sustainability Minor.McGee also co-chaired MIT’s Climate Education Working Group, one of three working groups established under the Institute’s Fast Forward climate action plan. The group identified opportunities to strengthen climate- and sustainability-related education at the Institute, from curricular offerings to experiential learning opportunities and beyond.In April 2023, the working group hosted the MIT Symposium for Advancing Climate Education, featuring talks by McGee and others on how colleges and universities can innovate and help students develop the skills, capacities, and perspectives they’ll need to live, lead, and thrive in a world being remade by the accelerating climate crisis.“David is reimagining MIT undergraduate education to include meaningful collaborations with communities outside of MIT, teaching students that scientific discovery is important, but not always enough to make impact for society,” says van der Hilst. “He will help shape the future of the department with this vital perspective.”From the start of his career, McGee has been dedicated to sharing his love of exploration with students. He earned a master’s degree in teaching and spent seven years as a teacher in middle school and high school classrooms before earning his PhD in Earth and environmental sciences from Columbia University. He joined the MIT faculty in 2012, and in 2018 received the Excellence in Mentoring Award from MIT’s Undergraduate Advising and Academic Programming office. In 2015, he became the director of MIT’s Terrascope first-year learning community.“David’s exemplary teaching in Terrascope comes through his understanding that effective solutions must be found where science intersects with community engagement to forge ethical paths forward,” adds van der Hilst. In 2023, for his work with Terrascope, McGee received the school’s highest award, the School of Science Teaching Prize. In 2022, he was named a Margaret MacVicar Faculty Fellow, the highest teaching honor at MIT.As associate department head, McGee worked alongside van der Hilst and student leaders to promote EAPS community engagement, improve internal supports and reporting structures, and bolster opportunities for students to pursue advanced degrees and STEM careers. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Energy

      MIT Climate and Energy Ventures class spins out entrepreneurs — and successful companies

      by

      In 2014, a team of MIT students in course 15.366 (Climate and Energy Ventures) developed a plan to commercialize MIT research on how to move information between chips with light instead of electricity, reducing energy usage.After completing the class, which challenges students to identify early customers and pitch their business plan to investors, the team went on to win both grand prizes at the MIT Clean Energy Prize. Today the company, Ayar Labs, has raised a total of $370 million from a group including chip leaders AMD, Intel, and NVIDIA, to scale the manufacturing of its optical chip interconnects.Ayar Labs is one of many companies whose roots can be traced back to 15.366. In fact, more than 150 companies have been founded by alumni of the class since its founding in 2007.In the class, student teams select a technology or idea and determine the best path for its commercialization. The semester-long project, which is accompanied by lectures and mentoring, equips students with real-world experience in launching a business.“The goal is to educate entrepreneurs on how to start companies in the climate and energy space,” says Senior Lecturer Tod Hynes, who co-founded the course and has been teaching since 2008. “We do that through hands-on experience. We require students to engage with customers, talk to potential suppliers, partners, investors, and to practice their pitches to learn from that feedback.”The class attracts hundreds of student applications each year. As one of the catalysts for MIT spinoffs, it is also one reason a 2015 report found that MIT alumni-founded companies had generated roughly $1.9 trillion in annual revenues. If MIT were a country, that figure that would make it the 10th largest economy in the world, according to the report.“’Mens et manus’ (‘mind and hand’) is MIT’s motto, and the hands-on experience we try to provide in this class is hard to beat,” Hynes says. “When you actually go through the process of commercialization in the real world, you learn more and you’re in a better spot. That experiential learning approach really aligns with MIT’s approach.”Simulating a startupThe course was started by Bill Aulet, a professor of the practice at the MIT Sloan School of Management and the managing director of the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship. After serving as an advisor the first year and helping Aulet launch the class, Hynes began teaching the class with Aulet in the fall of 2008. The pair also launched the Climate and Energy Prize around the same time, which continues today and recently received over 150 applications from teams from around the world.A core feature of the class is connecting students in different academic fields. Each year, organizers aim to enroll students with backgrounds in science, engineering, business, and policy.“The class is meant to be accessible to anybody at MIT,” Hynes says, noting the course has also since opened to students from Harvard University. “We’re trying to pull across disciplines.”The class quickly grew in popularity around campus. Over the last few years, the course has had about 150 students apply for 50 spots.“I mentioned Climate and Energy Ventures in my application to MIT,” says Chris Johnson, a second-year graduate student in the Leaders for Global Operations (LGO) Program. “Coming into MIT, I was very interested in sustainability, and energy in particular, and also in startups. I had heard great things about the class, and I waited until my last semester to apply.”The course’s organizers select mostly graduate students, whom they prefer to be in the final year of their program so they can more easily continue working on the venture after the class is finished.“Whether or not students stick with the project from the class, it’s a great experience that will serve them in their careers,” says Jennifer Turliuk, the practice leader for climate and energy artificial intelligence at the Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship, who helped teach the class this fall.Hynes describes the course as a venture-building simulation. Before it begins, organizers select up to 30 technologies and ideas that are in the right stage for commercialization. Students can also come into the class with ideas or technologies they want to work on.After a few weeks of introductions and lectures, students form into multidisciplinary teams of about five and begin going through each of the 24 steps of building a startup described in Aulet’s book “Disciplined Entrepreneurship,” which includes things like engaging with potential early customers, quantifying a value proposition, and establishing a business model. Everything builds toward a one-hour final presentation that’s designed to simulate a pitch to investors or government officials.“It’s a lot of work, and because it’s a team-based project, your grade is highly dependent on your team,” Hynes says. “You also get graded by your team; that’s about 10 percent of your grade. We try to encourage people to be proactive and supportive teammates.”Students say the process is fast-paced but rewarding.“It’s definitely demanding,” says Sofie Netteberg, a graduate student who is also in the LGO program at MIT. “Depending on where you’re at with your technology, you can be moving very quickly. That’s the stage that I was in, which I found really engaging. We basically just had a lab technology, and it was like, ‘What do we do next?’ You also get a ton of support from the professors.”From the classroom to the worldThis fall’s final presentations took place at the headquarters of the MIT-affiliated venture firm The Engine in front of an audience of professors, investors, members of foundations supporting entrepreneurship, and more.“We got to hear feedback from people who would be the real next step for the technology if the startup gets up and running,” said Johnson, whose team was commercializing a method for storing energy in concrete. “That was really valuable. We know that these are not only people we might see in the next month or the next funding rounds, but they’re also exactly the type of people that are going to give us the questions we should be thinking about. It was clarifying.”Throughout the semester, students treated the project like a real venture they’d be working on well beyond the length of the class.“No one’s really thinking about this class for the grade; it’s about the learning,” says Netteberg, whose team was encouraged to keep working on their electrolyzer technology designed to more efficiently produce green hydrogen. “We’re not stressed about getting an A. If we want to keep working on this, we want real feedback: What do you think we did well? What do we need to keep working on?”Hynes says several investors expressed interest in supporting the businesses coming out of the class. Moving forward, he hopes students embrace the test-bed environment his team has created for them and try bold new things.“People have been very pragmatic over the years, which is good, but also potentially limiting,” Hynes says. “This is also an opportunity to do something that’s a little further out there — something that has really big potential impact if it comes together. This is the time where students get to experiment, so why not try something big?” More

    • 63 Shares159 Views

      in Energy

      Explained: Generative AI’s environmental impact

      by

      In a two-part series, MIT News explores the environmental implications of generative AI. In this article, we look at why this technology is so resource-intensive. A second piece will investigate what experts are doing to reduce genAI’s carbon footprint and other impacts.The excitement surrounding potential benefits of generative AI, from improving worker productivity to advancing scientific research, is hard to ignore. While the explosive growth of this new technology has enabled rapid deployment of powerful models in many industries, the environmental consequences of this generative AI “gold rush” remain difficult to pin down, let alone mitigate.The computational power required to train generative AI models that often have billions of parameters, such as OpenAI’s GPT-4, can demand a staggering amount of electricity, which leads to increased carbon dioxide emissions and pressures on the electric grid.Furthermore, deploying these models in real-world applications, enabling millions to use generative AI in their daily lives, and then fine-tuning the models to improve their performance draws large amounts of energy long after a model has been developed.Beyond electricity demands, a great deal of water is needed to cool the hardware used for training, deploying, and fine-tuning generative AI models, which can strain municipal water supplies and disrupt local ecosystems. The increasing number of generative AI applications has also spurred demand for high-performance computing hardware, adding indirect environmental impacts from its manufacture and transport.“When we think about the environmental impact of generative AI, it is not just the electricity you consume when you plug the computer in. There are much broader consequences that go out to a system level and persist based on actions that we take,” says Elsa A. Olivetti, professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering and the lead of the Decarbonization Mission of MIT’s new Climate Project.Olivetti is senior author of a 2024 paper, “The Climate and Sustainability Implications of Generative AI,” co-authored by MIT colleagues in response to an Institute-wide call for papers that explore the transformative potential of generative AI, in both positive and negative directions for society.Demanding data centersThe electricity demands of data centers are one major factor contributing to the environmental impacts of generative AI, since data centers are used to train and run the deep learning models behind popular tools like ChatGPT and DALL-E.A data center is a temperature-controlled building that houses computing infrastructure, such as servers, data storage drives, and network equipment. For instance, Amazon has more than 100 data centers worldwide, each of which has about 50,000 servers that the company uses to support cloud computing services.While data centers have been around since the 1940s (the first was built at the University of Pennsylvania in 1945 to support the first general-purpose digital computer, the ENIAC), the rise of generative AI has dramatically increased the pace of data center construction.“What is different about generative AI is the power density it requires. Fundamentally, it is just computing, but a generative AI training cluster might consume seven or eight times more energy than a typical computing workload,” says Noman Bashir, lead author of the impact paper, who is a Computing and Climate Impact Fellow at MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium (MCSC) and a postdoc in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL).Scientists have estimated that the power requirements of data centers in North America increased from 2,688 megawatts at the end of 2022 to 5,341 megawatts at the end of 2023, partly driven by the demands of generative AI. Globally, the electricity consumption of data centers rose to 460 terawatts in 2022. This would have made data centers the 11th largest electricity consumer in the world, between the nations of Saudi Arabia (371 terawatts) and France (463 terawatts), according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.By 2026, the electricity consumption of data centers is expected to approach 1,050 terawatts (which would bump data centers up to fifth place on the global list, between Japan and Russia).While not all data center computation involves generative AI, the technology has been a major driver of increasing energy demands.“The demand for new data centers cannot be met in a sustainable way. The pace at which companies are building new data centers means the bulk of the electricity to power them must come from fossil fuel-based power plants,” says Bashir.The power needed to train and deploy a model like OpenAI’s GPT-3 is difficult to ascertain. In a 2021 research paper, scientists from Google and the University of California at Berkeley estimated the training process alone consumed 1,287 megawatt hours of electricity (enough to power about 120 average U.S. homes for a year), generating about 552 tons of carbon dioxide.While all machine-learning models must be trained, one issue unique to generative AI is the rapid fluctuations in energy use that occur over different phases of the training process, Bashir explains.Power grid operators must have a way to absorb those fluctuations to protect the grid, and they usually employ diesel-based generators for that task.Increasing impacts from inferenceOnce a generative AI model is trained, the energy demands don’t disappear.Each time a model is used, perhaps by an individual asking ChatGPT to summarize an email, the computing hardware that performs those operations consumes energy. Researchers have estimated that a ChatGPT query consumes about five times more electricity than a simple web search.“But an everyday user doesn’t think too much about that,” says Bashir. “The ease-of-use of generative AI interfaces and the lack of information about the environmental impacts of my actions means that, as a user, I don’t have much incentive to cut back on my use of generative AI.”With traditional AI, the energy usage is split fairly evenly between data processing, model training, and inference, which is the process of using a trained model to make predictions on new data. However, Bashir expects the electricity demands of generative AI inference to eventually dominate since these models are becoming ubiquitous in so many applications, and the electricity needed for inference will increase as future versions of the models become larger and more complex.Plus, generative AI models have an especially short shelf-life, driven by rising demand for new AI applications. Companies release new models every few weeks, so the energy used to train prior versions goes to waste, Bashir adds. New models often consume more energy for training, since they usually have more parameters than their predecessors.While electricity demands of data centers may be getting the most attention in research literature, the amount of water consumed by these facilities has environmental impacts, as well.Chilled water is used to cool a data center by absorbing heat from computing equipment. It has been estimated that, for each kilowatt hour of energy a data center consumes, it would need two liters of water for cooling, says Bashir.“Just because this is called ‘cloud computing’ doesn’t mean the hardware lives in the cloud. Data centers are present in our physical world, and because of their water usage they have direct and indirect implications for biodiversity,” he says.The computing hardware inside data centers brings its own, less direct environmental impacts.While it is difficult to estimate how much power is needed to manufacture a GPU, a type of powerful processor that can handle intensive generative AI workloads, it would be more than what is needed to produce a simpler CPU because the fabrication process is more complex. A GPU’s carbon footprint is compounded by the emissions related to material and product transport.There are also environmental implications of obtaining the raw materials used to fabricate GPUs, which can involve dirty mining procedures and the use of toxic chemicals for processing.Market research firm TechInsights estimates that the three major producers (NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel) shipped 3.85 million GPUs to data centers in 2023, up from about 2.67 million in 2022. That number is expected to have increased by an even greater percentage in 2024.The industry is on an unsustainable path, but there are ways to encourage responsible development of generative AI that supports environmental objectives, Bashir says.He, Olivetti, and their MIT colleagues argue that this will require a comprehensive consideration of all the environmental and societal costs of generative AI, as well as a detailed assessment of the value in its perceived benefits.“We need a more contextual way of systematically and comprehensively understanding the implications of new developments in this space. Due to the speed at which there have been improvements, we haven’t had a chance to catch up with our abilities to measure and understand the tradeoffs,” Olivetti says. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Environment

      Minimizing the carbon footprint of bridges and other structures

      by

      Awed as a young child by the majesty of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, civil engineer and MIT Morningside Academy for Design (MAD) Fellow Zane Schemmer has retained his fascination with bridges: what they look like, why they work, and how they’re designed and built.He weighed the choice between architecture and engineering when heading off to college, but, motivated by the why and how of structural engineering, selected the latter. Now he incorporates design as an iterative process in the writing of algorithms that perfectly balance the forces involved in discrete portions of a structure to create an overall design that optimizes function, minimizes carbon footprint, and still produces a manufacturable result.While this may sound like an obvious goal in structural design, it’s not. It’s new. It’s a more holistic way of looking at the design process that can optimize even down to the materials, angles, and number of elements in the nodes or joints that connect the larger components of a building, bridge, tower, etc.According to Schemmer, there hasn’t been much progress on optimizing structural design to minimize embodied carbon, and the work that exists often results in designs that are “too complex to be built in real life,” he says. The embodied carbon of a structure is the total carbon dioxide emissions of its life cycle: from the extraction or manufacture of its materials to their transport and use and through the demolition of the structure and disposal of the materials. Schemmer, who works with Josephine V. Carstensen, the Gilbert W. Winslow Career Development Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT, is focusing on the portion of that cycle that runs through construction.In September, at the IASS 2024 symposium “Redefining the Art of Structural Design in Zurich,” Schemmer and Carstensen presented their work on Discrete Topology Optimization algorithms that are able to minimize the embodied carbon in a bridge or other structure by up to 20 percent. This comes through materials selection that considers not only a material’s appearance and its ability to get the job done, but also the ease of procurement, its proximity to the building site, and the carbon embodied in its manufacture and transport.“The real novelty of our algorithm is its ability to consider multiple materials in a highly constrained solution space to produce manufacturable designs with a user-specified force flow,” Schemmer says. “Real-life problems are complex and often have many constraints associated with them. In traditional formulations, it can be difficult to have a long list of complicated constraints. Our goal is to incorporate these constraints to make it easier to take our designs out of the computer and create them in real life.”Take, for instance, a steel tower, which could be a “super lightweight, efficient design solution,” Schemmer explains. Because steel is so strong, you don’t need as much of it compared to concrete or timber to build a big building. But steel is also very carbon-intensive to produce and transport. Shipping it across the country or especially from a different continent can sharply increase its embodied carbon price tag. Schemmer’s topology optimization will replace some of the steel with timber elements or decrease the amount of steel in other elements to create a hybrid structure that will function effectively and minimize the carbon footprint. “This is why using the same steel in two different parts of the world can lead to two different optimized designs,” he explains.Schemmer, who grew up in the mountains of Utah, earned a BS and MS in civil and environmental engineering from University of California at Berkeley, where his graduate work focused on seismic design. He describes that education as providing a “very traditional, super-strong engineering background that tackled some of the toughest engineering problems,” along with knowledge of structural engineering’s traditions and current methods.But at MIT, he says, a lot of the work he sees “looks at removing the constraints of current societal conventions of doing things, and asks how could we do things if it was in a more ideal form; what are we looking at then? Which I think is really cool,” he says. “But I think sometimes too, there’s a jump between the most-perfect version of something and where we are now, that there needs to be a bridge between those two. And I feel like my education helps me see that bridge.”The bridge he’s referring to is the topology optimization algorithms that make good designs better in terms of decreased global warming potential.“That’s where the optimization algorithm comes in,” Schemmer says. “In contrast to a standard structure designed in the past, the algorithm can take the same design space and come up with a much more efficient material usage that still meets all the structural requirements, be up to code, and have everything we want from a safety standpoint.”That’s also where the MAD Design Fellowship comes in. The program provides yearlong fellowships with full financial support to graduate students from all across the Institute who network with each other, with the MAD faculty, and with outside speakers who use design in new ways in a surprising variety of fields. This helps the fellows gain a better understanding of how to use iterative design in their own work.“Usually people think of their own work like, ‘Oh, I had this background. I’ve been looking at this one way for a very long time.’ And when you look at it from an outside perspective, I think it opens your mind to be like, ‘Oh my God. I never would have thought about doing this that way. Maybe I should try that.’ And then we can move to new ideas, new inspiration for better work,” Schemmer says.He chose civil and structural engineering over architecture some seven years ago, but says that “100 years ago, I don’t think architecture and structural engineering were two separate professions. I think there was an understanding of how things looked and how things worked, and it was merged together. Maybe from an efficiency standpoint, it’s better to have things done separately. But I think there’s something to be said for having knowledge about how the whole system works, potentially more intermingling between the free-form architectural design and the mathematical design of a civil engineer. Merging it back together, I think, has a lot of benefits.”Which brings us back to the Golden Gate Bridge, Schemmer’s longtime favorite. You can still hear that excited 3-year-old in his voice when he talks about it.“It’s so iconic,” he says. “It’s connecting these two spits of land that just rise straight up out of the ocean. There’s this fog that comes in and out a lot of days. It’s a really magical place, from the size of the cable strands and everything. It’s just, ‘Wow.’ People built this over 100 years ago, before the existence of a lot of the computational tools that we have now. So, all the math, everything in the design, was all done by hand and from the mind. Nothing was computerized, which I think is crazy to think about.”As Schemmer continues work on his doctoral degree at MIT, the MAD fellowship will expose him to many more awe-inspiring ideas in other fields, leading him to incorporate some of these in some way with his engineering knowledge to design better ways of building bridges and other structures. More