MIT Energy Initiative

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Energy

      The role of modeling in the energy transition

      by

      Joseph F. DeCarolis, administrator for the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), has one overarching piece of advice for anyone poring over long-term energy projections.“Whatever you do, don’t start believing the numbers,” DeCarolis said at the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) Fall Colloquium. “There’s a tendency when you sit in front of the computer and you’re watching the model spit out numbers at you … that you’ll really start to believe those numbers with high precision. Don’t fall for it. Always remain skeptical.”This event was part of MITEI’s new speaker series, MITEI Presents: Advancing the Energy Transition, which connects the MIT community with the energy experts and leaders who are working on scientific, technological, and policy solutions that are urgently needed to accelerate the energy transition.The point of DeCarolis’s talk, titled “Stay humble and prepare for surprises: Lessons for the energy transition,” was not that energy models are unimportant. On the contrary, DeCarolis said, energy models give stakeholders a framework that allows them to consider present-day decisions in the context of potential future scenarios. However, he repeatedly stressed the importance of accounting for uncertainty, and not treating these projections as “crystal balls.”“We can use models to help inform decision strategies,” DeCarolis said. “We know there’s a bunch of future uncertainty. We don’t know what’s going to happen, but we can incorporate that uncertainty into our model and help come up with a path forward.”Dialogue, not forecastsEIA is the statistical and analytic agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, with a mission to collect, analyze, and disseminate independent and impartial energy information to help stakeholders make better-informed decisions. Although EIA analyzes the impacts of energy policies, the agency does not make or advise on policy itself. DeCarolis, who was previously professor and University Faculty Scholar in the Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University, noted that EIA does not need to seek approval from anyone else in the federal government before publishing its data and reports. “That independence is very important to us, because it means that we can focus on doing our work and providing the best information we possibly can,” he said.Among the many reports produced by EIA is the agency’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), which projects U.S. energy production, consumption, and prices. Every other year, the agency also produces the AEO Retrospective, which shows the relationship between past projections and actual energy indicators.“The first question you might ask is, ‘Should we use these models to produce a forecast?’” DeCarolis said. “The answer for me to that question is: No, we should not do that. When models are used to produce forecasts, the results are generally pretty dismal.”DeCarolis pointed to wildly inaccurate past projections about the proliferation of nuclear energy in the United States as an example of the problems inherent in forecasting. However, he noted, there are “still lots of really valuable uses” for energy models. Rather than using them to predict future energy consumption and prices, DeCarolis said, stakeholders should use models to inform their own thinking.“[Models] can simply be an aid in helping us think and hypothesize about the future of energy,” DeCarolis said. “They can help us create a dialogue among different stakeholders on complex issues. If we’re thinking about something like the energy transition, and we want to start a dialogue, there has to be some basis for that dialogue. If you have a systematic representation of the energy system that you can advance into the future, we can start to have a debate about the model and what it means. We can also identify key sources of uncertainty and knowledge gaps.”Modeling uncertaintyThe key to working with energy models is not to try to eliminate uncertainty, DeCarolis said, but rather to account for it. One way to better understand uncertainty, he noted, is to look at past projections, and consider how they ended up differing from real-world results. DeCarolis pointed to two “surprises” over the past several decades: the exponential growth of shale oil and natural gas production (which had the impact of limiting coal’s share of the energy market and therefore reducing carbon emissions), as well as the rapid rise in wind and solar energy. In both cases, market conditions changed far more quickly than energy modelers anticipated, leading to inaccurate projections.“For all those reasons, we ended up with [projected] CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions that were quite high compared to actual,” DeCarolis said. “We’re a statistical agency, so we’re really looking carefully at the data, but it can take some time to identify the signal through the noise.”Although EIA does not produce forecasts in the AEO, people have sometimes interpreted the reference case in the agency’s reports as predictions. In an effort to illustrate the unpredictability of future outcomes in the 2023 edition of the AEO, the agency added “cones of uncertainty” to its projection of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, with ranges of outcomes based on the difference between past projections and actual results. One cone captures 50 percent of historical projection errors, while another represents 95 percent of historical errors.“They capture whatever bias there is in our projections,” DeCarolis said of the uncertainty cones. “It’s being captured because we’re comparing actual [emissions] to projections. The weakness of this, though, is: who’s to say that those historical projection errors apply to the future? We don’t know that, but I still think that there’s something useful to be learned from this exercise.”The future of energy modelingLooking ahead, DeCarolis said, there is a “laundry list of things that keep me up at night as a modeler.” These include the impacts of climate change; how those impacts will affect demand for renewable energy; how quickly industry and government will overcome obstacles to building out clean energy infrastructure and supply chains; technological innovation; and increased energy demand from data centers running compute-intensive workloads.“What about enhanced geothermal? Fusion? Space-based solar power?” DeCarolis asked. “Should those be in the model? What sorts of technology breakthroughs are we missing? And then, of course, there are the unknown unknowns — the things that I can’t conceive of to put on this list, but are probably going to happen.”In addition to capturing the fullest range of outcomes, DeCarolis said, EIA wants to be flexible, nimble, transparent, and accessible — creating reports that can easily incorporate new model features and produce timely analyses. To that end, the agency has undertaken two new initiatives. First, the 2025 AEO will use a revamped version of the National Energy Modeling System that includes modules for hydrogen production and pricing, carbon management, and hydrocarbon supply. Second, an effort called Project BlueSky is aiming to develop the agency’s next-generation energy system model, which DeCarolis said will be modular and open source.DeCarolis noted that the energy system is both highly complex and rapidly evolving, and he warned that “mental shortcuts” and the fear of being wrong can lead modelers to ignore possible future developments. “We have to remain humble and intellectually honest about what we know,” DeCarolis said. “That way, we can provide decision-makers with an honest assessment of what we think could happen in the future.”  More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Energy

      How hard is it to prevent recurring blackouts in Puerto Rico?

      by

      Researchers at MIT’s Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS) have shown that using decision-making software and dynamic monitoring of weather and energy use can significantly improve resiliency in the face of weather-related outages, and can also help to efficiently integrate renewable energy sources into the grid.The researchers point out that the system they suggest might have prevented or at least lessened the kind of widespread power outage that Puerto Rico experienced last week by providing analysis to guide rerouting of power through different lines and thus limit the spread of the outage.The computer platform, which the researchers describe as DyMonDS, for Dynamic Monitoring and Decision Systems, can be used to enhance the existing operating and planning practices used in the electric industry. The platform supports interactive information exchange and decision-making between the grid operators and grid-edge users — all the distributed power sources, storage systems and software that contribute to the grid. It also supports optimization of available resources and controllable grid equipment as system conditions vary. It further lends itself to implementing cooperative decision-making by different utility- and non-utility-owned electric power grid users, including portfolios of mixed resources, users, and storage. Operating and planning the interactions of the end-to-end high-voltage transmission grid with local distribution grids and microgrids represents another major potential use of this platform.This general approach was illustrated using a set of publicly-available data on both meteorology and details of electricity production and distribution in Puerto Rico. An extended AC Optimal Power Flow software developed by SmartGridz Inc. is used for system-level optimization of controllable equipment. This provides real-time guidance for deciding how much power, and through which transmission lines, should be channeled by adjusting plant dispatch and voltage-related set points, and in extreme cases, where to reduce or cut power in order to maintain physically-implementable service for as many customers as possible. The team found that the use of such a system can help to ensure that the greatest number of critical services maintain power even during a hurricane, and at the same time can lead to a substantial decrease in the need for construction of new power plants thanks to more efficient use of existing resources.The findings are described in a paper in the journal Foundations and Trends in Electric Energy Systems, by MIT LIDS researchers Marija Ilic and Laurentiu Anton, along with recent alumna Ramapathi Jaddivada.“Using this software,” Ilic says, they show that “even during bad weather, if you predict equipment failures, and by using that information exchange, you can localize the effect of equipment failures and still serve a lot of customers, 50 percent of customers, when otherwise things would black out.”Anton says that “the way many grids today are operated is sub-optimal.” As a result, “we showed how much better they could do even under normal conditions, without any failures, by utilizing this software.” The savings resulting from this optimization, under everyday conditions, could be in the tens of percents, they say.The way utility systems plan currently, Ilic says, “usually the standard is that they have to build enough capacity and operate in real time so that if one large piece of equipment fails, like a large generator or transmission line, you still serve customers in an uninterrupted way. That’s what’s called N-minus-1.” Under this policy, if one major component of the system fails, they should be able to maintain service for at least 30 minutes. That system allows utilities to plan for how much reserve generating capacity they need to have on hand. That’s expensive, Ilic points out, because it means maintaining this reserve capacity all the time, even under normal operating conditions when it’s not needed.In addition, “right now there are no criteria for what I call N-minus-K,” she says. If bad weather causes five pieces of equipment to fail at once, “there is no software to help utilities decide what to schedule” in terms of keeping the most customers, and the most important services such as hospitals and emergency services, provided with power. They showed that even with 50 percent of the infrastructure out of commission, it would still be possible to keep power flowing to a large proportion of customers.Their work on analyzing the power situation in Puerto Rico started after the island had been devastated by hurricanes Irma and Maria. Most of the electric generation capacity is in the south, yet the largest loads are in San Juan, in the north, and Mayaguez in the west. When transmission lines get knocked down, a lot of rerouting of power needs to happen quickly.With the new systems, “the software finds the optimal adjustments for set points,” for example, changing voltages can allow for power to be redirected through less-congested lines, or can be increased to lessen power losses, Anton says.The software also helps in the long-term planning for the grid. As many fossil-fuel power plants are scheduled to be decommissioned soon in Puerto Rico, as they are in many other places, planning for how to replace that power without having to resort to greenhouse gas-emitting sources is a key to achieving carbon-reduction goals. And by analyzing usage patterns, the software can guide the placement of new renewable power sources where they can most efficiently provide power where and when it’s needed.As plants are retired or as components are affected by weather, “We wanted to ensure the dispatchability of power when the load changes,” Anton says, “but also when crucial components are lost, to ensure the robustness at each step of the retirement schedule.”One thing they found was that “if you look at how much generating capacity exists, it’s more than the peak load, even after you retire a few fossil plants,” Ilic says. “But it’s hard to deliver.” Strategic planning of new distribution lines could make a big difference.Jaddivada, director of innovation at SmartGridz, says that “we evaluated different possible architectures in Puerto Rico, and we showed the ability of this software to ensure uninterrupted electricity service. This is the most important challenge utilities have today. They have to go through a computationally tedious process to make sure the grid functions for any possible outage in the system. And that can be done in a much more efficient way through the software that the company  developed.”The project was a collaborative effort between the MIT LIDS researchers and others at MIT Lincoln Laboratory, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, with overall help of SmartGridz software.  More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Energy

      New climate chemistry model finds “non-negligible” impacts of potential hydrogen fuel leakage

      by

      As the world looks for ways to stop climate change, much discussion focuses on using hydrogen instead of fossil fuels, which emit climate-warming greenhouse gases (GHGs) when they’re burned. The idea is appealing. Burning hydrogen doesn’t emit GHGs to the atmosphere, and hydrogen is well-suited for a variety of uses, notably as a replacement for natural gas in industrial processes, power generation, and home heating.But while burning hydrogen won’t emit GHGs, any hydrogen that’s leaked from pipelines or storage or fueling facilities can indirectly cause climate change by affecting other compounds that are GHGs, including tropospheric ozone and methane, with methane impacts being the dominant effect. A much-cited 2022 modeling study analyzing hydrogen’s effects on chemical compounds in the atmosphere concluded that these climate impacts could be considerable. With funding from the MIT Energy Initiative’s Future Energy Systems Center, a team of MIT researchers took a more detailed look at the specific chemistry that poses the risks of using hydrogen as a fuel if it leaks.The researchers developed a model that tracks many more chemical reactions that may be affected by hydrogen and includes interactions among chemicals. Their open-access results, published Oct. 28 in Frontiers in Energy Research, showed that while the impact of leaked hydrogen on the climate wouldn’t be as large as the 2022 study predicted — and that it would be about a third of the impact of any natural gas that escapes today — leaked hydrogen will impact the climate. Leak prevention should therefore be a top priority as the hydrogen infrastructure is built, state the researchers.Hydrogen’s impact on the “detergent” that cleans our atmosphereGlobal three-dimensional climate-chemistry models using a large number of chemical reactions have also been used to evaluate hydrogen’s potential climate impacts, but results vary from one model to another, motivating the MIT study to analyze the chemistry. Most studies of the climate effects of using hydrogen consider only the GHGs that are emitted during the production of the hydrogen fuel. Different approaches may make “blue hydrogen” or “green hydrogen,” a label that relates to the GHGs emitted. Regardless of the process used to make the hydrogen, the fuel itself can threaten the climate. For widespread use, hydrogen will need to be transported, distributed, and stored — in short, there will be many opportunities for leakage. The question is, What happens to that leaked hydrogen when it reaches the atmosphere? The 2022 study predicting large climate impacts from leaked hydrogen was based on reactions between pairs of just four chemical compounds in the atmosphere. The results showed that the hydrogen would deplete a chemical species that atmospheric chemists call the “detergent of the atmosphere,” explains Candice Chen, a PhD candidate in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “It goes around zapping greenhouse gases, pollutants, all sorts of bad things in the atmosphere. So it’s cleaning our air.” Best of all, that detergent — the hydroxyl radical, abbreviated as OH — removes methane, which is an extremely potent GHG in the atmosphere. OH thus plays an important role in slowing the rate at which global temperatures rise. But any hydrogen leaked to the atmosphere would reduce the amount of OH available to clean up methane, so the concentration of methane would increase.However, chemical reactions among compounds in the atmosphere are notoriously complicated. While the 2022 study used a “four-equation model,” Chen and her colleagues — Susan Solomon, the Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of Environmental Studies and Chemistry; and Kane Stone, a research scientist in EAPS — developed a model that includes 66 chemical reactions. Analyses using their 66-equation model showed that the four-equation system didn’t capture a critical feedback involving OH — a feedback that acts to protect the methane-removal process.Here’s how that feedback works: As the hydrogen decreases the concentration of OH, the cleanup of methane slows down, so the methane concentration increases. However, that methane undergoes chemical reactions that can produce new OH radicals. “So the methane that’s being produced can make more of the OH detergent,” says Chen. “There’s a small countering effect. Indirectly, the methane helps produce the thing that’s getting rid of it.” And, says Chen, that’s a key difference between their 66-equation model and the four-equation one. “The simple model uses a constant value for the production of OH, so it misses that key OH-production feedback,” she says.To explore the importance of including that feedback effect, the MIT researchers performed the following analysis: They assumed that a single pulse of hydrogen was injected into the atmosphere and predicted the change in methane concentration over the next 100 years, first using four-equation model and then using the 66-equation model. With the four-equation system, the additional methane concentration peaked at nearly 2 parts per billion (ppb); with the 66-equation system, it peaked at just over 1 ppb.Because the four-equation analysis assumes only that the injected hydrogen destroys the OH, the methane concentration increases unchecked for the first 10 years or so. In contrast, the 66-equation analysis goes one step further: the methane concentration does increase, but as the system re-equilibrates, more OH forms and removes methane. By not accounting for that feedback, the four-equation analysis overestimates the peak increase in methane due to the hydrogen pulse by about 85 percent. Spread over time, the simple model doubles the amount of methane that forms in response to the hydrogen pulse.Chen cautions that the point of their work is not to present their result as “a solid estimate” of the impact of hydrogen. Their analysis is based on a simple “box” model that represents global average conditions and assumes that all the chemical species present are well mixed. Thus, the species can vary over time — that is, they can be formed and destroyed — but any species that are present are always perfectly mixed. As a result, a box model does not account for the impact of, say, wind on the distribution of species. “The point we’re trying to make is that you can go too simple,” says Chen. “If you’re going simpler than what we’re representing, you will get further from the right answer.” She goes on to note, “The utility of a relatively simple model like ours is that all of the knobs and levers are very clear. That means you can explore the system and see what affects a value of interest.”Leaked hydrogen versus leaked natural gas: A climate comparisonBurning natural gas produces fewer GHG emissions than does burning coal or oil; but as with hydrogen, any natural gas that’s leaked from wells, pipelines, and processing facilities can have climate impacts, negating some of the perceived benefits of using natural gas in place of other fossil fuels. After all, natural gas consists largely of methane, the highly potent GHG in the atmosphere that’s cleaned up by the OH detergent. Given its potency, even small leaks of methane can have a large climate impact.So when thinking about replacing natural gas fuel — essentially methane — with hydrogen fuel, it’s important to consider how the climate impacts of the two fuels compare if and when they’re leaked. The usual way to compare the climate impacts of two chemicals is using a measure called the global warming potential, or GWP. The GWP combines two measures: the radiative forcing of a gas — that is, its heat-trapping ability — with its lifetime in the atmosphere. Since the lifetimes of gases differ widely, to compare the climate impacts of two gases, the convention is to relate the GWP of each one to the GWP of carbon dioxide. But hydrogen and methane leakage cause increases in methane, and that methane decays according to its lifetime. Chen and her colleagues therefore realized that an unconventional procedure would work: they could compare the impacts of the two leaked gases directly. What they found was that the climate impact of hydrogen is about three times less than that of methane (on a per mass basis). So switching from natural gas to hydrogen would not only eliminate combustion emissions, but also potentially reduce the climate effects, depending on how much leaks.Key takeawaysIn summary, Chen highlights some of what she views as the key findings of the study. First on her list is the following: “We show that a really simple four-equation system is not what should be used to project out the atmospheric response to more hydrogen leakages in the future.” The researchers believe that their 66-equation model is a good compromise for the number of chemical reactions to include. It generates estimates for the GWP of methane “pretty much in line with the lower end of the numbers that most other groups are getting using much more sophisticated climate chemistry models,” says Chen. And it’s sufficiently transparent to use in exploring various options for protecting the climate. Indeed, the MIT researchers plan to use their model to examine scenarios that involve replacing other fossil fuels with hydrogen to estimate the climate benefits of making the switch in coming decades.The study also demonstrates a valuable new way to compare the greenhouse effects of two gases. As long as their effects exist on similar time scales, a direct comparison is possible — and preferable to comparing each with carbon dioxide, which is extremely long-lived in the atmosphere. In this work, the direct comparison generates a simple look at the relative climate impacts of leaked hydrogen and leaked methane — valuable information to take into account when considering switching from natural gas to hydrogen.Finally, the researchers offer practical guidance for infrastructure development and use for both hydrogen and natural gas. Their analyses determine that hydrogen fuel itself has a “non-negligible” GWP, as does natural gas, which is mostly methane. Therefore, minimizing leakage of both fuels will be necessary to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the goal set by both the European Commission and the U.S. Department of State. Their paper concludes, “If used nearly leak-free, hydrogen is an excellent option. Otherwise, hydrogen should only be a temporary step in the energy transition, or it must be used in tandem with carbon-removal steps [elsewhere] to counter its warming effects.” More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in Energy

      Is there enough land on Earth to fight climate change and feed the world?

      by

      Capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius is a tall order. Achieving that goal will not only require a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, but also a substantial reallocation of land to support that effort and sustain the biosphere, including humans. More land will be needed to accommodate a growing demand for bioenergy and nature-based carbon sequestration while ensuring sufficient acreage for food production and ecological sustainability.The expanding role of land in a 1.5 C world will be twofold — to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to produce clean energy. Land-based carbon dioxide removal strategies include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; direct air capture; and afforestation/reforestation and other nature-based solutions. Land-based clean energy production includes wind and solar farms and sustainable bioenergy cropland. Any decision to allocate more land for climate mitigation must also address competing needs for long-term food security and ecosystem health.Land-based climate mitigation choices vary in terms of costs — amount of land required, implications for food security, impact on biodiversity and other ecosystem services — and benefits — potential for sequestering greenhouse gases and producing clean energy.Now a study in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of competing land-use and technology options to limit global warming to 1.5 C. Led by researchers at the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3), the study applies the MIT Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework to evaluate costs and benefits of different land-based climate mitigation options in Sky2050, a 1.5 C climate-stabilization scenario developed by Shell.Under this scenario, demand for bioenergy and natural carbon sinks increase along with the need for sustainable farming and food production. To determine if there’s enough land to meet all these growing demands, the research team uses the global hectare (gha) — an area of 10,000 square meters, or 2.471 acres — as the standard unit of measurement, and current estimates of the Earth’s total habitable land area (about 10 gha) and land area used for food production and bioenergy (5 gha).The team finds that with transformative changes in policy, land management practices, and consumption patterns, global land is sufficient to provide a sustainable supply of food and ecosystem services throughout this century while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with the 1.5 C goal. These transformative changes include policies to protect natural ecosystems; stop deforestation and accelerate reforestation and afforestation; promote advances in sustainable agriculture technology and practice; reduce agricultural and food waste; and incentivize consumers to purchase sustainably produced goods.If such changes are implemented, 2.5–3.5 gha of land would be used for NBS practices to sequester 3–6 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 per year, and 0.4–0.6 gha of land would be allocated for energy production — 0.2–0.3 gha for bioenergy and 0.2–0.35 gha for wind and solar power generation.“Our scenario shows that there is enough land to support a 1.5 degree C future as long as effective policies at national and global levels are in place,” says CS3 Principal Research Scientist Angelo Gurgel, the study’s lead author. “These policies must not only promote efficient use of land for food, energy, and nature, but also be supported by long-term commitments from government and industry decision-makers.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Energy

      Reality check on technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the air

      by

      In 2015, 195 nations plus the European Union signed the Paris Agreement and pledged to undertake plans designed to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Yet in 2023, the world exceeded that target for most, if not all of, the year — calling into question the long-term feasibility of achieving that target.To do so, the world must reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and strategies for achieving levels that will “stabilize the climate” have been both proposed and adopted. Many of those strategies combine dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with the use of direct air capture (DAC), a technology that removes CO2 from the ambient air. As a reality check, a team of researchers in the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) examined those strategies, and what they found was alarming: The strategies rely on overly optimistic — indeed, unrealistic — assumptions about how much CO2 could be removed by DAC. As a result, the strategies won’t perform as predicted. Nevertheless, the MITEI team recommends that work to develop the DAC technology continue so that it’s ready to help with the energy transition — even if it’s not the silver bullet that solves the world’s decarbonization challenge.DAC: The promise and the realityIncluding DAC in plans to stabilize the climate makes sense. Much work is now under way to develop DAC systems, and the technology looks promising. While companies may never run their own DAC systems, they can already buy “carbon credits” based on DAC. Today, a multibillion-dollar market exists on which entities or individuals that face high costs or excessive disruptions to reduce their own carbon emissions can pay others to take emissions-reducing actions on their behalf. Those actions can involve undertaking new renewable energy projects or “carbon-removal” initiatives such as DAC or afforestation/reforestation (planting trees in areas that have never been forested or that were forested in the past). DAC-based credits are especially appealing for several reasons, explains Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at MITEI. With DAC, measuring and verifying the amount of carbon removed is straightforward; the removal is immediate, unlike with planting forests, which may take decades to have an impact; and when DAC is coupled with CO2 storage in geologic formations, the CO2 is kept out of the atmosphere essentially permanently — in contrast to, for example, sequestering it in trees, which may one day burn and release the stored CO2.Will current plans that rely on DAC be effective in stabilizing the climate in the coming years? To find out, Herzog and his colleagues Jennifer Morris and Angelo Gurgel, both MITEI principal research scientists, and Sergey Paltsev, a MITEI senior research scientist — all affiliated with the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3) — took a close look at the modeling studies on which those plans are based.Their investigation identified three unavoidable engineering challenges that together lead to a fourth challenge — high costs for removing a single ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. The details of their findings are reported in a paper published in the journal One Earth on Sept. 20.Challenge 1: Scaling upWhen it comes to removing CO2 from the air, nature presents “a major, non-negotiable challenge,” notes the MITEI team: The concentration of CO2 in the air is extremely low — just 420 parts per million, or roughly 0.04 percent. In contrast, the CO2 concentration in flue gases emitted by power plants and industrial processes ranges from 3 percent to 20 percent. Companies now use various carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies to capture CO2 from their flue gases, but capturing CO2 from the air is much more difficult. To explain, the researchers offer the following analogy: “The difference is akin to needing to find 10 red marbles in a jar of 25,000 marbles of which 24,990 are blue [the task representing DAC] versus needing to find about 10 red marbles in a jar of 100 marbles of which 90 are blue [the task for CCS].”Given that low concentration, removing a single metric ton (tonne) of CO2 from air requires processing about 1.8 million cubic meters of air, which is roughly equivalent to the volume of 720 Olympic-sized swimming pools. And all that air must be moved across a CO2-capturing sorbent — a feat requiring large equipment. For example, one recently proposed design for capturing 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year would require an “air contactor” equivalent in size to a structure about three stories high and three miles long.Recent modeling studies project DAC deployment on the scale of 5 to 40 gigatonnes of CO2 removed per year. (A gigatonne equals 1 billion metric tonnes.) But in their paper, the researchers conclude that the likelihood of deploying DAC at the gigatonne scale is “highly uncertain.”Challenge 2: Energy requirementGiven the low concentration of CO2 in the air and the need to move large quantities of air to capture it, it’s no surprise that even the best DAC processes proposed today would consume large amounts of energy — energy that’s generally supplied by a combination of electricity and heat. Including the energy needed to compress the captured CO2 for transportation and storage, most proposed processes require an equivalent of at least 1.2 megawatt-hours of electricity for each tonne of CO2 removed.The source of that electricity is critical. For example, using coal-based electricity to drive an all-electric DAC process would generate 1.2 tonnes of CO2 for each tonne of CO2 captured. The result would be a net increase in emissions, defeating the whole purpose of the DAC. So clearly, the energy requirement must be satisfied using either low-carbon electricity or electricity generated using fossil fuels with CCS. All-electric DAC deployed at large scale — say, 10 gigatonnes of CO2 removed annually — would require 12,000 terawatt-hours of electricity, which is more than 40 percent of total global electricity generation today.Electricity consumption is expected to grow due to increasing overall electrification of the world economy, so low-carbon electricity will be in high demand for many competing uses — for example, in power generation, transportation, industry, and building operations. Using clean electricity for DAC instead of for reducing CO2 emissions in other critical areas raises concerns about the best uses of clean electricity.Many studies assume that a DAC unit could also get energy from “waste heat” generated by some industrial process or facility nearby. In the MITEI researchers’ opinion, “that may be more wishful thinking than reality.” The heat source would need to be within a few miles of the DAC plant for transporting the heat to be economical; given its high capital cost, the DAC plant would need to run nonstop, requiring constant heat delivery; and heat at the temperature required by the DAC plant would have competing uses, for example, for heating buildings. Finally, if DAC is deployed at the gigatonne per year scale, waste heat will likely be able to provide only a small fraction of the needed energy.Challenge 3: SitingSome analysts have asserted that, because air is everywhere, DAC units can be located anywhere. But in reality, siting a DAC plant involves many complex issues. As noted above, DAC plants require significant amounts of energy, so having access to enough low-carbon energy is critical. Likewise, having nearby options for storing the removed CO2 is also critical. If storage sites or pipelines to such sites don’t exist, major new infrastructure will need to be built, and building new infrastructure of any kind is expensive and complicated, involving issues related to permitting, environmental justice, and public acceptability — issues that are, in the words of the researchers, “commonly underestimated in the real world and neglected in models.”Two more siting needs must be considered. First, meteorological conditions must be acceptable. By definition, any DAC unit will be exposed to the elements, and factors like temperature and humidity will affect process performance and process availability. And second, a DAC plant will require some dedicated land — though how much is unclear, as the optimal spacing of units is as yet unresolved. Like wind turbines, DAC units need to be properly spaced to ensure maximum performance such that one unit is not sucking in CO2-depleted air from another unit.Challenge 4: CostConsidering the first three challenges, the final challenge is clear: the cost per tonne of CO2 removed is inevitably high. Recent modeling studies assume DAC costs as low as $100 to $200 per ton of CO2 removed. But the researchers found evidence suggesting far higher costs.To start, they cite typical costs for power plants and industrial sites that now use CCS to remove CO2 from their flue gases. The cost of CCS in such applications is estimated to be in the range of $50 to $150 per ton of CO2 removed. As explained above, the far lower concentration of CO2 in the air will lead to substantially higher costs.As explained under Challenge 1, the DAC units needed to capture the required amount of air are massive. The capital cost of building them will be high, given labor, materials, permitting costs, and so on. Some estimates in the literature exceed $5,000 per tonne captured per year.Then there are the ongoing costs of energy. As noted under Challenge 2, removing 1 tonne of CO2 requires the equivalent of 1.2 megawatt-hours of electricity. If that electricity costs $0.10 per kilowatt-hour, the cost of just the electricity needed to remove 1 tonne of CO2 is $120. The researchers point out that assuming such a low price is “questionable,” given the expected increase in electricity demand, future competition for clean energy, and higher costs on a system dominated by renewable — but intermittent — energy sources.Then there’s the cost of storage, which is ignored in many DAC cost estimates.Clearly, many considerations show that prices of $100 to $200 per tonne are unrealistic, and assuming such low prices will distort assessments of strategies, leading them to underperform going forward.The bottom lineIn their paper, the MITEI team calls DAC a “very seductive concept.” Using DAC to suck CO2 out of the air and generate high-quality carbon-removal credits can offset reduction requirements for industries that have hard-to-abate emissions. By doing so, DAC would minimize disruptions to key parts of the world’s economy, including air travel, certain carbon-intensive industries, and agriculture. However, the world would need to generate billions of tonnes of CO2 credits at an affordable price. That prospect doesn’t look likely. The largest DAC plant in operation today removes just 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, and the price to buy the company’s carbon-removal credits on the market today is $1,500 per tonne.The researchers recognize that there is room for energy efficiency improvements in the future, but DAC units will always be subject to higher work requirements than CCS applied to power plant or industrial flue gases, and there is not a clear pathway to reducing work requirements much below the levels of current DAC technologies.Nevertheless, the researchers recommend that work to develop DAC continue “because it may be needed for meeting net-zero emissions goals, especially given the current pace of emissions.” But their paper concludes with this warning: “Given the high stakes of climate change, it is foolhardy to rely on DAC to be the hero that comes to our rescue.” More

    • 50 Shares109 Views

      in Energy

      Ensuring a durable transition

      by

      To fend off the worst impacts of climate change, “we have to decarbonize, and do it even faster,” said William H. Green, director of the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) and Hoyt C. Hottel Professor, MIT Department of Chemical Engineering, at MITEI’s Annual Research Conference.“But how the heck do we actually achieve this goal when the United States is in the middle of a divisive election campaign, and globally, we’re facing all kinds of geopolitical conflicts, trade protectionism, weather disasters, increasing demand from developing countries building a middle class, and data centers in countries like the U.S.?”Researchers, government officials, and business leaders convened in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Sept. 25-26 to wrestle with this vexing question at the conference that was themed, “A durable energy transition: How to stay on track in the face of increasing demand and unpredictable obstacles.”“In this room we have a lot of power,” said Green, “if we work together, convey to all of society what we see as real pathways and policies to solve problems, and take collective action.”The critical role of consensus-building in driving the energy transition arose repeatedly in conference sessions, whether the topic involved developing and adopting new technologies, constructing and siting infrastructure, drafting and passing vital energy policies, or attracting and retaining a skilled workforce.Resolving conflictsThere is “blowback and a social cost” in transitioning away from fossil fuels, said Stephen Ansolabehere, the Frank G. Thompson Professor of Government at Harvard University, in a panel on the social barriers to decarbonization. “Companies need to engage differently and recognize the rights of communities,” he said.Nora DeDontney, director of development at Vineyard Offshore, described her company’s two years of outreach and negotiations to bring large cables from ocean-based wind turbines onshore.“Our motto is, ‘community first,’” she said. Her company works to mitigate any impacts towns might feel because of offshore wind infrastructure construction with projects, such as sewer upgrades; provides workforce training to Tribal Nations; and lays out wind turbines in a manner that provides safe and reliable areas for local fisheries.Elsa A. Olivetti, professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT and the lead of the Decarbonization Mission of MIT’s new Climate Project, discussed the urgent need for rapid scale-up of mineral extraction. “Estimates indicate that to electrify the vehicle fleet by 2050, about six new large copper mines need to come on line each year,” she said. To meet the demand for metals in the United States means pushing into Indigenous lands and environmentally sensitive habitats. “The timeline of permitting is not aligned with the temporal acceleration needed,” she said.Larry Susskind, the Ford Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning in the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning, is trying to resolve such tensions with universities playing the role of mediators. He is creating renewable energy clinics where students train to participate in emerging disputes over siting. “Talk to people before decisions are made, conduct joint fact finding, so that facilities reduce harms and share the benefits,” he said.Clean energy boom and pressureA relatively recent and unforeseen increase in demand for energy comes from data centers, which are being built by large technology companies for new offerings, such as artificial intelligence.“General energy demand was flat for 20 years — and now, boom,” said Sean James, Microsoft’s senior director of data center research. “It caught utilities flatfooted.” With the expansion of AI, the rush to provision data centers with upwards of 35 gigawatts of new (and mainly renewable) power in the near future, intensifies pressure on big companies to balance the concerns of stakeholders across multiple domains. Google is pursuing 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2030, said Devon Swezey, the company’s senior manager for global energy and climate.“We’re pursuing this by purchasing more and different types of clean energy locally, and accelerating technological innovation such as next-generation geothermal projects,” he said. Pedro Gómez Lopez, strategy and development director, Ferrovial Digital, which designs and constructs data centers, incorporates renewable energy into their projects, which contributes to decarbonization goals and benefits to locales where they are sited. “We can create a new supply of power, taking the heat generated by a data center to residences or industries in neighborhoods through District Heating initiatives,” he said.The Inflation Reduction Act and other legislation has ramped up employment opportunities in clean energy nationwide, touching every region, including those most tied to fossil fuels. “At the start of 2024 there were about 3.5 million clean energy jobs, with ‘red’ states showing the fastest growth in clean energy jobs,” said David S. Miller, managing partner at Clean Energy Ventures. “The majority (58 percent) of new jobs in energy are now in clean energy — that transition has happened. And one-in-16 new jobs nationwide were in clean energy, with clean energy jobs growing more than three times faster than job growth economy-wide”In this rapid expansion, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) is prioritizing economically marginalized places, according to Zoe Lipman, lead for good jobs and labor standards in the Office of Energy Jobs at the DoE. “The community benefit process is integrated into our funding,” she said. “We are creating the foundation of a virtuous circle,” encouraging benefits to flow to disadvantaged and energy communities, spurring workforce training partnerships, and promoting well-paid union jobs. “These policies incentivize proactive community and labor engagement, and deliver community benefits, both of which are key to building support for technological change.”Hydrogen opportunity and challengeWhile engagement with stakeholders helps clear the path for implementation of technology and the spread of infrastructure, there remain enormous policy, scientific, and engineering challenges to solve, said multiple conference participants. In a “fireside chat,” Prasanna V. Joshi, vice president of low-carbon-solutions technology at ExxonMobil, and Ernest J. Moniz, professor of physics and special advisor to the president at MIT, discussed efforts to replace natural gas and coal with zero-carbon hydrogen in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in such major industries as steel and fertilizer manufacturing.“We have gone into an era of industrial policy,” said Moniz, citing a new DoE program offering incentives to generate demand for hydrogen — more costly than conventional fossil fuels — in end-use applications. “We are going to have to transition from our current approach, which I would call carrots-and-twigs, to ultimately, carrots-and-sticks,” Moniz warned, in order to create “a self-sustaining, major, scalable, affordable hydrogen economy.”To achieve net zero emissions by 2050, ExxonMobil intends to use carbon capture and sequestration in natural gas-based hydrogen and ammonia production. Ammonia can also serve as a zero-carbon fuel. Industry is exploring burning ammonia directly in coal-fired power plants to extend the hydrogen value chain. But there are challenges. “How do you burn 100 percent ammonia?”, asked Joshi. “That’s one of the key technology breakthroughs that’s needed.” Joshi believes that collaboration with MIT’s “ecosystem of breakthrough innovation” will be essential to breaking logjams around the hydrogen and ammonia-based industries.MIT ingenuity essentialThe energy transition is placing very different demands on different regions around the world. Take India, where today per capita power consumption is one of the lowest. But Indians “are an aspirational people … and with increasing urbanization and industrial activity, the growth in power demand is expected to triple by 2050,” said Praveer Sinha, CEO and managing director of the Tata Power Co. Ltd., in his keynote speech. For that nation, which currently relies on coal, the move to clean energy means bringing another 300 gigawatts of zero-carbon capacity online in the next five years. Sinha sees this power coming from wind, solar, and hydro, supplemented by nuclear energy.“India plans to triple nuclear power generation capacity by 2032, and is focusing on advancing small modular reactors,” said Sinha. “The country also needs the rapid deployment of storage solutions to firm up the intermittent power.” The goal is to provide reliable electricity 24/7 to a population living both in large cities and in geographically remote villages, with the help of long-range transmission lines and local microgrids. “India’s energy transition will require innovative and affordable technology solutions, and there is no better place to go than MIT, where you have the best brains, startups, and technology,” he said.These assets were on full display at the conference. Among them a cluster of young businesses, including:the MIT spinout Form Energy, which has developed a 100-hour iron battery as a backstop to renewable energy sources in case of multi-day interruptions;startup Noya that aims for direct air capture of atmospheric CO2 using carbon-based materials;the firm Active Surfaces, with a lightweight material for putting solar photovoltaics in previously inaccessible places;Copernic Catalysts, with new chemistry for making ammonia and sustainable aviation fuel far more inexpensively than current processes; andSesame Sustainability, a software platform spun out of MITEI that gives industries a full financial analysis of the costs and benefits of decarbonization.The pipeline of research talent extended into the undergraduate ranks, with a conference “slam” competition showcasing students’ summer research projects in areas from carbon capture using enzymes to 3D design for the coils used in fusion energy confinement.“MIT students like me are looking to be the next generation of energy leaders, looking for careers where we can apply our engineering skills to tackle exciting climate problems and make a tangible impact,” said Trent Lee, a junior in mechanical engineering researching improvements in lithium-ion energy storage. “We are stoked by the energy transition, because it’s not just the future, but our chance to build it.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Environment

      MIT engineers make converting CO2 into useful products more practical

      by

      As the world struggles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, researchers are seeking practical, economical ways to capture carbon dioxide and convert it into useful products, such as transportation fuels, chemical feedstocks, or even building materials. But so far, such attempts have struggled to reach economic viability.New research by engineers at MIT could lead to rapid improvements in a variety of electrochemical systems that are under development to convert carbon dioxide into a valuable commodity. The team developed a new design for the electrodes used in these systems, which increases the efficiency of the conversion process.The findings are reported today in the journal Nature Communications, in a paper by MIT doctoral student Simon Rufer, professor of mechanical engineering Kripa Varanasi, and three others.“The CO2 problem is a big challenge for our times, and we are using all kinds of levers to solve and address this problem,” Varanasi says. It will be essential to find practical ways of removing the gas, he says, either from sources such as power plant emissions, or straight out of the air or the oceans. But then, once the CO2 has been removed, it has to go somewhere.A wide variety of systems have been developed for converting that captured gas into a useful chemical product, Varanasi says. “It’s not that we can’t do it — we can do it. But the question is how can we make this efficient? How can we make this cost-effective?”In the new study, the team focused on the electrochemical conversion of CO2 to ethylene, a widely used chemical that can be made into a variety of plastics as well as fuels, and which today is made from petroleum. But the approach they developed could also be applied to producing other high-value chemical products as well, including methane, methanol, carbon monoxide, and others, the researchers say.Currently, ethylene sells for about $1,000 per ton, so the goal is to be able to meet or beat that price. The electrochemical process that converts CO2 into ethylene involves a water-based solution and a catalyst material, which come into contact along with an electric current in a device called a gas diffusion electrode.There are two competing characteristics of the gas diffusion electrode materials that affect their performance: They must be good electrical conductors so that the current that drives the process doesn’t get wasted through resistance heating, but they must also be “hydrophobic,” or water repelling, so the water-based electrolyte solution doesn’t leak through and interfere with the reactions taking place at the electrode surface.Unfortunately, it’s a tradeoff. Improving the conductivity reduces the hydrophobicity, and vice versa. Varanasi and his team set out to see if they could find a way around that conflict, and after many months of trying, they did just that.The solution, devised by Rufer and Varanasi, is elegant in its simplicity. They used a plastic material, PTFE (essentially Teflon), that has been known to have good hydrophobic properties. However, PTFE’s lack of conductivity means that electrons must travel through a very thin catalyst layer, leading to significant voltage drop with distance. To overcome this limitation, the researchers wove a series of conductive copper wires through the very thin sheet of the PTFE.“This work really addressed this challenge, as we can now get both conductivity and hydrophobicity,” Varanasi says.Research on potential carbon conversion systems tends to be done on very small, lab-scale samples, typically less than 1-inch (2.5-centimeter) squares. To demonstrate the potential for scaling up, Varanasi’s team produced a sheet 10 times larger in area and demonstrated its effective performance.To get to that point, they had to do some basic tests that had apparently never been done before, running tests under identical conditions but using electrodes of different sizes to analyze the relationship between conductivity and electrode size. They found that conductivity dropped off dramatically with size, which would mean much more energy, and thus cost, would be needed to drive the reaction.“That’s exactly what we would expect, but it was something that nobody had really dedicatedly investigated before,” Rufer says. In addition, the larger sizes produced more unwanted chemical byproducts besides the intended ethylene.Real-world industrial applications would require electrodes that are perhaps 100 times larger than the lab versions, so adding the conductive wires will be necessary for making such systems practical, the researchers say. They also developed a model which captures the spatial variability in voltage and product distribution on electrodes due to ohmic losses. The model along with the experimental data they collected enabled them to calculate the optimal spacing for conductive wires to counteract the drop off in conductivity.In effect, by weaving the wire through the material, the material is divided into smaller subsections determined by the spacing of the wires. “We split it into a bunch of little subsegments, each of which is effectively a smaller electrode,” Rufer says. “And as we’ve seen, small electrodes can work really well.”Because the copper wire is so much more conductive than the PTFE material, it acts as a kind of superhighway for electrons passing through, bridging the areas where they are confined to the substrate and face greater resistance.To demonstrate that their system is robust, the researchers ran a test electrode for 75 hours continuously, with little change in performance. Overall, Rufer says, their system “is the first PTFE-based electrode which has gone beyond the lab scale on the order of 5 centimeters or smaller. It’s the first work that has progressed into a much larger scale and has done so without sacrificing efficiency.”The weaving process for incorporating the wire can be easily integrated into existing manufacturing processes, even in a large-scale roll-to-roll process, he adds.“Our approach is very powerful because it doesn’t have anything to do with the actual catalyst being used,” Rufer says. “You can sew this micrometric copper wire into any gas diffusion electrode you want, independent of catalyst morphology or chemistry. So, this approach can be used to scale anybody’s electrode.”“Given that we will need to process gigatons of CO2 annually to combat the CO2 challenge, we really need to think about solutions that can scale,” Varanasi says. “Starting with this mindset enables us to identify critical bottlenecks and develop innovative approaches that can make a meaningful impact in solving the problem. Our hierarchically conductive electrode is a result of such thinking.”The research team included MIT graduate students Michael Nitzsche and Sanjay Garimella,  as well as Jack Lake PhD ’23. The work was supported by Shell, through the MIT Energy Initiative. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Energy

      Preparing Taiwan for a decarbonized economy

      by

      The operations of Taiwan’s electronics, manufacturing, and financial firms vary widely, but their leaders all have at least one thing in common: They recognize the role that a changing energy landscape will play in their future success, and they’re actively planning for that transition.“They’re all interested in how Taiwan can supply energy for its economy going forward — energy that meets global goals for decarbonization,” says Robert C. Armstrong, the Chevron Professor of Chemical Engineering Emeritus at MIT, as well as a principal investigator for the Taiwan Innovative Green Economy Roadmap (TIGER) program. “Each company is going to have its own particular needs. For example, financial companies have data centers that need energy 24/7, with no interruptions. But the need for a robust, reliable, resilient energy system is shared among all of them.”Ten Taiwanese companies are participating in TIGER, a two-year program with the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) to explore various ways that industry and government can promote and adopt technologies, practices, and policies that will keep Taiwan competitive amid a quickly changing energy landscape. MIT research teams are exploring a set of six topics during the first year of the program, with plans to tackle a second set of topics during the second year, eventually leading to a roadmap to green energy security for Taiwan.“We are helping them to understand green energy technologies, we are helping them to understand how policies around the world might affect supply chains, and we are helping them to understand different pathways for their domestic policies,” says Sergey Paltsev, a principal investigator for the TIGER program, as well as a deputy director of the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy and a senior research scientist at MITEI. “We are looking at how Taiwan will be affected in terms of the cost of doing business and how to preserve the competitive advantage of its export-oriented industries.”“The biggest question,” Paltsev adds, “is how Taiwanese companies can decarbonize their energy in a sustainable manner.”Why Taiwan?Paul Hsu, founding partner of the Taiwanese business consultancy Paul Hsu and Partners (one of the 10 participating TIGER companies), as well as founding chair and current board member of the Epoch Foundation, has been working for more than 30 years to forge collaborations between business leaders in Taiwan and MIT researchers. The energy challenges facing Taiwanese businesses, as well as their place in the global supply chain, make the TIGER program critical not only to improve environmental sustainability, but also to ensure future competitiveness, he says. “The energy field is facing revolution,” Hsu says. “Taiwanese companies are not operating in Taiwan alone, but also operating worldwide, and we are affected by the global supply chain. We need to diversify our businesses and our energy resources, and the first thing we’re looking for in this partnership is education — an understanding about how to orient Taiwanese industry toward the future of energy.”Wendy Duan, the program director of the Asia Pacific program at MITEI, notes that Taiwan has a number of similarities to places such as Singapore and Japan. The lessons learned through the TIGER program, she says, will likely be applicable — at least on some level — to other markets throughout Asia, and even around the world.“Taiwan is very much dependent on imported energy,” Duan notes. “Many countries in East Asia are facing similar challenges, and if Taiwan has a good roadmap for the future of energy, it can be a good role model.”“Taiwan is a great place for this sort of collaboration,” Armstrong says. “Their industry is very innovative, and it’s a place where businesses are willing to implement new, important ideas. At the same time, their economy is highly dependent on trade, and they import a lot of fossil fuels today. To compete in a decarbonized global economy, they’re going to have to find alternatives to that. If you can develop a path from today’s economy in Taiwan to a future manufacturing economy that is decarbonized, then that gives you a lot of interesting tools you could bring to bear in other economies.”Uncovering solutionsStakeholders from MIT and the participating companies meet for monthly webinars and biannual in-person workshops (alternating between Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Taipei) to discuss progress. The research addresses options for Taiwan to increase its supply of green energy, methods for storing and distributing that energy more efficiently, policy levers for implementing these changes, and Taiwan’s place in the global energy economy.“The project on the electric grid, the project on storage, and the project on hydrogen — all three of those are related to the issue of how to decarbonize power generation and delivery,” notes Paltsev. “But we also need to understand how things in other parts of the world are going to affect demand for the products that are produced in Taiwan. If there is a huge change in demand for certain products due to decarbonization, Taiwanese companies are going to feel it. Therefore, the companies want to understand where the demand is going to be coming from, and how to adjust their business strategies.”One of the research projects is looking closely at advanced nuclear power. There are significant political roadblocks standing in the way, but business leaders are intrigued by the prospect of nuclear energy in Taiwan, where available land for wind and solar power generation is sparse.“So far, Taiwan government policy is anti-nuclear,” Hsu says. “The current ruling party is against it. They are still thinking about what happened in the 1960s and 1970s, and they think nuclear is very dangerous. But if you look into it, nuclear generation technology has really improved.”Implementing a green economy roadmapTIGER participants’ interest in green energy solutions is, of course, not merely academic. Ultimately, the success of the program will be determined not only by the insights from the research produced over these two years, but by how these findings constructively inform both the private and public sectors.“MIT and TIGER participants are united in their commitment to advancing regional industrial and economic development, while championing decarbonization and sustainability efforts in Taiwan,” Duan says. “MIT researchers are informed by insights and domain expertise contributed by TIGER participants, believing that their collaborative efforts can help other nations facing similar geo-economic challenges.”“We are helping the companies understand how to stay leaders in this changing world,” says Paltsev. “We want to make sure that we are not painting an unrealistically rosy picture, or conveying that it will be easy to decarbonize. On the contrary, we want to stay realistic and try to show them both where they can make advances and where we see challenges.”The goal, Armstrong says, is not energy independence for Taiwan, but rather energy security. “Energy security requires diversity of supply,” he says. “So, you have a diverse set of suppliers, who are trusted trading partners, but it doesn’t mean you’re on your own. That’s the goal for Taiwan.”What will that mean, more specifically? Well, that’s what TIGER researchers aim to learn. “It probably means a mix of energy sources,” Armstrong says. “It could be that nuclear fission provides a core of energy that companies need for their industrial operations, it could be that they can import hydrogen in the form of ammonia or another carrier, and it could be that they leverage the renewable resources they have, together with storage technologies, to provide some pretty inexpensive energy for their manufacturing sector.”“We don’t know,” Armstrong adds. “But that’s what we’re looking at, to see if we can figure out a pathway that gets them to their goals. We are optimistic that we can get there.”The companies participating in the TIGER program include AcBel Polytech Inc., CDIB Capital Group / KGI Bank Co., Ltd.; Delta Electronics, Inc.; Fubon Financial Holding Co., Ltd.; Paul Hsu and Partners Co., Ltd.; Ta Ya Electric Wire & Cable Co., Ltd.; TCC Group Holdings Co. Ltd.; Walsin Lihwa Corporation; Wistron Corporation; and Zhen Ding Technology Holding, Ltd. More