Welcome to BIO / EES 105 – Energy in Our World:

Some opening thoughts

Kenneth M. Klemow, Ph.D.Professor of BiologyAssociate Director, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

What is the secret of life?

http://www.fcps.edu/

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/

http://www.beautifulbritain.co.uk/

What is the secret of life?

How do plants and animals ensure many grandchildren?

http://shelledy.mesa.k12.co.us/

http://www.rogerwendell.com/australia.html

Humans are great at modifying our environment

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/gracie.html

http://www.ny.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/

Modifying our environment takes energy

Securing energy has been a quest of mankind for millennia.

Need. Energy.

My empire for energy.

Before 1880s, energy use small scale

Beginning in 1880s, energy scaled up

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/market-street-manchester--1890-ronald-haber.html

http://www.petroleumhistory.org/OilHistory/pages/Columbia/Wells.html

In past century, we have become reliant on centralized energy generation

http://12degreesoffreedom.blogspot.com/2010/06/no-king-coal.html

http://wonderstube.com/world-wonders/

U.S. success in first half of 20th century due to coal

http://info.heylpatterson.com/

After World War II, other fuels supplanted coal

Optimism ended in 1970s

A national debate eruptedLet’s

conserve energy Ain’t no

gas shortage, hippie!

Energy debate rages on•Influences foreign policy of many nations•Concerns over global climate change•Concerns over nuclear waste disposal

•Influences foreign policy of many nations•Concerns over global climate change•Concerns over nuclear waste disposal

What about alternatives?

•Account for <10% of energy

•Each has own drawback

•Critics argue against poor energy density, unreliability, yield

•Account for <10% of energy

•Each has own drawback

•Critics argue against poor energy density, unreliability, yield

Every energy form has benefits and drawbacksForm Benefits DrawbacksCoal Abundant, cheap, high energy

densityGHG impacts, habitat destruction

Oil High energy density, flexible GHG impacts, foreign policy concerns

Conv. gas High energy density, abundant GHG impacts, declining availability

Nuclear Non fossil fuel, high density Impacts of waste and accidents

Biomass Renewable, non fossil fuel Energy yield questionable

Wind Renewable, non fossil fuel Intermittent, impacts to wildlife

Solar Renewable, non fossil fuel Intermittent, PV requires rare earths

Hydro Renewable, non fossil fuel Limited potential, impacts to rivers

Geothermal

Renewable, non fossil fuel Limited potential in some areas

What about shale gas?

Potential of Marcellus Shale• Underlies 95,000 sq.

mi.• Recoverable reserves

of 360 TCF▫Supply 14 years U.S.

consumption• Potential to create

280,000 jobs• Potential as

transportation fuel• Potential economic

impact of $2 trillion

• Underlies 95,000 sq. mi.

• Recoverable reserves of 360 TCF▫Supply 14 years U.S.

consumption• Potential to create

280,000 jobs• Potential as

transportation fuel• Potential economic

impact of $2 trillionhttp://pennsylvania.sierraclub.org/

Some people are worried

• Groundwater pollution• Surface water

pollution• Habitat fragmentation• Noise• Decreased property

values• Conversion of rural

landscape to industrialized

• Greenhouse gas emissions

• Groundwater pollution• Surface water

pollution• Habitat fragmentation• Noise• Decreased property

values• Conversion of rural

landscape to industrialized

• Greenhouse gas emissions

http://www.propublica.org/

http://www.choosenepa.com/ http://alleghenysc.org/

http://dearsusquehanna.blogspot.com/http://dearsusquehanna.blogspot.com/

Problem: People seem to be talking past each other

http://www.treehugger.com/citizensvoice.com/news/

•Conventional wisdom▫Public will make wise choices if given sound

information•Conventional approach

▫Convert public concerns to research questions▫Address questions using science▫Publish findings in peer-reviewed journal▫Scientists take steps to explain findings to

public•Deficit model

•Conventional wisdom▫Public will make wise choices if given sound

information•Conventional approach

▫Convert public concerns to research questions▫Address questions using science▫Publish findings in peer-reviewed journal▫Scientists take steps to explain findings to

public•Deficit model

How to solve?

•Case study:▫Osborn et al

(2011) PNAS paper on methane in drinking water wells near gas installations

▫Paper intensely discussed by public

•Case study:▫Osborn et al

(2011) PNAS paper on methane in drinking water wells near gas installations

▫Paper intensely discussed by public

Does this work?

•Welcomed by drilling opponents▫Natural Gas Watch: “Study demonstrates

unequivocally that fracking does, in fact, contaminate the water in the area where is used.”

•Criticized by drilling advocates▫Energy in Depth website published

“Durham Bull” essay, providing lengthy accounting of the study’s reported faults.

•Welcomed by drilling opponents▫Natural Gas Watch: “Study demonstrates

unequivocally that fracking does, in fact, contaminate the water in the area where is used.”

•Criticized by drilling advocates▫Energy in Depth website published

“Durham Bull” essay, providing lengthy accounting of the study’s reported faults.

Public reaction polarized

• Develop position on an issue

• Filter science based on their position▫Embrace science that

agrees▫Reject science that

fails to support Often attack

credibility of scientists, journal, review process

• Thus, deficit model doesn’t work

• Develop position on an issue

• Filter science based on their position▫Embrace science that

agrees▫Reject science that

fails to support Often attack

credibility of scientists, journal, review process

• Thus, deficit model doesn’t work

Public engages in “cherry picking”

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/images/b/b8/Cherry_picking_med.jpg

• Partisans criticize scientists ▫ Scientists routinely

discredited based on funding and affiliation

▫ Criticism often personal, credentials, funding called into question

▫ Web 2.0 promotes dissemination of these views, with little filtering.

• Partisans criticize scientists ▫ Scientists routinely

discredited based on funding and affiliation

▫ Criticism often personal, credentials, funding called into question

▫ Web 2.0 promotes dissemination of these views, with little filtering.

What happens with science does not fit bias?

•Proponents: “We know we are extracting gas safely, don’t need research to verify what we already know.

•Opponents: “We know fracking is destroying our environment and communities. Don’t need research to verify.”

•Both sides seem more interested in convincing others of their position, than in keeping an open mind.

•Proponents: “We know we are extracting gas safely, don’t need research to verify what we already know.

•Opponents: “We know fracking is destroying our environment and communities. Don’t need research to verify.”

•Both sides seem more interested in convincing others of their position, than in keeping an open mind.

Some believe no additional research needed.

• “New Conservation” approach▫Requires collaboration between concerned

citizens, industry, policy makers and scientists.• Translational Science

▫Scientists engage with concerned citizens, policy makers, industry

▫Adopt citizen science approaches• No cherry picking• Bridge System II vs System I thinking styles• Goal is to build trust and respect

▫Encourage decision-making based on rational, fact-based discourse and not emotional arm-waving.

• “New Conservation” approach▫Requires collaboration between concerned

citizens, industry, policy makers and scientists.• Translational Science

▫Scientists engage with concerned citizens, policy makers, industry

▫Adopt citizen science approaches• No cherry picking• Bridge System II vs System I thinking styles• Goal is to build trust and respect

▫Encourage decision-making based on rational, fact-based discourse and not emotional arm-waving.

What’s the solution?

Alternative: More of the same

http://www.treehugger.com/citizensvoice.com/news/