WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.967 align:middle line:90% 00:00:00.967 --> 00:00:01.467 align:middle line:90% [SQUEAKING] 00:00:01.467 --> 00:00:02.445 align:middle line:90% [RUSTLING] 00:00:02.445 --> 00:00:06.357 align:middle line:90% [CLICKING] 00:00:06.357 --> 00:00:10.287 align:middle line:90% 00:00:10.287 --> 00:00:12.370 align:middle line:84% DAVID HSU: Welcome to another lecture in my series 00:00:12.370 --> 00:00:15.110 align:middle line:84% on urban energy systems and policy. 00:00:15.110 --> 00:00:16.450 align:middle line:90% My name is David Hsu. 00:00:16.450 --> 00:00:18.010 align:middle line:84% I'm a professor in the Department 00:00:18.010 --> 00:00:20.390 align:middle line:90% of Urban Planning at MIT. 00:00:20.390 --> 00:00:24.580 align:middle line:84% And today, I want to talk about cities and future fossil fuel 00:00:24.580 --> 00:00:30.070 align:middle line:84% use, carbon capture utilization storage, and nuclear power. 00:00:30.070 --> 00:00:33.010 align:middle line:84% In short, this is kind of a grab bag of topics, 00:00:33.010 --> 00:00:37.250 align:middle line:84% thinking about how cities exist in the larger energy system. 00:00:37.250 --> 00:00:39.710 align:middle line:84% The readings for today are all in the syllabus. 00:00:39.710 --> 00:00:42.890 align:middle line:84% You can also see them by clicking 00:00:42.890 --> 00:00:46.480 align:middle line:90% on the purple links in the PDF. 00:00:46.480 --> 00:00:52.000 align:middle line:84% And again, today, we're going to have a more philosophical 00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:55.450 align:middle line:84% discussion really about how cities exist within a much 00:00:55.450 --> 00:00:56.747 align:middle line:90% larger energy system. 00:00:56.747 --> 00:00:58.330 align:middle line:84% And the reason why we're going to talk 00:00:58.330 --> 00:01:00.940 align:middle line:84% about these scenarios for future energy use 00:01:00.940 --> 00:01:03.460 align:middle line:84% is that the context is going to decide what 00:01:03.460 --> 00:01:06.660 align:middle line:90% we try to pursue in cities. 00:01:06.660 --> 00:01:12.150 align:middle line:84% So just to take a large picture view of what we're 00:01:12.150 --> 00:01:15.090 align:middle line:84% trying to do through decarbonization, 00:01:15.090 --> 00:01:18.420 align:middle line:84% this is from 2019, the Global Carbon Project. 00:01:18.420 --> 00:01:21.840 align:middle line:84% And their headline in 2019 was "CO2 emissions 00:01:21.840 --> 00:01:25.510 align:middle line:84% grow amidst slowly emerging climate policies." 00:01:25.510 --> 00:01:29.430 align:middle line:84% But it's important to note that even before COVID, 00:01:29.430 --> 00:01:32.460 align:middle line:84% fossil fuel CO2 emissions were growing more slowly, 00:01:32.460 --> 00:01:34.290 align:middle line:90% but did not yet decline. 00:01:34.290 --> 00:01:37.890 align:middle line:84% And of course, as you know and this red circle reinforces, 00:01:37.890 --> 00:01:40.590 align:middle line:84% CO2 emissions have to decline to net zero 00:01:40.590 --> 00:01:43.860 align:middle line:84% by mid-century to meet our Paris Climate Agreement 00:01:43.860 --> 00:01:47.850 align:middle line:84% goals, which is to keep our global temperatures less 00:01:47.850 --> 00:01:53.580 align:middle line:84% than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the previous averages, which 00:01:53.580 --> 00:01:56.280 align:middle line:84% would avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate 00:01:56.280 --> 00:01:57.250 align:middle line:90% change. 00:01:57.250 --> 00:02:01.750 align:middle line:84% And so this graph points out that, in the last 10 years, 00:02:01.750 --> 00:02:05.760 align:middle line:84% the growth of coal was slower, relatively slower growth 00:02:05.760 --> 00:02:09.060 align:middle line:84% in the eight years up until COVID. 00:02:09.060 --> 00:02:13.050 align:middle line:84% And the 2019 projection was a slower decline still but not-- 00:02:13.050 --> 00:02:17.570 align:middle line:84% a slower growth still, but did not yet decline. 00:02:17.570 --> 00:02:20.720 align:middle line:84% If we look at the sources of global carbon emissions, 00:02:20.720 --> 00:02:23.270 align:middle line:84% natural gas and oil are now the main drivers 00:02:23.270 --> 00:02:24.950 align:middle line:90% of global emissions growth. 00:02:24.950 --> 00:02:29.150 align:middle line:84% You have gas growing about 2.6% per year, 00:02:29.150 --> 00:02:34.670 align:middle line:84% oil growing 0.9% in 2019 alone, and coal actually declining 00:02:34.670 --> 00:02:37.580 align:middle line:90% in 2019, the global projection. 00:02:37.580 --> 00:02:40.310 align:middle line:84% Land carbon emissions also slightly 00:02:40.310 --> 00:02:44.670 align:middle line:84% increased, driving up emissions in 2019. 00:02:44.670 --> 00:02:46.770 align:middle line:84% Now, this brings us back to the decarbonization 00:02:46.770 --> 00:02:50.010 align:middle line:84% pathways we talked about in one of the first lectures. 00:02:50.010 --> 00:02:51.240 align:middle line:90% This is the reference case. 00:02:51.240 --> 00:02:54.540 align:middle line:84% This is essentially how much energy the US economy currently 00:02:54.540 --> 00:02:56.760 align:middle line:90% uses in 2020. 00:02:56.760 --> 00:02:58.560 align:middle line:84% We've talked a lot about this scenario, 00:02:58.560 --> 00:03:01.380 align:middle line:84% trying to achieve 100% renewable energy. 00:03:01.380 --> 00:03:03.900 align:middle line:84% You can see that all the fossil fuel resources in resources 00:03:03.900 --> 00:03:07.420 align:middle line:84% have been replaced by renewable energy resources. 00:03:07.420 --> 00:03:09.420 align:middle line:84% And of course, there's the third scenario, which 00:03:09.420 --> 00:03:12.000 align:middle line:90% is the central low fuel price. 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:14.130 align:middle line:84% This is the central scenario, where 00:03:14.130 --> 00:03:16.500 align:middle line:84% it's the lowest cost or least cost pathway 00:03:16.500 --> 00:03:18.000 align:middle line:90% to decarbonization. 00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:21.310 align:middle line:84% And this occurs in the scenario of a low fuel price, 00:03:21.310 --> 00:03:24.210 align:middle line:84% meaning that if fossil fuels remain relatively cheap. 00:03:24.210 --> 00:03:26.100 align:middle line:84% So there are still some fossil fuels, 00:03:26.100 --> 00:03:29.520 align:middle line:84% like natural gas and petroleum in this decarbonization 00:03:29.520 --> 00:03:30.610 align:middle line:90% pathway. 00:03:30.610 --> 00:03:33.300 align:middle line:84% But we should note two things about this scenario. 00:03:33.300 --> 00:03:38.820 align:middle line:84% First, because of the central least cost pathway and low fuel 00:03:38.820 --> 00:03:40.658 align:middle line:84% price scenario, this is essentially 00:03:40.658 --> 00:03:42.450 align:middle line:84% a scenario they consider in this paper that 00:03:42.450 --> 00:03:44.310 align:middle line:84% has the maximum amount of fossil fuels 00:03:44.310 --> 00:03:47.550 align:middle line:84% that could be used that would still achieve decarbonization. 00:03:47.550 --> 00:03:51.430 align:middle line:84% And even in the scenario, if we flip back a couple of slides, 00:03:51.430 --> 00:03:55.150 align:middle line:84% you can see that we currently have coal, natural gas, 00:03:55.150 --> 00:03:58.530 align:middle line:84% petroleum around 31 exajoules of natural gas 00:03:58.530 --> 00:04:01.200 align:middle line:90% and 39 exajoules petroleum. 00:04:01.200 --> 00:04:04.110 align:middle line:84% To go back to our central low fuel price scenario, 00:04:04.110 --> 00:04:07.200 align:middle line:84% you can see we only have about 7.4 exajoules of natural gas 00:04:07.200 --> 00:04:09.600 align:middle line:90% and 12 exajoules of petroleum. 00:04:09.600 --> 00:04:13.080 align:middle line:84% In both cases, that's about a 75% decline 00:04:13.080 --> 00:04:16.440 align:middle line:84% in how much energy we have to use from those two resources 00:04:16.440 --> 00:04:19.750 align:middle line:84% and still achieve decarbonization. 00:04:19.750 --> 00:04:22.390 align:middle line:84% So the question is, how do we go from a reference base 00:04:22.390 --> 00:04:25.640 align:middle line:84% to a carbon neutral pathway that still has fossil fuels? 00:04:25.640 --> 00:04:28.180 align:middle line:84% We need to do four things, this paper argues. 00:04:28.180 --> 00:04:30.430 align:middle line:84% We have to lower our final energy use. 00:04:30.430 --> 00:04:33.220 align:middle line:84% You can tell, on the left-hand side of the Sankey diagrams, 00:04:33.220 --> 00:04:36.910 align:middle line:84% there's less energy use going in, in terms of primary energy. 00:04:36.910 --> 00:04:40.480 align:middle line:84% We can decarbonize our electricity sources. 00:04:40.480 --> 00:04:42.640 align:middle line:84% We should switch from fossil fuels to electricity 00:04:42.640 --> 00:04:44.680 align:middle line:84% and a lot of our energy technology 00:04:44.680 --> 00:04:46.450 align:middle line:90% or converted technologies. 00:04:46.450 --> 00:04:49.570 align:middle line:84% And we need to do carbon capture utilization and storage. 00:04:49.570 --> 00:04:52.120 align:middle line:84% That's what I want to talk about more now. 00:04:52.120 --> 00:04:56.100 align:middle line:84% Carbon capture utilization, and storage, why is this important? 00:04:56.100 --> 00:04:57.850 align:middle line:84% Well, there's, of course, a number of cons 00:04:57.850 --> 00:05:00.800 align:middle line:84% that people will argue around CCUS. 00:05:00.800 --> 00:05:02.440 align:middle line:84% One of the first is that it's been 00:05:02.440 --> 00:05:05.980 align:middle line:84% pushed by fossil fuel interests as a way to continue emissions. 00:05:05.980 --> 00:05:09.220 align:middle line:84% If you look quite often on social media or quite often 00:05:09.220 --> 00:05:11.350 align:middle line:84% on the web, if you have energy interests, 00:05:11.350 --> 00:05:14.380 align:middle line:84% you may have been targeted by fossil fuel ads from Shell, 00:05:14.380 --> 00:05:17.590 align:middle line:84% Exxon, Chevron, and other fossil fuel companies that 00:05:17.590 --> 00:05:20.860 align:middle line:84% argue that they're investing in carbon capture utilization 00:05:20.860 --> 00:05:21.850 align:middle line:90% storage. 00:05:21.850 --> 00:05:23.470 align:middle line:84% They're spending on these technologies 00:05:23.470 --> 00:05:25.012 align:middle line:84% with a small fraction of what they're 00:05:25.012 --> 00:05:29.080 align:middle line:84% spending on their current extraction or new exploration 00:05:29.080 --> 00:05:31.910 align:middle line:84% operations to extract more fossil fuels. 00:05:31.910 --> 00:05:35.770 align:middle line:84% So it's hard to argue that carbon capture utilization 00:05:35.770 --> 00:05:38.560 align:middle line:84% storage by fossil fuel companies may necessarily 00:05:38.560 --> 00:05:40.910 align:middle line:90% be in good faith. 00:05:40.910 --> 00:05:43.580 align:middle line:84% Another con with carbon capture utilization and storage, 00:05:43.580 --> 00:05:47.330 align:middle line:84% or CCUS for short, is that it's not economically competitive. 00:05:47.330 --> 00:05:50.000 align:middle line:84% It's simply a higher cost than existing renewable 00:05:50.000 --> 00:05:51.515 align:middle line:90% alternatives. 00:05:51.515 --> 00:05:53.140 align:middle line:84% Another argument is that there's simply 00:05:53.140 --> 00:05:56.350 align:middle line:84% no fundamental economic value to storing carbon, 00:05:56.350 --> 00:05:58.800 align:middle line:84% except for avoiding the externalities of climate 00:05:58.800 --> 00:05:59.300 align:middle line:90% change. 00:05:59.300 --> 00:06:02.130 align:middle line:84% In other words, we should put carbon-- 00:06:02.130 --> 00:06:04.930 align:middle line:90% we should store it if possible. 00:06:04.930 --> 00:06:07.060 align:middle line:84% At the same time, there's no fundamental use 00:06:07.060 --> 00:06:09.370 align:middle line:84% to get out of it, unless we simply 00:06:09.370 --> 00:06:11.470 align:middle line:84% consider the use to be avoiding the worst 00:06:11.470 --> 00:06:13.450 align:middle line:90% effects of climate change. 00:06:13.450 --> 00:06:17.230 align:middle line:84% And because the only way that we could price externality 00:06:17.230 --> 00:06:19.690 align:middle line:84% is through a carbon tax and price, 00:06:19.690 --> 00:06:22.120 align:middle line:84% these are not necessarily proven to be politically 00:06:22.120 --> 00:06:24.400 align:middle line:90% viable in many cases so far. 00:06:24.400 --> 00:06:26.620 align:middle line:84% You will notice that the new Inflation Reduction 00:06:26.620 --> 00:06:29.800 align:middle line:84% Act does not include a carbon price, though there are still 00:06:29.800 --> 00:06:31.660 align:middle line:84% a number of politicians and policymakers 00:06:31.660 --> 00:06:34.290 align:middle line:90% who are still pushing for it. 00:06:34.290 --> 00:06:37.890 align:middle line:84% Of course, one of the pros of carbon capture utilization 00:06:37.890 --> 00:06:41.310 align:middle line:84% storage is that, in the short-term, we use still 00:06:41.310 --> 00:06:43.150 align:middle line:90% a lot of fossil fuels. 00:06:43.150 --> 00:06:46.320 align:middle line:84% We also have relatively high fossil fuel prices. 00:06:46.320 --> 00:06:50.040 align:middle line:84% And so if we need to continue producing fossil fuels to avoid 00:06:50.040 --> 00:06:52.350 align:middle line:84% the worst short-term effects, we are 00:06:52.350 --> 00:06:55.710 align:middle line:84% going to hopefully have carbon capture utilization storage 00:06:55.710 --> 00:06:58.140 align:middle line:84% to store greenhouse gas emissions in the short-term 00:06:58.140 --> 00:06:59.860 align:middle line:90% and in the future. 00:06:59.860 --> 00:07:02.040 align:middle line:84% And one of the pros, I guess, for the idea 00:07:02.040 --> 00:07:04.680 align:middle line:84% of CCUS in the long-term is that we simply 00:07:04.680 --> 00:07:06.225 align:middle line:84% need to reduce carbon concentrations 00:07:06.225 --> 00:07:07.710 align:middle line:90% in the atmosphere. 00:07:07.710 --> 00:07:10.890 align:middle line:84% Our current levels are 415 parts per million. 00:07:10.890 --> 00:07:14.430 align:middle line:84% If you simply stop using greenhouse gas, 00:07:14.430 --> 00:07:17.670 align:middle line:84% or rather stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, 00:07:17.670 --> 00:07:20.790 align:middle line:84% we'd still have to have a way to reduce our carbon 00:07:20.790 --> 00:07:23.220 align:middle line:84% concentration in the atmosphere to safe levels. 00:07:23.220 --> 00:07:27.500 align:middle line:84% So the latest IPCC report recognizes 00:07:27.500 --> 00:07:31.200 align:middle line:84% that we need some kind of carbon dioxide removal or some kind 00:07:31.200 --> 00:07:33.260 align:middle line:84% of carbon capture utilization storage 00:07:33.260 --> 00:07:35.840 align:middle line:90% techniques to be developed. 00:07:35.840 --> 00:07:39.760 align:middle line:84% And so this is actually to bring it back to what cities can 00:07:39.760 --> 00:07:41.170 align:middle line:90% or cannot do. 00:07:41.170 --> 00:07:45.160 align:middle line:84% On one hand, you have the cities that are highlighted in blue-- 00:07:45.160 --> 00:07:47.680 align:middle line:84% Washington, California and states 00:07:47.680 --> 00:07:52.120 align:middle line:84% like New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New 00:07:52.120 --> 00:07:56.440 align:middle line:84% York are all considering natural gas bans because simply we 00:07:56.440 --> 00:08:00.190 align:middle line:84% know that greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon 00:08:00.190 --> 00:08:02.470 align:middle line:84% emissions, and methane emissions especially 00:08:02.470 --> 00:08:04.990 align:middle line:90% are driving greenhouse gas-- 00:08:04.990 --> 00:08:06.800 align:middle line:90% climate change very quickly. 00:08:06.800 --> 00:08:08.680 align:middle line:84% And so you have a number of cities and states 00:08:08.680 --> 00:08:12.340 align:middle line:84% all considering trying to pass natural gas 00:08:12.340 --> 00:08:14.990 align:middle line:84% bans, such as Berkeley, California, Seattle, 00:08:14.990 --> 00:08:15.520 align:middle line:90% Washington. 00:08:15.520 --> 00:08:17.500 align:middle line:84% I think San Jose also considered it. 00:08:17.500 --> 00:08:20.440 align:middle line:84% And about 10 or 15 towns in Massachusetts 00:08:20.440 --> 00:08:21.790 align:middle line:90% have also proposed it. 00:08:21.790 --> 00:08:24.340 align:middle line:84% And the latest Massachusetts climate legislation 00:08:24.340 --> 00:08:27.460 align:middle line:84% allows 10 cities to experiment with this. 00:08:27.460 --> 00:08:29.350 align:middle line:84% At the same time, just to consider 00:08:29.350 --> 00:08:31.360 align:middle line:84% what cities can't do necessarily, 00:08:31.360 --> 00:08:33.230 align:middle line:84% look at all the states here in red. 00:08:33.230 --> 00:08:35.559 align:middle line:84% These are all states that have passed legislation 00:08:35.559 --> 00:08:39.010 align:middle line:84% that prohibit local governments from restricting natural gas 00:08:39.010 --> 00:08:40.280 align:middle line:90% utility service. 00:08:40.280 --> 00:08:43.610 align:middle line:84% In other words, the states are preempting what cities can do. 00:08:43.610 --> 00:08:46.090 align:middle line:84% And so the reason why we're considering our alternatives 00:08:46.090 --> 00:08:49.840 align:middle line:84% or the possibility of how much fossil fuels we're going to use 00:08:49.840 --> 00:08:53.110 align:middle line:84% in the future is because these two kinds of states-- frankly, 00:08:53.110 --> 00:08:54.970 align:middle line:90% blue states and red states-- 00:08:54.970 --> 00:08:56.980 align:middle line:84% have fundamentally different views 00:08:56.980 --> 00:09:00.250 align:middle line:84% on what the future use of fossil fuels should be. 00:09:00.250 --> 00:09:03.430 align:middle line:84% Both consider how we might achieve decarbonization 00:09:03.430 --> 00:09:06.430 align:middle line:84% and whether or not we can consider to use fossil fuels, 00:09:06.430 --> 00:09:08.930 align:middle line:84% whether we can continue to use fossil fuels. 00:09:08.930 --> 00:09:14.780 align:middle line:84% This is going to drive what we do in cities and policy. 00:09:14.780 --> 00:09:16.870 align:middle line:84% So there's a couple of different ways 00:09:16.870 --> 00:09:19.540 align:middle line:84% to do carbon capture and storage in the lithosphere 00:09:19.540 --> 00:09:23.200 align:middle line:84% or geosphere, essentially into the Earth's mantle. 00:09:23.200 --> 00:09:25.780 align:middle line:84% And this is a diagram from the Rissman paper 00:09:25.780 --> 00:09:28.000 align:middle line:90% that we read on Tuesday. 00:09:28.000 --> 00:09:30.370 align:middle line:84% And this shows different ways of taking-- 00:09:30.370 --> 00:09:34.780 align:middle line:84% you can basically have a pipeline up to 500 kilometers 00:09:34.780 --> 00:09:38.080 align:middle line:84% that takes carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas 00:09:38.080 --> 00:09:40.270 align:middle line:84% emissions from a power plant and brings it 00:09:40.270 --> 00:09:41.680 align:middle line:90% to a CCUS storage facility. 00:09:41.680 --> 00:09:44.590 align:middle line:84% So you have some flexibility in disaggregating 00:09:44.590 --> 00:09:46.930 align:middle line:84% where the power plant is and where the CCUS storage 00:09:46.930 --> 00:09:48.220 align:middle line:90% facility is. 00:09:48.220 --> 00:09:50.350 align:middle line:90% You can bring in this pipeline. 00:09:50.350 --> 00:09:52.030 align:middle line:84% You might be able to bring it by ship. 00:09:52.030 --> 00:09:55.288 align:middle line:84% You can inject CO2 and store it underground. 00:09:55.288 --> 00:09:56.830 align:middle line:84% And this shows all the different ways 00:09:56.830 --> 00:09:58.240 align:middle line:90% you can store it underground. 00:09:58.240 --> 00:10:00.310 align:middle line:84% You have this impermeable cap rock that 00:10:00.310 --> 00:10:02.350 align:middle line:90% keeps the CO2 in the ground. 00:10:02.350 --> 00:10:05.530 align:middle line:84% You pump it to about 1.5 kilometers deep or more. 00:10:05.530 --> 00:10:09.820 align:middle line:84% You can put the CO2 into a depleted oil or gas reservoir. 00:10:09.820 --> 00:10:12.220 align:middle line:84% You can put it into a natural saline aquifer. 00:10:12.220 --> 00:10:15.700 align:middle line:84% And as this little inset shows, this carbon dioxide 00:10:15.700 --> 00:10:18.250 align:middle line:84% becomes stabilized within the porous rock, 00:10:18.250 --> 00:10:23.860 align:middle line:84% forms natural compounds in the surrounding brine and minerals. 00:10:23.860 --> 00:10:26.290 align:middle line:84% Of course, that brings us to other possible ways 00:10:26.290 --> 00:10:28.630 align:middle line:84% to do carbon capture utilization storage. 00:10:28.630 --> 00:10:31.000 align:middle line:84% You might remember this figure from the Tomalty Report 00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:34.300 align:middle line:84% we read maybe I think second or third week of class. 00:10:34.300 --> 00:10:35.920 align:middle line:90% This shows Ontario's Greenbelt. 00:10:35.920 --> 00:10:38.560 align:middle line:84% We discussed the implications of land use 00:10:38.560 --> 00:10:41.980 align:middle line:84% not only for urban growth, but for possible carbon capture 00:10:41.980 --> 00:10:43.280 align:middle line:90% and storage. 00:10:43.280 --> 00:10:44.920 align:middle line:84% So about two summers ago, I spent 00:10:44.920 --> 00:10:47.950 align:middle line:84% quite a bit of time talking to my MIT colleagues. 00:10:47.950 --> 00:10:50.290 align:middle line:84% We worked on this climate grant challenge project 00:10:50.290 --> 00:10:51.910 align:middle line:90% in terrestrial carbon. 00:10:51.910 --> 00:10:54.700 align:middle line:84% And we produced from it a series of graphics showing 00:10:54.700 --> 00:10:57.610 align:middle line:84% different ways that you might be able to sequester carbon 00:10:57.610 --> 00:11:02.300 align:middle line:84% into terrestrial or into the biosphere. 00:11:02.300 --> 00:11:05.740 align:middle line:84% So one possibility is that you take carbon and sequester it 00:11:05.740 --> 00:11:07.780 align:middle line:90% into the soil microbiome. 00:11:07.780 --> 00:11:10.780 align:middle line:84% You may genetically engineer the soil microbiome 00:11:10.780 --> 00:11:13.090 align:middle line:90% to uptake more carbon. 00:11:13.090 --> 00:11:15.010 align:middle line:84% Another possibility is perennial crops. 00:11:15.010 --> 00:11:17.440 align:middle line:84% Perennial crops, unlike annual crops, 00:11:17.440 --> 00:11:19.420 align:middle line:84% are agricultural crops that actually 00:11:19.420 --> 00:11:20.650 align:middle line:90% can be harvested every year. 00:11:20.650 --> 00:11:22.360 align:middle line:84% So they don't require replanting. 00:11:22.360 --> 00:11:24.820 align:middle line:84% Their root systems typically grow much deeper 00:11:24.820 --> 00:11:28.090 align:middle line:84% than typical annual crops, the things we currently plant 00:11:28.090 --> 00:11:29.740 align:middle line:90% and harvest every year. 00:11:29.740 --> 00:11:31.480 align:middle line:84% Perennial crops, because the root systems 00:11:31.480 --> 00:11:36.030 align:middle line:84% go down much deeper, they store more carbon into the soil. 00:11:36.030 --> 00:11:38.630 align:middle line:84% Another possibility is-- for terrestrial carbon 00:11:38.630 --> 00:11:41.390 align:middle line:84% in agricultural soils is abandoned croplands. 00:11:41.390 --> 00:11:44.570 align:middle line:84% If abandoned croplands no longer need to be harvested, 00:11:44.570 --> 00:11:48.500 align:middle line:84% then we could store carbon into the soil in abandoned cropland 00:11:48.500 --> 00:11:49.880 align:middle line:90% and leave it there. 00:11:49.880 --> 00:11:53.150 align:middle line:84% These are all possibilities for agricultural soils. 00:11:53.150 --> 00:11:56.840 align:middle line:84% Another possibility for carbon capture utilization or storage 00:11:56.840 --> 00:11:58.880 align:middle line:90% is forest sequestration. 00:11:58.880 --> 00:12:01.970 align:middle line:84% In many cases, you have natural carbon dioxide emissions 00:12:01.970 --> 00:12:03.470 align:middle line:90% from, say, a volcano. 00:12:03.470 --> 00:12:05.490 align:middle line:90% You get forest fertilization. 00:12:05.490 --> 00:12:10.410 align:middle line:84% This is an ecosystem cycle that my colleagues study. 00:12:10.410 --> 00:12:14.090 align:middle line:84% You can see the CO2 is being projected into a forest. 00:12:14.090 --> 00:12:15.950 align:middle line:84% Another possibility is terra preta. 00:12:15.950 --> 00:12:17.580 align:middle line:84% This is something that Taylor Parron 00:12:17.580 --> 00:12:22.010 align:middle line:84% has studied in EAPS, how actually ancient cultures 00:12:22.010 --> 00:12:26.370 align:middle line:84% actually used charcoal and waste processes to actually create 00:12:26.370 --> 00:12:29.840 align:middle line:84% a fairly rich soil called terra preta in the Amazon, 00:12:29.840 --> 00:12:33.050 align:middle line:84% apparently resulting in much more fertile soil 00:12:33.050 --> 00:12:35.240 align:middle line:90% than the Amazon we have today. 00:12:35.240 --> 00:12:38.270 align:middle line:84% And one simple way to sequester carbon into soil 00:12:38.270 --> 00:12:41.600 align:middle line:84% is to avoid illegal logging and deforestation. 00:12:41.600 --> 00:12:43.130 align:middle line:84% We know that quite a bit of carbon 00:12:43.130 --> 00:12:45.680 align:middle line:84% is sequestered in the Amazon rainforest. 00:12:45.680 --> 00:12:48.170 align:middle line:84% We want to avoid illegal logging and deforestation 00:12:48.170 --> 00:12:51.050 align:middle line:84% in places like the Amazon, in places like Indonesia. 00:12:51.050 --> 00:12:53.750 align:middle line:84% If we can avoid that illegal logging and deforestation, 00:12:53.750 --> 00:12:56.300 align:middle line:84% we're essentially saving carbon dioxide 00:12:56.300 --> 00:12:58.800 align:middle line:84% from being released to the atmosphere. 00:12:58.800 --> 00:13:02.870 align:middle line:84% Another possibility for storing carbon is in the hydrosphere. 00:13:02.870 --> 00:13:06.290 align:middle line:84% This is something that Heidi Nepf and others have studied. 00:13:06.290 --> 00:13:09.800 align:middle line:84% Charles Harvey in civil engineering 00:13:09.800 --> 00:13:12.260 align:middle line:84% studies how much carbon is sequestered currently 00:13:12.260 --> 00:13:13.220 align:middle line:90% in peatlands. 00:13:13.220 --> 00:13:17.210 align:middle line:84% Peatlands are essentially decaying vegetation 00:13:17.210 --> 00:13:19.250 align:middle line:90% from many centuries before. 00:13:19.250 --> 00:13:21.980 align:middle line:84% They actually sequester quite a bit of carbon. 00:13:21.980 --> 00:13:24.980 align:middle line:84% Permafrost currently stores a lot of carbon 00:13:24.980 --> 00:13:26.880 align:middle line:90% in places like Siberia. 00:13:26.880 --> 00:13:29.510 align:middle line:84% This is something we want to avoid, warming the Earth, 00:13:29.510 --> 00:13:32.000 align:middle line:84% because if we do have warming, they'll 00:13:32.000 --> 00:13:34.370 align:middle line:84% release quite a bit of carbon dioxide and methane 00:13:34.370 --> 00:13:35.720 align:middle line:90% into the atmosphere. 00:13:35.720 --> 00:13:38.480 align:middle line:84% And Heidi Nepf and others in MIT have 00:13:38.480 --> 00:13:43.550 align:middle line:84% studied coastal hydrosphere or coastal sequestration 00:13:43.550 --> 00:13:44.100 align:middle line:90% of carbon. 00:13:44.100 --> 00:13:48.300 align:middle line:84% I think blue carbon is what they call it, 00:13:48.300 --> 00:13:51.440 align:middle line:84% where you start storing carbon dioxide in mangroves, and salt 00:13:51.440 --> 00:13:54.030 align:middle line:90% marshes, and sea grasses. 00:13:54.030 --> 00:13:57.120 align:middle line:84% So these are all possibilities for carbon capture utilization 00:13:57.120 --> 00:13:59.260 align:middle line:90% storage. 00:13:59.260 --> 00:14:01.810 align:middle line:84% If we think about the utilization part of it, 00:14:01.810 --> 00:14:05.620 align:middle line:84% what we might use carbon for, this is-- 00:14:05.620 --> 00:14:07.490 align:middle line:84% again, I show you a McKinsey graph 00:14:07.490 --> 00:14:09.670 align:middle line:84% because this is the marginal abatement cost 00:14:09.670 --> 00:14:12.680 align:middle line:84% curve that we've been talking about in previous classes. 00:14:12.680 --> 00:14:14.830 align:middle line:84% On the vertical axis is the willingness 00:14:14.830 --> 00:14:18.268 align:middle line:84% to pay from manufacturers for CO2. 00:14:18.268 --> 00:14:19.810 align:middle line:84% In other words, lots of manufacturers 00:14:19.810 --> 00:14:22.420 align:middle line:90% actually need CO2 as feedstock. 00:14:22.420 --> 00:14:24.550 align:middle line:84% So on the positive side, manufacturers 00:14:24.550 --> 00:14:26.620 align:middle line:84% are willing to pay for carbon dioxide. 00:14:26.620 --> 00:14:28.870 align:middle line:84% On the negative side, they're willing to pay 00:14:28.870 --> 00:14:31.180 align:middle line:90% to get rid of CO2. 00:14:31.180 --> 00:14:33.310 align:middle line:84% Or they would actually have to spend more money 00:14:33.310 --> 00:14:35.320 align:middle line:90% to take up CO2. 00:14:35.320 --> 00:14:38.590 align:middle line:84% So if you look at it right now, there's this blue bar. 00:14:38.590 --> 00:14:42.690 align:middle line:84% This is the expected cost for direct capture by 2030. 00:14:42.690 --> 00:14:46.030 align:middle line:84% This is a typical cost of CO2 capture for high purity point 00:14:46.030 --> 00:14:47.210 align:middle line:90% sources. 00:14:47.210 --> 00:14:49.690 align:middle line:84% So right now, we can typically capture CO2 00:14:49.690 --> 00:14:51.670 align:middle line:90% for high purity point sources. 00:14:51.670 --> 00:14:54.850 align:middle line:84% And the economic uses of that are in things 00:14:54.850 --> 00:14:59.920 align:middle line:84% like biochar or carbon, making carbon fiber in greenhouses, 00:14:59.920 --> 00:15:01.780 align:middle line:90% and food and beverages. 00:15:01.780 --> 00:15:06.010 align:middle line:84% Right now, we can't capture CO2 at an economically viable price 00:15:06.010 --> 00:15:08.500 align:middle line:84% to use in applications like cement. 00:15:08.500 --> 00:15:10.000 align:middle line:84% Cement can actually be made stronger 00:15:10.000 --> 00:15:11.830 align:middle line:90% by adding carbon dioxide to it. 00:15:11.830 --> 00:15:14.500 align:middle line:84% You can use it to do enhanced oil recovery. 00:15:14.500 --> 00:15:17.170 align:middle line:84% You can actually pump CO2 into an oil reservoir 00:15:17.170 --> 00:15:19.160 align:middle line:90% and drive out more oil that way. 00:15:19.160 --> 00:15:21.340 align:middle line:84% But right now, it's not necessarily cost effective 00:15:21.340 --> 00:15:22.900 align:middle line:90% in many cases. 00:15:22.900 --> 00:15:25.270 align:middle line:84% Aggregates, storage, these are all things 00:15:25.270 --> 00:15:29.050 align:middle line:84% that aren't necessarily possible to use with high purity point 00:15:29.050 --> 00:15:30.460 align:middle line:90% sources right now. 00:15:30.460 --> 00:15:32.080 align:middle line:84% McKinsey report, one interesting thing 00:15:32.080 --> 00:15:35.050 align:middle line:84% is they looked at what the viable marketplace is 00:15:35.050 --> 00:15:37.370 align:middle line:90% for CCUS now. 00:15:37.370 --> 00:15:40.040 align:middle line:84% And they also use, I, think useful graphics 00:15:40.040 --> 00:15:43.100 align:middle line:84% just showing potential industrial sources 00:15:43.100 --> 00:15:45.200 align:middle line:84% for carbon capture use and storage. 00:15:45.200 --> 00:15:47.810 align:middle line:90% There's many plentiful sources. 00:15:47.810 --> 00:15:50.570 align:middle line:84% You can see they have the sector here-- 00:15:50.570 --> 00:15:53.450 align:middle line:84% power, heavy industries, high purity industrial point 00:15:53.450 --> 00:15:56.245 align:middle line:84% sources, and diffuse and mobile emissions. 00:15:56.245 --> 00:15:57.870 align:middle line:84% And they have the number of sites here. 00:15:57.870 --> 00:16:02.210 align:middle line:84% So we actually have 1,400 sites for power. 00:16:02.210 --> 00:16:03.920 align:middle line:84% Those are essentially power plants. 00:16:03.920 --> 00:16:06.770 align:middle line:84% Average emissions per site in terms of megatons of CO2 00:16:06.770 --> 00:16:08.060 align:middle line:90% are 1.3. 00:16:08.060 --> 00:16:11.690 align:middle line:84% It's very hard to capture CO2 from heavy industry 00:16:11.690 --> 00:16:14.240 align:middle line:84% and from high purity industrial point sources 00:16:14.240 --> 00:16:16.620 align:middle line:84% because their emissions per site is quite low. 00:16:16.620 --> 00:16:19.040 align:middle line:84% So you have to build all the same infrastructure. 00:16:19.040 --> 00:16:22.310 align:middle line:84% Or it may not be worth building infrastructure just to capture 00:16:22.310 --> 00:16:23.930 align:middle line:90% these low emissions per site. 00:16:23.930 --> 00:16:26.150 align:middle line:84% And of course, it's very hard to capture CO2 00:16:26.150 --> 00:16:29.590 align:middle line:84% from diffuse or mobile emissions. 00:16:29.590 --> 00:16:34.000 align:middle line:84% If we look at the work of David Keith, a professor 00:16:34.000 --> 00:16:36.610 align:middle line:84% both in applied physics and policy at Harvard, 00:16:36.610 --> 00:16:39.760 align:middle line:84% he has a firm with many people working for it 00:16:39.760 --> 00:16:41.320 align:middle line:90% called Carbon Engineering. 00:16:41.320 --> 00:16:43.810 align:middle line:84% And this is what the subject of the David Roberts article 00:16:43.810 --> 00:16:47.590 align:middle line:84% was, which is what the viable uses of direct capture 00:16:47.590 --> 00:16:48.880 align:middle line:90% might be. 00:16:48.880 --> 00:16:50.740 align:middle line:84% As he points out in this article, 00:16:50.740 --> 00:16:53.200 align:middle line:84% it may not necessarily solve climate change. 00:16:53.200 --> 00:16:54.700 align:middle line:90% It's not a silver bullet. 00:16:54.700 --> 00:16:57.310 align:middle line:84% But there are interesting use cases that are actually 00:16:57.310 --> 00:16:59.200 align:middle line:90% promising developments. 00:16:59.200 --> 00:17:01.960 align:middle line:84% So one particular case that is just on the Carbon Engineering 00:17:01.960 --> 00:17:05.380 align:middle line:84% website, you can see that they have the solution called air 00:17:05.380 --> 00:17:08.079 align:middle line:84% to fuels and that their carbon engineering 00:17:08.079 --> 00:17:10.210 align:middle line:84% process and direct air capture is 00:17:10.210 --> 00:17:12.670 align:middle line:84% a way of delivering synthetic, ultra low carbon 00:17:12.670 --> 00:17:17.770 align:middle line:84% fuels, such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels out of air-- 00:17:17.770 --> 00:17:21.964 align:middle line:84% I'm sorry, jet A grade fuel out of air, water, and renewable 00:17:21.964 --> 00:17:22.464 align:middle line:90% electricity. 00:17:22.464 --> 00:17:26.050 align:middle line:84% This is the air to fuel solution that Roberts talked about 00:17:26.050 --> 00:17:29.100 align:middle line:90% in his article. 00:17:29.100 --> 00:17:33.030 align:middle line:84% If you look at how this works, we have CO2 in the atmosphere. 00:17:33.030 --> 00:17:35.460 align:middle line:84% We capture it through direct air capture. 00:17:35.460 --> 00:17:39.030 align:middle line:84% We take the atmospheric CO2 and put it into a fuel synthesis. 00:17:39.030 --> 00:17:40.500 align:middle line:90% And we put in electricity-- 00:17:40.500 --> 00:17:42.060 align:middle line:84% renewable electricity-- and water. 00:17:42.060 --> 00:17:44.650 align:middle line:84% And we get ultra-low carbon fuels out of it. 00:17:44.650 --> 00:17:49.650 align:middle line:84% So this is not necessarily a carbon negative process. 00:17:49.650 --> 00:17:52.710 align:middle line:84% It is at least, at best, a carbon neutral process 00:17:52.710 --> 00:17:56.010 align:middle line:84% or a way of providing ultra-low carbon fuels. 00:17:56.010 --> 00:17:59.940 align:middle line:84% And as the Roberts article points out, there are states-- 00:17:59.940 --> 00:18:03.690 align:middle line:84% or there are policy situations, like California's 00:18:03.690 --> 00:18:05.760 align:middle line:84% ultra-low fuel standard, where this 00:18:05.760 --> 00:18:08.580 align:middle line:84% may make this economically viable 00:18:08.580 --> 00:18:10.935 align:middle line:90% to produce this fuel this way. 00:18:10.935 --> 00:18:14.520 align:middle line:84% And it may make it economically viable for one large actor 00:18:14.520 --> 00:18:17.460 align:middle line:84% to sign a power purchase agreement to buy a set amount 00:18:17.460 --> 00:18:20.520 align:middle line:90% of ultra low carbon fuels. 00:18:20.520 --> 00:18:23.630 align:middle line:84% And there are possibilities for the direct aircraft 00:18:23.630 --> 00:18:26.120 align:middle line:84% technology that Carbon Engineering is developing. 00:18:26.120 --> 00:18:28.820 align:middle line:84% It's sucking carbon out of the atmosphere directly 00:18:28.820 --> 00:18:31.010 align:middle line:84% to direct air capture, putting it 00:18:31.010 --> 00:18:33.260 align:middle line:90% in permanent geological storage. 00:18:33.260 --> 00:18:36.780 align:middle line:84% Instead of the pipeline I showed you in the previous diagram, 00:18:36.780 --> 00:18:39.400 align:middle line:84% it would just be the direct air capture technology, 00:18:39.400 --> 00:18:41.150 align:middle line:84% which they're currently piloting, I think, 00:18:41.150 --> 00:18:43.250 align:middle line:90% in British Columbia. 00:18:43.250 --> 00:18:45.260 align:middle line:84% Another possibility is what I mentioned before, 00:18:45.260 --> 00:18:46.280 align:middle line:90% enhanced oil recovery. 00:18:46.280 --> 00:18:48.755 align:middle line:84% You take atmospheric CO2, capture it 00:18:48.755 --> 00:18:50.060 align:middle line:90% in direct air capture. 00:18:50.060 --> 00:18:52.280 align:middle line:84% You can probably store this in oil reservoirs 00:18:52.280 --> 00:18:53.810 align:middle line:90% during oil production. 00:18:53.810 --> 00:18:55.730 align:middle line:84% This is one situation that I've always 00:18:55.730 --> 00:18:58.160 align:middle line:84% been a little skeptical of, you can basically 00:18:58.160 --> 00:19:00.920 align:middle line:84% drive so much CO2 into the oil reservoir 00:19:00.920 --> 00:19:02.240 align:middle line:90% you can pump out the oil. 00:19:02.240 --> 00:19:05.780 align:middle line:84% And somehow, that still results in a low-carbon fuel standard. 00:19:05.780 --> 00:19:08.960 align:middle line:84% But if it pencils out, or if the calculations work out, 00:19:08.960 --> 00:19:11.240 align:middle line:84% there's been more than one or two startups 00:19:11.240 --> 00:19:15.260 align:middle line:84% trying to do enhanced oil recovery using CO2 or trying 00:19:15.260 --> 00:19:18.470 align:middle line:84% to show that it could be a carbon neutral or carbon 00:19:18.470 --> 00:19:20.705 align:middle line:90% negative process. 00:19:20.705 --> 00:19:22.080 align:middle line:84% And so it would be-- just to show 00:19:22.080 --> 00:19:24.570 align:middle line:84% you the diagram from the Carbon Engineering website, 00:19:24.570 --> 00:19:27.420 align:middle line:84% in this situation, we have CO2 in the atmosphere. 00:19:27.420 --> 00:19:29.310 align:middle line:84% We capture it through direct air capture. 00:19:29.310 --> 00:19:32.730 align:middle line:84% We inject it into an oil reservoir. 00:19:32.730 --> 00:19:34.560 align:middle line:84% We actually get more crude oil out. 00:19:34.560 --> 00:19:35.220 align:middle line:90% We refine it. 00:19:35.220 --> 00:19:37.410 align:middle line:84% And we get fossil fuels to put into our existing 00:19:37.410 --> 00:19:38.280 align:middle line:90% infrastructure. 00:19:38.280 --> 00:19:41.430 align:middle line:84% This is also meant to try to meet 00:19:41.430 --> 00:19:45.320 align:middle line:84% some of the ultra-low carbon fuel standards. 00:19:45.320 --> 00:19:48.510 align:middle line:84% This brings me to Stripe's negative emissions commitment. 00:19:48.510 --> 00:19:51.080 align:middle line:84% This is a project I've been following for a couple of years 00:19:51.080 --> 00:19:52.730 align:middle line:84% and many people have been following. 00:19:52.730 --> 00:19:56.390 align:middle line:84% Stripe, as you may know, is an online payments company. 00:19:56.390 --> 00:19:59.210 align:middle line:84% But in 2020, or 2019 I think, they 00:19:59.210 --> 00:20:01.710 align:middle line:84% announced their negative emissions commitment, 00:20:01.710 --> 00:20:04.430 align:middle line:84% which is when they pledged to pay $1 million 00:20:04.430 --> 00:20:07.970 align:middle line:84% per year at any price the direct removal of carbon dioxide 00:20:07.970 --> 00:20:09.980 align:middle line:84% in the atmosphere and sequestration 00:20:09.980 --> 00:20:11.810 align:middle line:90% in long-term storage. 00:20:11.810 --> 00:20:15.200 align:middle line:84% They built up a small team to evaluate different carbon 00:20:15.200 --> 00:20:16.580 align:middle line:90% removal technologies. 00:20:16.580 --> 00:20:19.520 align:middle line:84% And in 2020, they announced their first carbon removal 00:20:19.520 --> 00:20:20.640 align:middle line:90% purchases. 00:20:20.640 --> 00:20:22.070 align:middle line:84% This was essentially a commitment 00:20:22.070 --> 00:20:24.920 align:middle line:84% the company made to try to pay money 00:20:24.920 --> 00:20:27.470 align:middle line:84% to start to foster or start to build 00:20:27.470 --> 00:20:29.720 align:middle line:84% the market for negative emissions 00:20:29.720 --> 00:20:31.370 align:middle line:90% or for carbon removal. 00:20:31.370 --> 00:20:33.350 align:middle line:84% And so I think this is a project I've 00:20:33.350 --> 00:20:35.090 align:middle line:84% been more interested in because they're 00:20:35.090 --> 00:20:37.368 align:middle line:84% very transparent about what the criteria are. 00:20:37.368 --> 00:20:39.410 align:middle line:84% And they're very transparent about the technology 00:20:39.410 --> 00:20:41.160 align:middle line:90% they're trying to foster. 00:20:41.160 --> 00:20:42.750 align:middle line:84% And if you look at their website-- 00:20:42.750 --> 00:20:45.870 align:middle line:84% you can click on the purple link up here to see the website-- 00:20:45.870 --> 00:20:48.500 align:middle line:84% you will see that they actually have almost all 00:20:48.500 --> 00:20:49.670 align:middle line:90% of these submissions. 00:20:49.670 --> 00:20:51.410 align:middle line:84% And they show exactly how they've 00:20:51.410 --> 00:20:53.180 align:middle line:84% evaluated the submissions and why 00:20:53.180 --> 00:20:56.550 align:middle line:84% they've picked a certain portfolio of technologies. 00:20:56.550 --> 00:21:00.180 align:middle line:84% So their criteria, I think, are very clear. 00:21:00.180 --> 00:21:02.990 align:middle line:84% They show what their criteria are, whether or not 00:21:02.990 --> 00:21:04.280 align:middle line:90% it's possible today. 00:21:04.280 --> 00:21:05.900 align:middle line:90% The target is by 2040. 00:21:05.900 --> 00:21:07.490 align:middle line:84% So they're very clear that they're 00:21:07.490 --> 00:21:10.710 align:middle line:84% making these purchases to try to foster these technologies. 00:21:10.710 --> 00:21:12.710 align:middle line:84% So the criteria are they want everything 00:21:12.710 --> 00:21:15.380 align:middle line:84% to be sequestered beyond the biosphere. 00:21:15.380 --> 00:21:17.930 align:middle line:84% This fundamentally shows a very different approach 00:21:17.930 --> 00:21:21.620 align:middle line:84% to the terrestrial Carbon Climate Grand Challenge 00:21:21.620 --> 00:21:24.140 align:middle line:84% from MIT in that Stripe doesn't actually 00:21:24.140 --> 00:21:27.890 align:middle line:84% believe that sequestering carbon in the biosphere 00:21:27.890 --> 00:21:29.390 align:middle line:90% is going to be effective. 00:21:29.390 --> 00:21:32.090 align:middle line:84% This is because if you store things in the biosphere, 00:21:32.090 --> 00:21:33.920 align:middle line:90% it may actually lead to-- 00:21:33.920 --> 00:21:35.630 align:middle line:84% you might have wildfires in the future. 00:21:35.630 --> 00:21:38.690 align:middle line:84% And that would simply get rid of or obviate 00:21:38.690 --> 00:21:42.740 align:middle line:84% the effects of the carbon capture sequestration. 00:21:42.740 --> 00:21:45.980 align:middle line:84% They also typically, in a very Silicon Valley way, 00:21:45.980 --> 00:21:48.380 align:middle line:84% evaluate whether or not this technology has a path 00:21:48.380 --> 00:21:51.020 align:middle line:84% to be a meaningful part of the carbon removal solution 00:21:51.020 --> 00:21:55.050 align:middle line:84% portfolio, would allow you to achieve sufficient volume. 00:21:55.050 --> 00:21:58.160 align:middle line:84% It has to have a path to achieving 00:21:58.160 --> 00:22:00.300 align:middle line:90% being affordable at scale. 00:22:00.300 --> 00:22:04.190 align:middle line:84% It has to achieve permanent storage of carbon. 00:22:04.190 --> 00:22:07.220 align:middle line:84% Currently, we can start for greater than 1,000 years 00:22:07.220 --> 00:22:10.250 align:middle line:90% as that's their target in 2040. 00:22:10.250 --> 00:22:13.880 align:middle line:84% Their target for cost is less $100 per ton. 00:22:13.880 --> 00:22:18.340 align:middle line:84% Their volume has to be a minimum of 0.5 gigatons per year. 00:22:18.340 --> 00:22:21.630 align:middle line:84% And their criteria are that the carbon sequestration 00:22:21.630 --> 00:22:24.060 align:middle line:84% has to be scientifically rigorous and transparent 00:22:24.060 --> 00:22:26.010 align:middle line:90% for verifiability. 00:22:26.010 --> 00:22:29.490 align:middle line:84% It has to meet standards for quality and safety 00:22:29.490 --> 00:22:31.590 align:middle line:90% and be globally responsible. 00:22:31.590 --> 00:22:33.780 align:middle line:84% And it has to have a net negative lifecycle. 00:22:33.780 --> 00:22:37.290 align:middle line:84% So currently, we have a negativity ratio-- 00:22:37.290 --> 00:22:40.590 align:middle line:84% this is reducing net atmospheric CO2 00:22:40.590 --> 00:22:42.870 align:middle line:84% expressed at a ratio subject to appropriate boundary 00:22:42.870 --> 00:22:44.070 align:middle line:90% conditions. 00:22:44.070 --> 00:22:46.620 align:middle line:84% This is currently a negative activity ratio 00:22:46.620 --> 00:22:48.698 align:middle line:90% of less than or equal to 1. 00:22:48.698 --> 00:22:50.115 align:middle line:84% And of course, in the future, they 00:22:50.115 --> 00:22:52.620 align:middle line:84% want a negativity ratio of less than 1. 00:22:52.620 --> 00:22:54.870 align:middle line:84% They want to get a net negative lifecycle, 00:22:54.870 --> 00:22:59.530 align:middle line:84% or showing that we have net atmospheric carbon removed. 00:22:59.530 --> 00:23:02.100 align:middle line:84% So this is what Stripe is paying for. 00:23:02.100 --> 00:23:05.100 align:middle line:84% In the first year, they picked four technologies, 00:23:05.100 --> 00:23:09.120 align:middle line:84% I think ranging from about $60 per ton to about $600 per ton. 00:23:09.120 --> 00:23:11.010 align:middle line:84% Simply because they had a portfolio, 00:23:11.010 --> 00:23:14.370 align:middle line:84% they're trying to venture capital their way 00:23:14.370 --> 00:23:18.220 align:middle line:84% into new technologies for negative emissions. 00:23:18.220 --> 00:23:21.100 align:middle line:84% And I just do encourage you all to consider 00:23:21.100 --> 00:23:23.470 align:middle line:84% this in the context of your future careers. 00:23:23.470 --> 00:23:24.920 align:middle line:90% They say it's a call to action. 00:23:24.920 --> 00:23:27.460 align:middle line:84% Their goal is "not only to remove of the atmosphere, 00:23:27.460 --> 00:23:30.190 align:middle line:84% but to create a ecosystem of funders and founders 00:23:30.190 --> 00:23:32.530 align:middle line:84% that will invent ways to solve the world's largest 00:23:32.530 --> 00:23:34.155 align:middle line:90% collective action problem. 00:23:34.155 --> 00:23:36.280 align:middle line:84% We continue to search for great projects, partners, 00:23:36.280 --> 00:23:36.962 align:middle line:90% and experts. 00:23:36.962 --> 00:23:38.920 align:middle line:84% Reach out to us to work together on this effort 00:23:38.920 --> 00:23:40.308 align:middle line:90% or give any feedback. 00:23:40.308 --> 00:23:42.100 align:middle line:84% And if you're an engineer or a designer who 00:23:42.100 --> 00:23:46.060 align:middle line:84% cares about climate impact, consider joining [their] team." 00:23:46.060 --> 00:23:50.180 align:middle line:84% This has, in the last two years, advanced even further. 00:23:50.180 --> 00:23:55.120 align:middle line:84% You see this new movement called Frontier, led by Stripe 00:23:55.120 --> 00:23:59.410 align:middle line:84% but joined by Alphabet, Shopify, Meta, and McKinsey company. 00:23:59.410 --> 00:24:00.970 align:middle line:90% These are not small companies. 00:24:00.970 --> 00:24:03.670 align:middle line:84% This is essentially taking Stripe's negative emissions 00:24:03.670 --> 00:24:07.240 align:middle line:84% commitment and expanding it even further. 00:24:07.240 --> 00:24:10.780 align:middle line:84% What they have said this basically negative emissions 00:24:10.780 --> 00:24:13.210 align:middle line:84% commitment is is called an advanced market commitment 00:24:13.210 --> 00:24:15.040 align:middle line:90% to accelerate carbon removal. 00:24:15.040 --> 00:24:16.810 align:middle line:84% It's an advanced market commitment 00:24:16.810 --> 00:24:18.940 align:middle line:84% because you're making the market by pledging 00:24:18.940 --> 00:24:20.290 align:middle line:90% money going forward. 00:24:20.290 --> 00:24:22.480 align:middle line:84% By pledging the money is what's going 00:24:22.480 --> 00:24:24.940 align:middle line:84% to get people to enter the market 00:24:24.940 --> 00:24:28.180 align:middle line:84% with a long-term commitment to develop new technologies. 00:24:28.180 --> 00:24:32.350 align:middle line:84% So scaling up from Stripe's original $1 million 00:24:32.350 --> 00:24:35.500 align:middle line:84% purchase in 2020, Frontier is an alliance 00:24:35.500 --> 00:24:38.258 align:middle line:84% between all these companies led by stripe, 00:24:38.258 --> 00:24:40.050 align:middle line:84% which has advanced market commitment to buy 00:24:40.050 --> 00:24:43.360 align:middle line:84% initial $925 million in permanent carbon 00:24:43.360 --> 00:24:46.690 align:middle line:90% removal between 2022 and 2030. 00:24:46.690 --> 00:24:49.780 align:middle line:84% Tens of thousands of businesses have joined Stripe 00:24:49.780 --> 00:24:52.360 align:middle line:84% because Stripe quickly realized they're 00:24:52.360 --> 00:24:54.760 align:middle line:84% building a platform for negative emissions commitment, 00:24:54.760 --> 00:24:56.980 align:middle line:84% and other companies wanted an easy way 00:24:56.980 --> 00:25:00.040 align:middle line:84% to try to do negative emissions in a way that was verifiable-- 00:25:00.040 --> 00:25:02.800 align:middle line:84% perhaps more verifiable than a lot of our discussion 00:25:02.800 --> 00:25:05.270 align:middle line:90% around offsets. 00:25:05.270 --> 00:25:09.410 align:middle line:84% So this brings us to another alternative future 00:25:09.410 --> 00:25:12.530 align:middle line:84% for energy is this kind of question of nuclear. 00:25:12.530 --> 00:25:17.030 align:middle line:84% And there's this, I think, silly question, and I think 00:25:17.030 --> 00:25:19.070 align:middle line:84% it was discussed recently in a podcast 00:25:19.070 --> 00:25:21.620 align:middle line:84% by David Roberts and others, which is 00:25:21.620 --> 00:25:24.980 align:middle line:84% "Are you pro or antinuclear?" is essentially a silly question. 00:25:24.980 --> 00:25:27.230 align:middle line:84% You can make pro or anti arguments, 00:25:27.230 --> 00:25:30.080 align:middle line:84% and we'll talk about those, but there's maybe other ways 00:25:30.080 --> 00:25:31.490 align:middle line:90% you should think about it. 00:25:31.490 --> 00:25:34.880 align:middle line:84% On the pro side, the Sepulveda et al. 00:25:34.880 --> 00:25:37.520 align:middle line:84% 2018 paper that I assigned for today 00:25:37.520 --> 00:25:39.110 align:middle line:84% makes a convincing argument that it'll 00:25:39.110 --> 00:25:41.390 align:middle line:84% be more expensive to achieve decarbonization 00:25:41.390 --> 00:25:43.010 align:middle line:90% without "firm" resources. 00:25:43.010 --> 00:25:46.010 align:middle line:84% And just to add another reason why they 00:25:46.010 --> 00:25:47.360 align:middle line:90% don't consider in this paper-- 00:25:47.360 --> 00:25:48.210 align:middle line:90% land use. 00:25:48.210 --> 00:25:51.120 align:middle line:84% We know that solar and wind are less energy dense. 00:25:51.120 --> 00:25:52.900 align:middle line:90% We'll talk about that next week. 00:25:52.900 --> 00:25:54.680 align:middle line:84% And we know land use and permitting 00:25:54.680 --> 00:25:57.530 align:middle line:84% may be a serious problem for renewables. 00:25:57.530 --> 00:25:59.090 align:middle line:84% Having said that, land use may also 00:25:59.090 --> 00:26:02.700 align:middle line:84% be a problem for new nuclear power plants. 00:26:02.700 --> 00:26:05.150 align:middle line:84% But the con arguments against nuclear are 00:26:05.150 --> 00:26:07.400 align:middle line:84% will nuclear power ever get cheaper. 00:26:07.400 --> 00:26:09.680 align:middle line:84% And we'll go into that argument in a little bit. 00:26:09.680 --> 00:26:11.930 align:middle line:84% And, of course, there's other reasons why we might not 00:26:11.930 --> 00:26:13.400 align:middle line:90% want to use nuclear power-- 00:26:13.400 --> 00:26:16.610 align:middle line:84% nuclear waste, proliferation of nuclear technology. 00:26:16.610 --> 00:26:20.660 align:middle line:84% Our concern has always been around nuclear technology. 00:26:20.660 --> 00:26:25.430 align:middle line:84% The reason why I guess we can argue 00:26:25.430 --> 00:26:29.037 align:middle line:84% that this pro or anti-nuclear stance may be silly 00:26:29.037 --> 00:26:31.370 align:middle line:84% is because there's a more useful way to think about some 00:26:31.370 --> 00:26:33.235 align:middle line:84% of our problems with nuclear power 00:26:33.235 --> 00:26:35.360 align:middle line:84% and whether or not it is a viable alternative going 00:26:35.360 --> 00:26:36.510 align:middle line:90% forward. 00:26:36.510 --> 00:26:39.170 align:middle line:84% First, there's the problem of operating and maintaining 00:26:39.170 --> 00:26:40.850 align:middle line:90% the existing nuclear fleet. 00:26:40.850 --> 00:26:45.350 align:middle line:84% A Lyman 2022 article about Diablo Canyon talks about some 00:26:45.350 --> 00:26:48.680 align:middle line:84% of the problems with keeping Diablo Canyon open. 00:26:48.680 --> 00:26:51.680 align:middle line:84% Having said that, the state of California and the governor 00:26:51.680 --> 00:26:54.950 align:middle line:84% just recently reversed his position 00:26:54.950 --> 00:26:59.600 align:middle line:84% on trying to close Diablo Canyon because Diablo Canyon has 00:26:59.600 --> 00:27:01.820 align:middle line:84% to stay open to essentially provide 00:27:01.820 --> 00:27:04.610 align:middle line:84% a large portion of the state's renewable energy 00:27:04.610 --> 00:27:09.400 align:middle line:84% or clean energy resources to meet their low carbon goals. 00:27:09.400 --> 00:27:11.510 align:middle line:84% So we know we can operate and maintain 00:27:11.510 --> 00:27:14.290 align:middle line:84% the existing nuclear fleet we have with some modification. 00:27:14.290 --> 00:27:16.000 align:middle line:84% We know there's some existing risk. 00:27:16.000 --> 00:27:19.480 align:middle line:84% But more recently, a lot of environmentalists and policy 00:27:19.480 --> 00:27:21.640 align:middle line:84% analysts have come around to the idea 00:27:21.640 --> 00:27:25.715 align:middle line:84% of operating and maintaining the existing nuclear fleet. 00:27:25.715 --> 00:27:27.090 align:middle line:84% There's the question of should we 00:27:27.090 --> 00:27:29.780 align:middle line:84% try to build new nuclear power plants with our existing 00:27:29.780 --> 00:27:33.410 align:middle line:90% technology and mechanisms. 00:27:33.410 --> 00:27:35.870 align:middle line:84% We have two new nuclear power plants 00:27:35.870 --> 00:27:39.740 align:middle line:84% under construction in the US, both in the South. 00:27:39.740 --> 00:27:42.308 align:middle line:84% Currently, I think one is $9 billion over budget, 00:27:42.308 --> 00:27:44.600 align:middle line:84% and I'm not sure how much the other one is over budget. 00:27:44.600 --> 00:27:47.390 align:middle line:84% There's the Vogtle power plant, and there's 00:27:47.390 --> 00:27:48.770 align:middle line:90% one in South Carolina also. 00:27:48.770 --> 00:27:50.900 align:middle line:84% That's also considerably over budget. 00:27:50.900 --> 00:27:54.680 align:middle line:84% The paths of nuclear power plants-- 00:27:54.680 --> 00:27:57.050 align:middle line:84% the path of building nuclear power plants 00:27:57.050 --> 00:27:59.960 align:middle line:84% under budget or at least within budget 00:27:59.960 --> 00:28:03.350 align:middle line:84% has been terrible with our existing technology. 00:28:03.350 --> 00:28:05.090 align:middle line:84% Of course, a third possibility is 00:28:05.090 --> 00:28:07.620 align:middle line:84% to build new nuclear with new technology. 00:28:07.620 --> 00:28:11.180 align:middle line:84% And this is the alternative of small modular reactors 00:28:11.180 --> 00:28:14.273 align:middle line:84% that are quite often touted by nuclear enthusiasts. 00:28:14.273 --> 00:28:16.190 align:middle line:84% This is something that needs to be researched. 00:28:16.190 --> 00:28:18.770 align:middle line:90% It needs to be proven out. 00:28:18.770 --> 00:28:20.780 align:middle line:84% These are all different problems we need 00:28:20.780 --> 00:28:22.730 align:middle line:90% to solve with nuclear power. 00:28:22.730 --> 00:28:26.690 align:middle line:90% They're all possible solutions. 00:28:26.690 --> 00:28:29.000 align:middle line:84% For example, the first one is probably 00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:30.930 align:middle line:90% the easiest to achieve. 00:28:30.930 --> 00:28:33.050 align:middle line:84% The second one we have a terrible history with. 00:28:33.050 --> 00:28:36.080 align:middle line:84% The third we would probably need to research 00:28:36.080 --> 00:28:38.630 align:middle line:84% to see if it's actually possible to build new nuclear power 00:28:38.630 --> 00:28:42.110 align:middle line:84% plants with new technology in a more cost-effective way. 00:28:42.110 --> 00:28:46.310 align:middle line:84% But to give you a sense of my skepticism about nuclear, 00:28:46.310 --> 00:28:49.220 align:middle line:84% I'm open to the idea but skeptical 00:28:49.220 --> 00:28:52.140 align:middle line:84% because of the past history we have with nuclear power plants. 00:28:52.140 --> 00:28:53.855 align:middle line:84% Let me show you some of the problems 00:28:53.855 --> 00:28:55.580 align:middle line:84% we've had with nuclear power plants 00:28:55.580 --> 00:29:01.150 align:middle line:84% and why they may be outcompeted by new renewable resources. 00:29:01.150 --> 00:29:04.150 align:middle line:84% If you look at this fairly nice set of graphs 00:29:04.150 --> 00:29:07.720 align:middle line:84% from Our World in Data, it shows the price of electricity 00:29:07.720 --> 00:29:09.490 align:middle line:90% from new power plants. 00:29:09.490 --> 00:29:11.980 align:middle line:84% This is expressed in terms of levelized cost of energy-- 00:29:11.980 --> 00:29:14.950 align:middle line:84% something we'll talk about in a few lectures now. 00:29:14.950 --> 00:29:19.570 align:middle line:84% And it shows in 2009, on a per unit basis, gas peaking plants 00:29:19.570 --> 00:29:25.510 align:middle line:84% declined from $275 to $175, gas combined cycle plants 00:29:25.510 --> 00:29:28.660 align:middle line:90% declined from $83 to $56. 00:29:28.660 --> 00:29:31.390 align:middle line:84% The problem is coal-fired power plants essentially stayed 00:29:31.390 --> 00:29:34.540 align:middle line:84% stable in terms of cost over this decade, 00:29:34.540 --> 00:29:38.080 align:middle line:84% and nuclear power plants actually increased by 26% 00:29:38.080 --> 00:29:42.220 align:middle line:84% to $122 per unit of power from $55. 00:29:42.220 --> 00:29:44.800 align:middle line:84% Which is to say that basically these two 00:29:44.800 --> 00:29:47.380 align:middle line:84% natural gas-based technologies got cheaper, 00:29:47.380 --> 00:29:50.140 align:middle line:84% coal stayed the same, and nuclear got more expensive 00:29:50.140 --> 00:29:51.490 align:middle line:90% over the last decade. 00:29:51.490 --> 00:29:54.760 align:middle line:84% Obviously, not making nuclear power nearly as competitive 00:29:54.760 --> 00:29:57.160 align:middle line:84% as before even though nuclear power 00:29:57.160 --> 00:30:01.430 align:middle line:84% is cleaner in many ways than natural gas. 00:30:01.430 --> 00:30:04.220 align:middle line:84% What the article is about mostly though 00:30:04.220 --> 00:30:06.230 align:middle line:84% is the fact that the price of solar modules 00:30:06.230 --> 00:30:10.850 align:middle line:84% has decreased by 99.6% since 1976. 00:30:10.850 --> 00:30:13.220 align:middle line:84% This essentially shows a steady march. 00:30:13.220 --> 00:30:15.180 align:middle line:84% You might notice the vertical axis 00:30:15.180 --> 00:30:18.440 align:middle line:84% and the horizontal axis are both logarithmic scales. 00:30:18.440 --> 00:30:21.230 align:middle line:84% So every time you go down one of these blocks 00:30:21.230 --> 00:30:23.690 align:middle line:90% is basically halving the price. 00:30:23.690 --> 00:30:26.930 align:middle line:84% And as this graph points out, with each doubling of capacity 00:30:26.930 --> 00:30:30.680 align:middle line:84% along the horizontal axis, the price of solar modules 00:30:30.680 --> 00:30:32.640 align:middle line:90% dropped on average by 20%. 00:30:32.640 --> 00:30:35.090 align:middle line:84% This is called the learning rate or learning curve. 00:30:35.090 --> 00:30:36.590 align:middle line:84% So the learning curve is essentially 00:30:36.590 --> 00:30:39.350 align:middle line:84% every time you double how much you make of it, 00:30:39.350 --> 00:30:41.040 align:middle line:90% the price goes down. 00:30:41.040 --> 00:30:43.100 align:middle line:84% This is also referred to as Wright's law, which 00:30:43.100 --> 00:30:46.310 align:middle line:84% has been studied quite a bit by Jessika Trancik especially, 00:30:46.310 --> 00:30:49.900 align:middle line:90% my MIT colleague in IDSS. 00:30:49.900 --> 00:30:53.320 align:middle line:84% And some of the theory around why this occurs 00:30:53.320 --> 00:30:55.690 align:middle line:84% is that as we have more deployment, 00:30:55.690 --> 00:30:57.610 align:middle line:84% there's more competition, or there's 00:30:57.610 --> 00:31:00.730 align:middle line:84% prices fall because there's more deployment. 00:31:00.730 --> 00:31:03.650 align:middle line:84% It becomes competitive and new markets and that increases 00:31:03.650 --> 00:31:04.150 align:middle line:90% demand. 00:31:04.150 --> 00:31:05.860 align:middle line:84% And it becomes a virtuous circle where 00:31:05.860 --> 00:31:10.450 align:middle line:84% more deployment makes things cheaper on a per unit basis. 00:31:10.450 --> 00:31:12.520 align:middle line:84% The more you make, the cheaper it gets. 00:31:12.520 --> 00:31:14.890 align:middle line:84% And Jessica Trancik has written another paper 00:31:14.890 --> 00:31:18.220 align:middle line:84% about why the modularity of these systems across not 00:31:18.220 --> 00:31:20.500 align:middle line:84% only the solar cell but the balance of the system 00:31:20.500 --> 00:31:22.870 align:middle line:90% has made these things cheaper. 00:31:22.870 --> 00:31:25.390 align:middle line:84% And she analyzes the different policy drivers, 00:31:25.390 --> 00:31:27.400 align:middle line:84% ranging from German feed-in tariffs 00:31:27.400 --> 00:31:31.990 align:middle line:84% to Chinese investment in large photovoltaic cell factories 00:31:31.990 --> 00:31:36.940 align:middle line:84% and policy drivers from the US, Spain, and other countries. 00:31:36.940 --> 00:31:40.000 align:middle line:84% But the important point to take home from this 00:31:40.000 --> 00:31:44.350 align:middle line:84% is that we have a learning rate of about 36% 00:31:44.350 --> 00:31:47.410 align:middle line:90% here in this graph for solar PV. 00:31:47.410 --> 00:31:50.650 align:middle line:84% We have an aggressively, not-as-fast learning rate 00:31:50.650 --> 00:31:51.850 align:middle line:90% for offshore wind-- 00:31:51.850 --> 00:31:54.640 align:middle line:84% steady decreases in the cost of offshore wind. 00:31:54.640 --> 00:31:57.040 align:middle line:84% You can see we're currently at low levels of deployment 00:31:57.040 --> 00:31:59.740 align:middle line:84% of offshore wind compared to the other technologies. 00:31:59.740 --> 00:32:02.890 align:middle line:84% Onshore wind is much larger at deployment 00:32:02.890 --> 00:32:04.810 align:middle line:84% and much cheaper than offshore wind. 00:32:04.810 --> 00:32:07.480 align:middle line:84% That learning rate has also been comparable 00:32:07.480 --> 00:32:11.150 align:middle line:84% or in the same ballpark as solar PV. 00:32:11.150 --> 00:32:13.030 align:middle line:84% A lot of coal has no learning rate. 00:32:13.030 --> 00:32:14.980 align:middle line:84% Coal has not gotten significantly cheaper 00:32:14.980 --> 00:32:16.207 align:middle line:90% over the last decade. 00:32:16.207 --> 00:32:18.040 align:middle line:84% And as we pointed out in the previous graph, 00:32:18.040 --> 00:32:19.415 align:middle line:84% nuclear power has actually gotten 00:32:19.415 --> 00:32:20.955 align:middle line:90% more expensive over time. 00:32:20.955 --> 00:32:23.080 align:middle line:84% And so, what I want to encourage you to think about 00:32:23.080 --> 00:32:25.400 align:middle line:90% is this in a competitive market. 00:32:25.400 --> 00:32:27.220 align:middle line:84% Which is to say that nuclear power is 00:32:27.220 --> 00:32:30.130 align:middle line:84% getting more expensive, and everything else-- 00:32:30.130 --> 00:32:32.650 align:middle line:84% solar and wind-- are getting cheaper and faster. 00:32:32.650 --> 00:32:35.980 align:middle line:84% The new target for nuclear is no longer simply declining. 00:32:35.980 --> 00:32:38.080 align:middle line:84% It actually has to decline at a rate 00:32:38.080 --> 00:32:42.020 align:middle line:84% at a comparable price that could compete with solar and wind. 00:32:42.020 --> 00:32:44.320 align:middle line:90% And so, the Sepulveda et al. 00:32:44.320 --> 00:32:47.470 align:middle line:84% 2018 paper argues the cost of the system 00:32:47.470 --> 00:32:49.330 align:middle line:84% will be much higher if we don't have 00:32:49.330 --> 00:32:54.310 align:middle line:84% firm clean resources such as nuclear energy or natural gas 00:32:54.310 --> 00:32:56.440 align:middle line:84% power plants that include carbon capture 00:32:56.440 --> 00:32:59.950 align:middle line:84% and storage or large reservoir hydro resources. 00:32:59.950 --> 00:33:02.600 align:middle line:84% But this picture is going to change over time, 00:33:02.600 --> 00:33:04.480 align:middle line:84% and they do a lot of modeling in this paper 00:33:04.480 --> 00:33:07.060 align:middle line:84% to show that we need nuclear energy to keep 00:33:07.060 --> 00:33:12.250 align:middle line:84% the cost of decarbonization low, anywhere from 10% to 60% lower. 00:33:12.250 --> 00:33:14.950 align:middle line:84% Having said that, there's also other reports 00:33:14.950 --> 00:33:16.630 align:middle line:84% and other analysts looking at the idea 00:33:16.630 --> 00:33:20.740 align:middle line:84% that solar may get so cheap so quickly that we simply 00:33:20.740 --> 00:33:25.810 align:middle line:84% need to build twice as much capacity as we need. 00:33:25.810 --> 00:33:27.700 align:middle line:84% In other words, for the times of year 00:33:27.700 --> 00:33:29.740 align:middle line:84% we don't have that much sun, we simply 00:33:29.740 --> 00:33:31.870 align:middle line:84% build twice as many solar panels in order 00:33:31.870 --> 00:33:36.070 align:middle line:84% to try to meet that winter load or winter demand. 00:33:36.070 --> 00:33:37.570 align:middle line:90% There's different possibilities. 00:33:37.570 --> 00:33:39.700 align:middle line:84% There'll be different forecasts going forward. 00:33:39.700 --> 00:33:42.340 align:middle line:84% But for nuclear energy it's a moving target. 00:33:42.340 --> 00:33:44.380 align:middle line:84% Not only does the price of nuclear energy 00:33:44.380 --> 00:33:48.760 align:middle line:84% have to come down, it has to meet targets of offshore wind 00:33:48.760 --> 00:33:51.310 align:middle line:84% and solar that are getting cheaper all the time. 00:33:51.310 --> 00:33:52.930 align:middle line:84% Batteries are also getting cheaper. 00:33:52.930 --> 00:33:55.750 align:middle line:84% Electrolyzers which is the technology by which we 00:33:55.750 --> 00:33:58.120 align:middle line:84% take electricity and create hydrogen 00:33:58.120 --> 00:33:59.500 align:middle line:90% is also getting cheaper. 00:33:59.500 --> 00:34:01.990 align:middle line:84% So these are all kind of fluid technologies, 00:34:01.990 --> 00:34:04.750 align:middle line:84% and this is why we need the technological forecasting 00:34:04.750 --> 00:34:07.420 align:middle line:84% to show us how much more expensive it may be. 00:34:07.420 --> 00:34:08.920 align:middle line:84% Having said that, because we know 00:34:08.920 --> 00:34:13.179 align:middle line:84% there's other ancillary effects, we have land use obstacles, 00:34:13.179 --> 00:34:16.690 align:middle line:84% we have rate of electrification of some of our technologies, 00:34:16.690 --> 00:34:19.449 align:middle line:84% we have policy barriers, it's not clear 00:34:19.449 --> 00:34:21.400 align:middle line:84% necessarily if cost is simply going 00:34:21.400 --> 00:34:23.897 align:middle line:84% to win out for some technologies or others. 00:34:23.897 --> 00:34:25.480 align:middle line:84% But we know that the technologies that 00:34:25.480 --> 00:34:26.980 align:middle line:84% are getting more expensive over time 00:34:26.980 --> 00:34:29.800 align:middle line:84% are going to have a hard time competing with the technologies 00:34:29.800 --> 00:34:33.050 align:middle line:90% getting cheaper over time. 00:34:33.050 --> 00:34:35.860 align:middle line:84% So just to reinforce the point about electrification, 00:34:35.860 --> 00:34:38.380 align:middle line:84% the price and market size of lithium ion batteries 00:34:38.380 --> 00:34:42.850 align:middle line:84% since 1992 also exhibits a very fast learning rate. 00:34:42.850 --> 00:34:44.650 align:middle line:84% The prices have declined by an average 00:34:44.650 --> 00:34:48.969 align:middle line:84% of 18.9% for every doubling in capacity of batteries. 00:34:48.969 --> 00:34:52.880 align:middle line:84% This shows you the steady march of battery prices going down, 00:34:52.880 --> 00:34:54.969 align:middle line:84% which is why we're getting successively 00:34:54.969 --> 00:34:57.190 align:middle line:84% cheaper generations of electric cars 00:34:57.190 --> 00:35:00.910 align:middle line:84% and pretty much lithium ion batteries in everything. 00:35:00.910 --> 00:35:03.160 align:middle line:84% We all know that our phones have gotten more powerful, 00:35:03.160 --> 00:35:07.090 align:middle line:84% but now you can buy power banks, flashlights, pretty much 00:35:07.090 --> 00:35:09.370 align:middle line:84% everything has a lithium ion battery 00:35:09.370 --> 00:35:11.680 align:middle line:84% that can replace a small combustion 00:35:11.680 --> 00:35:15.040 align:middle line:84% engine like leaf blowers very easily or electrical appliances 00:35:15.040 --> 00:35:17.120 align:middle line:90% very easily. 00:35:17.120 --> 00:35:20.810 align:middle line:84% Bringing us back to just the idea of cost and nuclear, 00:35:20.810 --> 00:35:25.880 align:middle line:84% this is a paper written at MIT also in 2020. 00:35:25.880 --> 00:35:29.210 align:middle line:84% It's about sources of cost overrun in nuclear power plant 00:35:29.210 --> 00:35:32.900 align:middle line:84% construction calls for a new approach to engineering design. 00:35:32.900 --> 00:35:35.180 align:middle line:84% And this is written by a student I had in this class, 00:35:35.180 --> 00:35:37.430 align:middle line:84% that Philip Eash-Gates, Magdalena Klemun, 00:35:37.430 --> 00:35:41.295 align:middle line:84% who is also a postdoc and grad student at MIT, and also 00:35:41.295 --> 00:35:43.940 align:middle line:84% Jessika, working with James McNerney, Jacopo 00:35:43.940 --> 00:35:47.910 align:middle line:84% Buongiorn, and Jessika Trancik here at MIT. 00:35:47.910 --> 00:35:50.670 align:middle line:84% This paper essentially studied why 00:35:50.670 --> 00:35:53.310 align:middle line:84% cost overruns have been occurring in nuclear power 00:35:53.310 --> 00:35:54.450 align:middle line:90% plants. 00:35:54.450 --> 00:35:56.700 align:middle line:84% It finds that it has a negative learning rate. 00:35:56.700 --> 00:35:59.100 align:middle line:84% Nuclear construction in the US has 00:35:59.100 --> 00:36:02.220 align:middle line:84% gotten steadily more expensive over time 00:36:02.220 --> 00:36:04.270 align:middle line:90% as capacity has gone up. 00:36:04.270 --> 00:36:06.390 align:middle line:84% This is a negative learning rate that 00:36:06.390 --> 00:36:09.060 align:middle line:84% shows for all these different technology 00:36:09.060 --> 00:36:11.340 align:middle line:84% types that overnight construction cost has steadily 00:36:11.340 --> 00:36:12.780 align:middle line:90% increased. 00:36:12.780 --> 00:36:16.920 align:middle line:84% The analysis of why these prices have increased-- they 00:36:16.920 --> 00:36:19.260 align:middle line:84% showed it's almost an across-the-board increase. 00:36:19.260 --> 00:36:22.530 align:middle line:84% And all the different components of a nuclear power plant, 00:36:22.530 --> 00:36:25.050 align:middle line:84% the blue bars are the direct cost of, let's say, 00:36:25.050 --> 00:36:27.240 align:middle line:90% the nuclear steam supply system. 00:36:27.240 --> 00:36:30.360 align:middle line:84% The indirect cost is essentially the soft cost 00:36:30.360 --> 00:36:32.928 align:middle line:84% of labor-intensive components around building 00:36:32.928 --> 00:36:33.720 align:middle line:90% these technologies. 00:36:33.720 --> 00:36:36.360 align:middle line:84% You can see that this is pretty much a steady increase 00:36:36.360 --> 00:36:37.680 align:middle line:90% across the board. 00:36:37.680 --> 00:36:39.660 align:middle line:90% Everything costs more. 00:36:39.660 --> 00:36:42.460 align:middle line:84% Partly everything costs more because of these indirect costs 00:36:42.460 --> 00:36:43.860 align:middle line:90% or soft costs. 00:36:43.860 --> 00:36:45.930 align:middle line:84% It is not clear, necessarily-- again, 00:36:45.930 --> 00:36:49.710 align:middle line:84% if our current way of delivering nuclear power plants 00:36:49.710 --> 00:36:51.990 align:middle line:84% is going to be effective, we obviously 00:36:51.990 --> 00:36:56.010 align:middle line:84% need to rethink how we deliver nuclear power plants. 00:36:56.010 --> 00:36:59.865 align:middle line:84% And this is another paper by Arnulf Grubler, a fairly famous 00:36:59.865 --> 00:37:00.990 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] analyst. 00:37:00.990 --> 00:37:02.820 align:middle line:84% This is written about 10 or 12 years ago, 00:37:02.820 --> 00:37:06.060 align:middle line:84% but this takes the French nuclear industry, which 00:37:06.060 --> 00:37:08.640 align:middle line:84% is basically always touted as the most 00:37:08.640 --> 00:37:10.540 align:middle line:84% successful nuclear industry in the world, 00:37:10.540 --> 00:37:14.220 align:middle line:84% and again essentially looks at data from this program 00:37:14.220 --> 00:37:16.680 align:middle line:84% and finds negative learning by doing. 00:37:16.680 --> 00:37:18.180 align:middle line:84% It reviews the history and economics 00:37:18.180 --> 00:37:20.812 align:middle line:84% of the French PWR program, which is considered 00:37:20.812 --> 00:37:22.770 align:middle line:84% the most successful nuclear scale-up experience 00:37:22.770 --> 00:37:25.710 align:middle line:90% in an industrialized country. 00:37:25.710 --> 00:37:27.672 align:middle line:84% But drawing on largely unknown public records, 00:37:27.672 --> 00:37:29.880 align:middle line:84% the paper reveals, for the first time, both absolute, 00:37:29.880 --> 00:37:32.820 align:middle line:84% as well as yearly and specific reactor costs and evolution 00:37:32.820 --> 00:37:33.910 align:middle line:90% over time. 00:37:33.910 --> 00:37:35.790 align:middle line:84% The most significant finding is that even 00:37:35.790 --> 00:37:38.100 align:middle line:84% in the most successful nuclear scale-up 00:37:38.100 --> 00:37:41.520 align:middle line:84% is characterized by substantial escalation of real construction 00:37:41.520 --> 00:37:42.390 align:middle line:90% costs. 00:37:42.390 --> 00:37:45.570 align:middle line:84% In other words, we still don't have very much evidence 00:37:45.570 --> 00:37:48.240 align:middle line:84% over the last 40 or 50 years that nuclear power 00:37:48.240 --> 00:37:50.100 align:middle line:90% plants get cheaper over time. 00:37:50.100 --> 00:37:52.390 align:middle line:84% They seem to get more expensive over time. 00:37:52.390 --> 00:37:55.620 align:middle line:84% So again, while I'm open to the idea of nuclear, 00:37:55.620 --> 00:37:58.230 align:middle line:84% I would like to see it become cheaper before we actually 00:37:58.230 --> 00:38:01.620 align:middle line:84% think that it's going to be a viable part 00:38:01.620 --> 00:38:03.150 align:middle line:90% of our future energy system. 00:38:03.150 --> 00:38:04.590 align:middle line:84% That means we should research it. 00:38:04.590 --> 00:38:06.330 align:middle line:84% It does mean we should subsidize research 00:38:06.330 --> 00:38:11.730 align:middle line:84% into it to try to bring it into a more cost-competitive stance 00:38:11.730 --> 00:38:15.180 align:middle line:84% versus alternative or existing alternative and renewable 00:38:15.180 --> 00:38:16.540 align:middle line:90% energy resources. 00:38:16.540 --> 00:38:20.250 align:middle line:84% But again, we should recognize that our current costs don't 00:38:20.250 --> 00:38:22.770 align:middle line:84% make it economically viable to use nuclear power 00:38:22.770 --> 00:38:25.816 align:middle line:84% plants for the things that it's been touted for. 00:38:25.816 --> 00:38:26.802 align:middle line:90% So thank you very much. 00:38:26.802 --> 00:38:28.510 align:middle line:84% I look forward to our discussion in class 00:38:28.510 --> 00:38:30.600 align:middle line:90% on some of these themes. 00:38:30.600 --> 00:38:51.000 align:middle line:90%