|
HomePage |
|
|
|
|
There is no Department of Energy at MIT, nor should there be. Because the most pressing problems in this area require complex solutions requiring many perspectives, it makes no sense to try to draw a disciplinary boundary around energy. As MIT has evolved (over one third of our faculty has been hired in the last six years, which reflects a major shift towards biological sciences and nano- and information technologies) many of the experts in traditional energy-related areas have left and not been replaced in kind. Energy technologies are considered "mature," and lacking the kind of breakthough intellectual challenges appropriate for MIT research and education. At the same time, however, energy issues have become a growing concern for industry, government, and the students they will hire to help them get more from existing energy sources, seek new sources, and devise more efficient products and processes. For this reason, MIT needs to build a coordinated disciplinary and cross-disciplinary focus on energy science, technology, and policy.
I would argue that – far from being mature – energy science and engineering for the foreseeable future is barely out of infancy. The twenty-first century struggle to reconcile environmental sustainability with the world's growing energy needs may, in fact, depend on discoveries and synergies we have yet to even imagine.
Energy-related research affiliated with the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LFEE) and scattered among other DLCs, are promising. MIT researchers are looking at various aspects of fuel cell technology, fusion energy, solar, wind, and biomass energy. Eight of the "ignition" grants awarded by the Deshpande Center in the School of Engineering will spur research in two areas: solar cell circuitry, and electrode designs for metal-air batteries and fuel cells. Faculty members in the departments of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering, Nuclear Engineering, and others are working on basic and engineering science projects that might plausibly become elements of new energy systems.
Meanwhile, as a new MIT/LFEE study released a few weeks ago cautions, alternative energy may not take over for a long time. Until then, research and distribution of improved current technologies, such as gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, can help preserve and possibly even reverse the degradation of some environmental systems. Also at LFEE, interest is growing in "smart wells-smart fields" technologies to maximize the potential of oil fields while minimizing their environmental impact. The Carbon Sequestration Initiative, also housed at LFEE, is supported by a growing industrial consortium currently including nine major utility, energy, and automobile companies.
Interest in alternative energy systems is cropping up throughout the Institute. GM recently sponsored a Fuel-Cell Case Competition for Sloan School students. Just yesterday, March 12, Institute Professor John Deutch (Chemistry) spoke to the bi-weekly LFEE faculty-student seminar on fuel cell system applications; organizers had to scramble to find a room big enough for all attendees. Later in the day, Professor Jefferson Tester (Chemical Engineering) participated in a well attended public forum at MIT on energy and national security. The Reuters news agency picked up and distributed internationally a synopsis of the alternative energy study mentioned above. Next week, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense will come to MIT to discuss "Solar Power and the Hydrogen Economy" while, on the other side of campus, a Plasma Fusion Center lecture series speaker leads a discussion of development paths for fusion energy. MIT's own facilities management group is working with LFEE researchers, UROPS, state funders, local communities, and industry on a project to foster acceptance of solar technologies.
Some might argue that these scholars resemble the blind men describing an elephant – what would the ideal energy system look like at mid-century? It may be time to organize and channel this proliferation of ideas and enthusiasm into an Institute-wide energy initiative. How else will we resolve some clearer images of system options for the future, options that respect the potential of all possible technologies? An LFEE meeting in January drew some 25 faculty members and research staff to brainstorm how to organize and stimulate energy research at MIT.
The search for new energy pathways will require advanced work in information technology, nanotechnology, robotics, materials and material systems, chemistry, biology and physics. Large-scale integrated systems studies emphasizing interactions among potential technologies and regulatory and business strategies, as well as organization and knowledge management studies, will be essential to any effort.
It has been argued that the nation could benefit from a "Manhattan Project" for an energy system that would free us from dependence on fossil fuels within a very short time. There are some striking parallels, and equally striking differences. The most important similarity from an MIT perspective is that such an initiative would require the massing of immense scientific and engineering talent. And, I would add, the integration of experts in policy making, economics, and management from the outset. Unless it can be effectively produced, distributed and regulated, any new technology will remain a laboratory curiosity, nothing more.
Unlike the Manhattan Project, an Energy for the 21st Century Project could take place in an atmosphere of transparency and neutrality, in the finest tradition of academic research. The most important difference is that investigators based in a university such as MIT do their work free from ideological allegiances (as much as anyone can).
[A note on cynicism: It is easy to be discouraged about the exaggerated claims of politicians with constituencies to maintain, of corporate advertising or willingness to fund research, and certainly of "neutrality" and the "objectivity" of academic research. However, it remains a goal to strive for, even if it is never entirely achieved.]
Coupled with the Energy for the 21st Century Project might be another idea borrowed from the Greatest Generation, the Marshall Plan. Whether or not one believes that the current yawning gap between the developed and developing countries is the result of climate, imperialism, or chance, the fact remains that underdevelopment creates political chaos, and chaos creates strife which can overflow in unpredictable directions. The transfer of nondestructive energy technologies would go far toward promoting healthy development, enabling people to be productive, secure, and at home.
A massive initiative of this kind would unleash power for sustainable development world wide. This would not benefit the South alone. The development and transfer of nondestructive energy technologies could free the U.S. from dependence on foreign resources and their coercive use; involvement in international tensions arising from environmental degradation such as transboundary migration; and profound skepticism around the world about our commitment to good global citizenship.
If we limit our research only to refining the refineries, we will certainly achieve some useful short-term gains; they are necessary to hold the line, until more powerful and appropriate technology can be deployed. Fast-tracking MIT research into new energy science and technology will not only prepare society for a future we can afford, but also offer genuine intellectual challenges for MIT faculty and students.
It's what negotiators call a "mutual gains" solution. It's worth a try.
|
HomePage |
|
|
|
|