Best webcast I have seen for years on serious climate action

Earlier today, I saw a HORRID webcast, where COP26 people congratulated themselves on how successful they were. The measure of success? They got lots of kids to take the issue seriously, and then do stuff like wash dishes better. It's great that they wash dishes better, but ... that is not the kind of outcome we need, if the goal is to keep our species from extinction sooner than we expect!! 

 I hope that the IEEE book project will point us to a better way... but in the meantime, I was very delighted to see a far more encouraging webcast at noon today. Here is what I sent immediately to the transportation sector of the IEEE project: ============================================== 

Our Energy Policy (OEP) Webcast on Electrifying Transportation  

  Why this is important  

 More than 80% of net greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted from US comes directly from making electricity or from transportation. Those two are about equal.Most serious climate advocates see the replacement of fossil fuels by electricity as the best way by far to achieve climate survival, in transportation. Our draft IEEE book plan insists on taking a more efficient, market-based approach, with room in it for clean fuels under correct market incentives. However, there is no question that electric transportation is opportunity number one in this sector. 

 The webcast today (12/8/2021) https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/energy-leaders-webinar-series/electrifying-transport-the-state-of-electric-vehicles-a-webinar/ conveyed essential new information on the very best serious action now being taken in the US on electrifying transportation (as it bears on climate risk). It was concrete enough both to point to important opportunities unmet even beyond that, but also to give important pointers to how to connect to and assist the existing great efforts. It is the most encouraging and uplifting piece I have seen on ACTION to prevent climate extinction from the US in years.

 I was surprised to see such a good webcast, but not SO surprised, since OEP is in many ways an offshoot of the EnergyConsensus dialogue led by the office of Roscoe bartlett (R-Md), which, until he was gerrymandered out of office, was the most effective, serious and honest deep dialogue on US energy security  across US government and other serious players. At first, EOP was not really living up to that high mandate, but today may be a major turning point.

  Selected Points  

 OEP usually posts these webcasts a few days later. For now… here are my scattered recollections, from scrawled notes, of most important things said. 

 EVERYONE agreed that incentives to purchasers of EV (also PHEV and HEV?) are the most crucial target in electrification.  

 I was so delighted that Colleen Jansen of Charge Point stressed that her firm is building networks of collaboration and information, to connect all the players which need to be connected to make this work, certainly to include auto makers, battery makers, and local governments. She ALSO spoke strongly on their advocacy of a Clean Fuel Standard (see werbos.com/oil.htm, for links to topics like the Brownback bill). She was setting very high standards of integrity and market-based balance, to a truly unusual degree.  

 Steven Boyd of the DOE Program on Batteries and Electrification and Michael Maten of GM had really great chemistry in discussion. No one who sincerely wants to accelerate electrification should neglect what lessons THEY have learned! Michael Maten in particular felt like “the new replacement” for a GM engineer/manager (Al Sobey) who was one of my very best partners in these areas until his recent death by old age. Maten’s rank is not as high as Al’s was, but it is really great that there is SOME coverage of that crucial base, including the link to government action. 

Boyd does NOT have so much mandate as his area (and Biden's climate commitments) call for, but you could see on his face that there is an upswing going on.  I was surprised that Boyd cites a $100/kwh target for car batteries, and others project $65 a bit later. But then he said Bloomberg cites more like $131, and it is a complex area, very variable across different car markets even in the US. 

Maten recommended https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/national-blueprint-lithium-batteries and https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/federal-consortium-advanced-batteries-fcab as crucial sources we all should build on. HOWEVER: Maten stressed that it is all “batteries, batteries, batteries” in their efforts.“That is THE issue in achieving their goal of being competitive without subsidies.” When I was at NSF and IEEE USA energy policy committee, we had access to much more detailed breakdowns on WHERE THE extra costs were which made a Toyoto Prius PHEV more expensive, for example, than a comparable ICE car. Batteries were part of it, but as I recall power electronics were even bigger. And yes, motor quality and control were crucial as well. (I remember how switched reluctance motors with modern RLADP control outperform electric motors requiring rare earths.) I suspect there are major unmet opportunities here still, from work we started (AND CHECKED) from NSF, used in Asia but not yet in US or EU. Some not even in Asia yet.

Dan Levy of Credit Suisse was a great moderator, and asked balanced but probing questions, showing awareness of how electrification is moving so much faster in other nations now. Part of the issue is supply chains, and Biden HAS given encouragement to strengthening our supply chains. DOE **IS** supporting more robust supply chains, though do they know what firms in China were doing decades ago in recycling lithium batteries? (All in my files.) Or how the foundation of rare earth production in China turns out to be TECHNOLOGY, not resources, as we learned in discussing it in Changsha and Wuhan decades ago with people who applied control algorithms I developed to the separation issues and other control in that sector? (The Chinese wanted to share with us, in a joint China/NSF research effort, but our protectors protected us from having that technology.  Memos in my files.)

Sarah Fitts, a partner of Schiff-Hardin, inaugurated the session, and had very exciting things to say as well. It felt as if she deserves a lot of the credit for this renaissance of OEP, and that her firm will be providing great guidance to electrification in coming years.

I do wonder whether Boyd has seen the workshop report from Sadoway of MIT, the last major NSF cut in batteries relevant to cars. In my files. Along with LOTS of technical details. I saw heavy filtering in some of the other channels, which may have limited what he had access to. 

  The discussion of hydrogen was quite amusing -- showing insight and depth and a sense of humor. The GM guy clearly and politely said "FORGET it for reducing GHG in transportation." (Is anyone proposing to use it to generate electricity for the US grid???) (Not his exact words, but close enough. The webcast video is coming soon. I will cite it in my chapter on alternatives to electricity in transportation.) 

All participants argued strongly about the importance of the grid interface. At times Colleen seemed to have a picture in her mind of a “recharge at work” station which exactly matched a design which Kumar Venayagamoorthy fleshed out for a grant I awarded him back when I was at NSF!! For Section II of the book, where there are MANY relevant technology opportunities beyond the transportation group as such.