"After nearly 30 years at Caltech as a professor of theoretical physics and, eventually, provost, Steven Koonin took a leave of absence in 2004 to become BP's chief scientist. After a year of study, he recommended a strategy for the company that has included investments in unconventional sources of oil as well as renewable energies such as solar. Technology Review's energy editor sat down with Koonin...to discuss BP's strategy and whether it will be possible to meet the world's energy challenges.
Technology Review: What's the best way to reduce gas consumption?
Steven Koonin: Raising the price of driving is the simplest way to induce conservation and efficiency. Look at how much response we saw when the price of gasoline went up to $4.50 a gallon. We've seen it work over the last year. But raising gas prices is very difficult politically to do. In fact, you see the candidates going in the opposite direction.
TR: When you look at public policy decisions, what are some other mistakes you've seen?
SK: One is confusing transportation with stationary sources of power and heat. What problems are we trying to solve? If it's carbon dioxide emissions, there are cheaper ways to do it than improving transportation. If you improve the efficiency of a vehicle to reduce fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions, for many vehicle technologies it will take several hundred dollars per ton of carbon dioxide. But transport is only 20 percent of energy-related emissions. Heat and power from stationary sources are most of it. At $50 a ton, there's a lot of carbon that can be wrung out of stationary sources. When you start cranking the price up to $100 to $200, that's when you start to affect transport, whereas we can shift to lower-emissions heat and power at $50 a ton."
Thanks to Pat Carstensen
Comments
No less than $10.00/gallon
A tax should be put on gasoline to keep it at no less than $10.00/gal and the revenue should go toward mass transit and renewable energy infrastructure.
The Engineer's Approach To Global Warming
"If you improve the efficiency of a vehicle to reduce fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions, for many vehicle technologies it will take several hundred dollars per ton of carbon dioxide. But transport is only 20 percent of energy-related emissions. Heat and power from stationary sources are most of it. At $50 a ton, there's a lot of carbon that can be wrung out of stationary sources."
He is assuming that cities will continue to be designed as they are now, and that the only solution is spending more money to product more fuel-efficient autos. But we all know that, if we design cities to make them less auto-dependent, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also reduce the cost of transportation.
During the seven years that I was a bicycle commuter, my total cost of in-city transportation was about $20 per year, and I caused no greenhouse gas emissions. Compared with the average American, I saved about $1,000 for each ton of CO2 I did not emit - not to mention the healthcare costs I saved by exercizing regularly.
So, the conclusion to draw from this article is not that we should concentrate on stationary sources rather than transportation. It is that we should concentrate on transportation solutions that involve planning to reduce auto-dependency and reduce the distance people travel (which save money) rather than on energy-efficient cars (which cost more money than energy-efficient stationary sources).
As an engineer, he only looks at how machines are designed. If we also look at how we live our lives, we come to a very different conclusion: we can reduce GHG emissions in a way that saves us money and also gives us more livable neighborhoods.
Charles Siegel