In a Jan. 12 press conference, Stanford President John Hennessy announced a new interdisciplinary initiative on energy issues and $100 million in new spending for energy research. The initiative will be housed at the Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency and will draw upon intellectual resources from the entire university, including FSI's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development (PESD), which has been studying the production and consumption of energy and its effects on sustainable development since 2001.

One of the issues Hennessy singled out - finding an alternative to coal that is environmentally friendly yet cheap enough to sell to China - is at the core of PESD's Global Coal Markets platform, one of the program's four active research platforms. Richard K. Morse and others are tracking power generation in China, India, and the U.S. and finding that coal use is on the rise but the whole picture is complex due to the current world economic crisis. On the issue of climate change, David G. Victor recently proposed a new policy framework, "climate accession deals," for more successfully engaging developing nations in a post-Kyoto world.

On Feb. 12, PESD will host a public conference titled "Public Forum: How Will Global Warming Affect the World's Fuel Markets?", as part of the program's winter seminar on coal. Peter Hughes, director of Arthur D. Little's Global Energy & Utilities Division, will talk about whether natural gas is the "default climate change option." Hughes' presentation will be followed by a panel discussion with FSI Director Coit D. Blacker, Stu Dalton from EPRI, and PESD Director David Victor.

PESD research findings are regularly featured in the New York Times, energy blogs, Newsweek, scholarly journals, and in printed book publications. The relevancy of its research findings derives from its interdisciplinary look at energy through law, political science, and economics.

"2009 was shaping up to be the year the world got its environmental act together. Now it's looking like the global environment may be one of the biggest losers in the current financial crisis."

Saving the planet was never going to be easy. Avoiding the most catastrophic effects of climate changes will require cutting carbon emissions by 50 to 80 percent over the next four decades, scientists say. After years of deadlock, 2009 was shaping up to be the year the world got its environmental act together. Now it's looking like the global environment may be one of the biggest losers in the current financial crisis.

Lower prices for oil-which some analysts predict will hit $25 a barrel-is bad news for investors in green energy. But the big winner is likely to be dirty coal. It already accounts for about 40 percent of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming. The fuel is plentiful, and its price has fallen about one third since last summer's peak to $80 per ton. In China, the world's largest coal burner, prices have fallen by half and are likely to plummet further. All the top emitters of greenhouse gases depend mainly on coal for electric power. Dirty coal is now getting cheaper relative to other fossil fuels, such as natural gas and oil.

New "clean coal" plants would capture carbon and store it away underground, or at least to extract as much energy as possible for each kilogram of carbon pollution. The problem is that clean-coal plants are a lot more expensive than conventional "dirty coal" technology, and the financial crisis is obliterating schemes that would have paid the extra cost. Before the crisis, a team at Stanford University found that the world was investing only about 1 percent of what's needed on advanced coal technologies to meet carbon-emissions targets. Now a spate of canceled projects darkens the picture. There are lots of ways, in theory, to build low-emission power plants. One option is to turn coal into a gas and burn it in an ultra-efficient turbine. This "gasification" approach is not only highly efficient but it also produces nearly all of its carbon dioxide pollution in a concentrated stream that could be pumped safely underground, where it won't warm the atmosphere. So far, few investors are building plants that offer a model for how the technology would be deployed at scale. Before the crisis, a few power companies tried to build just the efficient gasification units, which are cheaper than the whole integrated plant, but most of those plans have evaporated in the last month. Only one large plant is still going forward in the United States, and that one won't include carbon storage.

Another route is to burn coal in pure oxygen without gasification, which also yields pure waste that can be pumped underground. A 30-megawatt demonstration plant is operating in Germany. A consortium of utilities is also testing a technology to remove CO2 from plant emissions, but no investor is willing yet to build a full-scale project. These options could double or triple the cost of a power plant.

A 300-megawatt plant that cut emissions nearly 90 percent would cost $1 billion to $2.5 billion, and the United States would need about 1,000 such plants to match its current coal-power output. China would need another 1,000. Since the 1960s, when U.S. utilities last made major investments in new plants, their average bond rating has fallen from AA to BBB, and now the credit crisis has made it all but impossible to finance any new plant, much less an expensive, clean one. The European Union has no money for its plan to build a dozen "zero-emission plants." The price of CO2 in Europe is too low to attract investors to this technology. The latest scheme to fix the problem—a giveaway of emission credits to investors who build clean-coal plants—is falling victim to the financial crisis, which has halved the price of emission permits, and thus the value of emission credits. The U.K. has been holding a contest for public funds to jump-start clean-coal technology. In November 2008 BP pulled out of the competition, citing its inability to form a successful consortium. Early in 2008 the U.S. government killed its investment in advanced coal due to exploding costs.

Environmentalists, in their opposition to coal of any kind, may provide the coup de grâce. Greenpeace, riffing on James Bond, is hawking a "Coalfinger" spoof on the Internet and is deep in a campaign to stop all new coal plants. U.S. environmental groups recently announced a campaign to expose clean coal as a chimera. Thanks to such efforts, in the United States it's now nearly impossible to build any kind of coal plant, including tests of clean technology. As the world economy recovers, nations will once again turn to their old stalwart, dirty coal.

Serious greenery is about efficiency--not only in the use of energy but also labor and capital.

(Excerpt) The winds of economic destruction are flattening not just retirement accounts but also naive visions for a green economy. Public support for costly new green mandates is weakening, and government budgets to fund them are bleeding red ink. Plummeting prices of oil and other fossil fuels have made it harder for green to compete in the marketplace. IPOs of firms working on "clean tech" green energy that have fueled fantasies of the coming energy revolution have crashed to a halt. In all the bad economic news, a new face of green is coming into focus. Whereas the old view of green tech was based on many small, decentralized sources of power and a green economy that harnessed the power of the marketplace, the new version will rely more heavily on regulation and subsidies. It will also embrace the wisdom, true in most of the energy business, that bigger is better for weathering economic storms.

As the pro-market "Washington Consensus" has unraveled, this decade has seen the emergence of two new Latin American trends: One group of countries favoring continued liberalization (Brazil, Chile, Mexico), and another opting for increasing state intervention (Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela). Energy policy tells some of the story behind these two trends. This talk will focus on energy policy for three Latin American countries-- Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela-- within the context of a larger fifteen-country study on National Oil Companies. The speaker will address how oil has both facilitated greater state control and created, though typically to a lesser degree, some pressures for market liberalization, as well as suggest some implications from recent oil market trends (new oil field discoveries in Brazil, falling oil prices globally) for state control in the region. 

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies form a key piece of virtually all roadmaps for global carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions reductions-many studies predict that CCS will contribute 20-50% of the necessary CO₂ emissions reductions by 2100. To assess actual progress of CCS projects towards fulfilling these expectations, the PESD Carbon Storage Project Database tracks all publicly announced CCS projects worldwide.

Through careful examination of numerous information sources, we grouped all CCS projects into three categories according to the probability of their completion: currently operating (100% likelihood), possible (estimated 50-90% likelihood), and speculative (estimated 0-50% likelihood).

We find that even under the aggressive scenario that all "possible" projects are indeed realized, this will result in about 80 Mt CO₂/yr of reductions worldwide by 2025, far short of the 350 Mt CO₂/yr of reductions that are projected as technologically feasible using CCS by 2030 in the US alone.

Looking worldwide, then, total carbon storage activity might need to be on the order of 1 billion tonnes CO₂/yr just for carbon storage to play a big role as one of a portfolio of technologies deployed so that the overall energy system cuts emissions on a path consistent with 500-550ppm. Our study shows that the actual deployment plans are on track to deliver less than 1% of what's needed.

We've then gone a step further and looked at the design of each carbon storage project in our database. We find that the vast majority of the most likely projects are associated with Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), sweetening of natural gas, and the production of synthetic natural gas (SNG). That is, the most interesting niche financially is associated with making more fossil fuels. While that investment pattern is understandable, it has huge implications for carbon storage in the power sector (which is where everyone thinks carbon capture and storage, or "CCS", is very attractive for cutting emissions) for the simple reason that only a tiny fraction of carbon storage investment plans envisions the use of CCS at scale. Our guess is that carbon storage will be developed through niche markets in EOR and SNG and then spread, perhaps, to CCS. But that pathway will be slow to unfold and suggests that visions of large scale near-term CCS will be hard to materialize without much greater investment in developing the technologies.

The second version of the PESD Carbon Storage Project Database, developed by PESD researchers Varun Rai, Ngai-Chi Chung, Mark C. Thurber, and David G. Victor, was released on 12 November 2008. The previous version was released on 30 June 2008.

PESD Director David G. Victor will be teaching "The Political Economy of Energy Policy" in the upcoming winter quarter. The class will introduce students to the major theoretical frameworks used by political scientists, sociologists, economists, and other intellectual disciplines to understand how societies design and implement public policies related to energy, and how the energy industry responds. Topics covered will include theories of the state, monopoly and regulation, public choice, organizational behavior, international agreements, and innovation.  The class will apply these theories to major current and historical issues in energy policy, such as ethanol, climate change, energy security, the role of national oil companies in the world oil market, the functioning of OPEC, and the California electricity crisis.