Georgia Tech Energy Symposium

Yesterday I attended the Georgia Tech Energy Symposium on the intersection of technology, policy, and economics. I was hard-pressed not to lose my temper at times, because although the symposium was supposed to be about "innovative strategies that provide synergistc solutions," it seemed that much of the symposium was actually about...coal. Yes, coal, otherwise known as the enemy of the human race. More specifically, many of the speakers talked about how we will someday be able to sequester coal, but it's impossibly difficult right now, so it's absurd to try to implement any policy that will require it any point earlier than a hundred years from now. Really.

Oh, there was a session on biofuels, too. Rick Zalesky from Chevron said that biofuels need to grow, with the careful caveat that "fossil fuels will always make up at least 85% of consumption." And by biofuels, he mostly meant corn ethanol, although he did mention algae. His main point was that the only realistic options are ones that use our current pipelines, so anything that isn't a blend--and a small blend, like E10--is pretty much out. And any standards that ask for more than that are not technologically realistic.

Next, Michael Pacheco of Archer Daniels spoke about food and fuel. His basic message was that there's nothing wrong with focusing on crops that can be used for both food and fuel, and using them for whichever need is greater, and never mind any scenarios of "competition" between the two. Well, easy for him to say. He's the one providing the resource. Although he freely admitted that the demand for both will continue to rise. On the bright side, he also admitted that world oil production is approaching peak. But his presentation pretty much sounded like a sales pitch to me.

And Ken Cohen of ExxonMobil spoke about climate change. Yes, you read that right. I thought it was wierd, too. On the bright side, he talked about the IPCC report and concluded that we do need to take immediate action on climate change. Of course, he advocated a carbon tax over cap-and-trade, because then emitters would know exactly how much polluting was going to cost them, but at least it's something. What was frustrating, though, was that he mostly talked about carbon capture and storage as the solution to greenhouse gases. Which is simply not technologically feasible right now.

And that was pointed out in great detail by a later speaker, Chris Hobson of Southern Company. He was the one who said we have to keep using coal because we have so much of it, never mind how destructive it is, and eventually we can use carbon sequestration but not any time in the immediate future. In the meantime, the most important thing is that we keep the electric grid running.

My favorite speaker, of course, was Jeff Goodell, author of Big Coal. He showed pictures of mountaintop removal. He also pointed out the fact that most of the coal we have left is going to be more expensive and difficult to mine. Best of all was his quote about the need for conservation: "The era of mindless consumption," he said, "is over."

But I did think it was a shame that the only person there who seemed willing to think about new solutions was the only non-technical speaker. Is this really because renewables and truly clean solutions are just pie-in-the-sky options that no scientist will consider? I don't think so, because later yesterday (at Green Drinks), I talked with scientists who are pursuing truly green energy. The problem isn't in the scientific community at large; it's in who was represented at the symposium.

One of the questioners at the end of a panel summed it up perfectly: "I'd like to thank Tech for hosting this symposium," he said. "I hope you do it again. But I hope that next time, you focus on renewable energy."