1. Welcome to BIO / EES 105 – Energy in Our World: Some opening thoughts Kenneth M. Klemow, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Associate Director, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

2. What is the secret of life? http://www.fcps.edu/ http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/ http://www.beautifulbritain.co.uk/

3. What is the secret of life?

4. How do plants and animals ensure many grandchildren? http://shelledy.mesa.k12.co.us/ http://www.rogerwendell.com/australia.html

5. Humans are great at modifying our environment http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/gracie.html http://www.ny.nrcs.usda.gov/ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/

6. Modifying our environment takes energy

7. Securing energy has been a quest of mankind for millennia. Need. Energy.   My empire for energy.

8. Before 1880s, energy use small scale

9. Beginning in 1880s, energy scaled up http://fineartamerica.com/featured/ market-street-manchester--1890- ronald-haber.html http://www.petroleumhistory.org/Oil History/pages/Columbia/Wells.html

10. In past century, we have become reliant on centralized energy generation http://12degreesoffreedom.blogspot.com/2010/06/no-king-coal.html http://wonderstube.com/world-wonders/

11. U.S. success in first half of 20 th century due to coal http://info.heylpatterson.com/

12. After World War II, other fuels supplanted coal

13. Optimism ended in 1970s

14. A national debate erupted Let’s conserve energy Ain’t no gas shortage, hippie!

15. Energy debate rages on Influences foreign policy of many nations Concerns over global climate change Concerns over nuclear waste disposal Influences foreign policy of many nations Concerns over global climate change Concerns over nuclear waste disposal

16. What about alternatives? Account for <10% of energy Each has own drawback Critics argue against poor energy density, unreliability, yield Account for <10% of energy Each has own drawback Critics argue against poor energy density, unreliability, yield

18. Every energy form has benefits and drawbacks FormBenefitsDrawbacks CoalAbundant, cheap, high energy densityGHG impacts, habitat destruction OilHigh energy density, flexibleGHG impacts, foreign policy concerns Conv. gasHigh energy density, abundantGHG impacts, declining availability NuclearNon fossil fuel, high densityImpacts of waste and accidents BiomassRenewable, non fossil fuelEnergy yield questionable WindRenewable, non fossil fuelIntermittent, impacts to wildlife SolarRenewable, non fossil fuelIntermittent, PV requires rare earths HydroRenewable, non fossil fuelLimited potential, impacts to rivers GeothermalRenewable, non fossil fuelLimited potential in some areas

19. What about shale gas?

22. Potential of Marcellus Shale Underlies 95,000 sq. mi. Recoverable reserves of 360 TCF ▫Supply 14 years U.S. consumption Potential to create 280,000 jobs Potential as transportation fuel Potential economic impact of $2 trillion Underlies 95,000 sq. mi. Recoverable reserves of 360 TCF ▫Supply 14 years U.S. consumption Potential to create 280,000 jobs Potential as transportation fuel Potential economic impact of $2 trillion http://pennsylvania.sierraclub.org/

23. Some people are worried Groundwater pollution Surface water pollution Habitat fragmentation Noise Decreased property values Conversion of rural landscape to industrialized Greenhouse gas emissions Groundwater pollution Surface water pollution Habitat fragmentation Noise Decreased property values Conversion of rural landscape to industrialized Greenhouse gas emissions http://www.propublica.org/

24. http://www.miningtopnews.com/ http://www.choosenepa.com/ http://alleghenysc.org/ http://dearsusquehanna.blogspot.com/

25. Problem: People seem to be talking past each other http://www.treehugger.com/ citizensvoice.com/news/

26. Conventional wisdom ▫Public will make wise choices if given sound information Conventional approach ▫Convert public concerns to research questions ▫Address questions using science ▫Publish findings in peer-reviewed journal ▫Scientists take steps to explain findings to public Deficit model Conventional wisdom ▫Public will make wise choices if given sound information Conventional approach ▫Convert public concerns to research questions ▫Address questions using science ▫Publish findings in peer-reviewed journal ▫Scientists take steps to explain findings to public Deficit model How to solve?

27. Case study: ▫Osborn et al (2011) PNAS paper on methane in drinking water wells near gas installations ▫Paper intensely discussed by public Case study: ▫Osborn et al (2011) PNAS paper on methane in drinking water wells near gas installations ▫Paper intensely discussed by public Does this work?

28. Welcomed by drilling opponents ▫Natural Gas Watch: “Study demonstrates unequivocally that fracking does, in fact, contaminate the water in the area where is used.” Criticized by drilling advocates ▫Energy in Depth website published “Durham Bull” essay, providing lengthy accounting of the study’s reported faults. Welcomed by drilling opponents ▫Natural Gas Watch: “Study demonstrates unequivocally that fracking does, in fact, contaminate the water in the area where is used.” Criticized by drilling advocates ▫Energy in Depth website published “Durham Bull” essay, providing lengthy accounting of the study’s reported faults. Public reaction polarized

29. Develop position on an issue Filter science based on their position ▫Embrace science that agrees ▫Reject science that fails to support  Often attack credibility of scientists, journal, review process Thus, deficit model doesn’t work Develop position on an issue Filter science based on their position ▫Embrace science that agrees ▫Reject science that fails to support  Often attack credibility of scientists, journal, review process Thus, deficit model doesn’t work Public engages in “cherry picking” http://wiki.ironchariots.org/images/b/b8/Cherry_picking_med.jpg

30. Partisans criticize scientists ▫Scientists routinely discredited based on funding and affiliation ▫Criticism often personal, credentials, funding called into question ▫Web 2.0 promotes dissemination of these views, with little filtering. Partisans criticize scientists ▫Scientists routinely discredited based on funding and affiliation ▫Criticism often personal, credentials, funding called into question ▫Web 2.0 promotes dissemination of these views, with little filtering. What happens with science does not fit bias?

31. Proponents: “We know we are extracting gas safely, don’t need research to verify what we already know. Opponents: “We know fracking is destroying our environment and communities. Don’t need research to verify.” Both sides seem more interested in convincing others of their position, than in keeping an open mind. Proponents: “We know we are extracting gas safely, don’t need research to verify what we already know. Opponents: “We know fracking is destroying our environment and communities. Don’t need research to verify.” Both sides seem more interested in convincing others of their position, than in keeping an open mind. Some believe no additional research needed.

32. “New Conservation” approach ▫Requires collaboration between concerned citizens, industry, policy makers and scientists. Translational Science ▫Scientists engage with concerned citizens, policy makers, industry ▫Adopt citizen science approaches No cherry picking Bridge System II vs System I thinking styles Goal is to build trust and respect ▫Encourage decision-making based on rational, fact- based discourse and not emotional arm-waving. “New Conservation” approach ▫Requires collaboration between concerned citizens, industry, policy makers and scientists. Translational Science ▫Scientists engage with concerned citizens, policy makers, industry ▫Adopt citizen science approaches No cherry picking Bridge System II vs System I thinking styles Goal is to build trust and respect ▫Encourage decision-making based on rational, fact- based discourse and not emotional arm-waving. What’s the solution?

33. Alternative: More of the same http://www.treehugger.com/ citizensvoice.com/news/