From: Paul Brown Sunday - September 3, 2006 12:18 PM To: spg@goodwingoodwin.com BC: pbbrown4348@verizon.net Subject: new direction for WVU
TO: Stephen Goodwin Board of Governors
FROM: Paul Brown WVU
Dear Dr. Goodwin:
One question the Board of Governors tackles whenever recruiting a new president for WVU is the direction in which he or she should lead us. David Hardesty was chosen with specific changes in mind, and he has brought them about successfully. Some fast-moving developments are engaging the concern of informed people worldwide: the global population explosion, climate change, the sixth mass extinction of species, and humankind’s inadequate responses to these problems. It will take courageous, insightful leadership to meet these challenges, particularly in a state dominated by coal power. In the next two or three decades nations will have to abandon the use of carbon fuels for energy. This won't happen because we’ll run out of the needed raw materials, but because of rapidly accelerating environmental damage, skyrocketing demand, and increased costs of production. Nuclear energy can’t be part of a workable solution, but all the needed technology for affordable, renewable energy exists today. The world can wait until we're forced by global crises to abandon carbon combustion, by which time climate change and mass extinctions may have become runaway processes beyond our power to reverse. Alternatively, we can make a coordinated transition away from fossil fuels now, at slightly greater cost than we could have twelve years ago, but at much lower cost than twelve years hence. This transformation will be impossible for states that remain in denial and waste limited resources on band aids such as coal liquefaction, CO2 sequestration, oil shale, tar sands, Arctic drilling, and biomass. Some states are rapidly changing over to renewable energy, exploring a hydrogen energy economy, and strengthening local economies through recycling, remanufacturing, and local production of the necessities of life. By being ahead of the curve, they will do well. Such implementation requires careful planning with regard to research, education, business, and jobs. In West Virginia, the coal and power industries and their work forces need to become part of the solution instead of remaining the problem. If they do, all parties – including the coal industry and miners – will benefit. WVU should be a key factor in this process, as should our federal and state legislators and the governor. There’s another consideration I have to mention. The three schools I attended for my education – MIT, the University of Chicago, and Cornell – differ considerably in character but they’ve averaged 60 Nobel Prizes, compared to zero at WVU. Their average endowment is $4.9 billion, compared to $0.4 billion at WVU. They became leaders through a bootstrap process upon which I believe WVU can now embark. We started too late on molecular biology, microcomputers, and nanotechnology, but we can seize this new opportunity and achieve greatness. I'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss this vision at a Board of Governors meeting. I think I can convince you in an hour that the state of West Virginia, its industries, and its institutions of higher learning must move quickly in this new direction.
Sincerely,
Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512
Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512
I have been wrestling with this for a couple days and I appreciate the work that Paul is doing. But I am increasingly concerned that the emphasis on abandoning "the use of carbon fuels for energy" is neither appropriate nor neccessary, and would actually be counter-productive to our efforts. While we certainly need to transition away from fossil fuels, I think lumping biomass fuels into the same category is a mistake. Biomass fuels currently represent the largest component of the renewable fuels sector. Recycling carbon dioxide through biomass fuels does not inherently lead to an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I do not think America can or will make a transition directly to other renewables at a rate adequate to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere without going through a transition based, in the intermediate term, on biomass fuels. Advocating such a drastic change is more likely to lead to rejection than progress.
That is not to say that certain biomass fuels are free of fossl fuel subsidies. Many ethanol manufacturers actually end up using more fossil fuel BTUs than they get from the ethanol they make. And dedicating the land area needed for a wholesale conversion to meet our existing energy demand is not feasible, at least not without unacceptable environmental impacts. But our energy policy needs to be more nuanced and sophisticated than what Paul has proposed. Hence, we should support those biomass fuels that make sense energetically and environmentally, and oppose those that are net losers.
I also disagree that carbon sequestration is a band aid. While it has not yet been demonstrated to be commercially feasible, sequestering CO2 when it is already concentrated in power plant exhaust is almost certainly more achievable than trying to pull it from the very dilute atmosphere. Given the significant investment that society has in power plants, we should at least continue the research on sequestration, and we should provide the regulatory incentives needed to justify implementation of sequestration in a meaningful way. Expensive new pollution controls are never applied in significant amounts until the law requires it, and then the cost comes down dramatically. So a cap and trade program or carbon tax is essential to provide the incentives needed to make sequestration a reality onthose plants where it makes sense, and the market will close those plants where it does not.
The key should be to reduce overall emissions to sustainable levels, and to diversify our energy sources so that we do not beome overly dependent on any one fuel. I believe that there is credible scientific evidence that this is essential. The argument over banning biomass is one where there is no consensus, either scientifically or from a policy standpoint. Our position and our arguments are stronger if we don't go there.
JBK
"Paul Brown" pbbrown@hsc.wvu.edu 09/25/06 9:39 PM >>>
From: Paul Brown Sunday - September 3, 2006 12:18 PM To: spg@goodwingoodwin.com BC: pbbrown4348@verizon.net Subject: new direction for WVU
TO: Stephen Goodwin Board of Governors
FROM: Paul Brown WVU
Dear Dr. Goodwin:
One question the Board of Governors tackles whenever recruiting a new president for WVU is the direction in which he or she should lead us. David Hardesty was chosen with specific changes in mind, and he has brought them about successfully. Some fast-moving developments are engaging the concern of informed people worldwide: the global population explosion, climate change, the sixth mass extinction of species, and humankind’s inadequate responses to these problems. It will take courageous, insightful leadership to meet these challenges, particularly in a state dominated by coal power. In the next two or three decades nations will have to abandon the use of carbon fuels for energy. This won't happen because we’ll run out of the needed raw materials, but because of rapidly accelerating environmental damage, skyrocketing demand, and increased costs of production. Nuclear energy can’t be part of a workable solution, but all the needed technology for affordable, renewable energy exists today. The world can wait until we're forced by global crises to abandon carbon combustion, by which time climate change and mass extinctions may have become runaway processes beyond our power to reverse. Alternatively, we can make a coordinated transition away from fossil fuels now, at slightly greater cost than we could have twelve years ago, but at much lower cost than twelve years hence. This transformation will be impossible for states that remain in denial and waste limited resources on band aids such as coal liquefaction, CO2 sequestration, oil shale, tar sands, Arctic drilling, and biomass. Some states are rapidly changing over to renewable energy, exploring a hydrogen energy economy, and strengthening local economies through recycling, remanufacturing, and local production of the necessities of life. By being ahead of the curve, they will do well. Such implementation requires careful planning with regard to research, education, business, and jobs. In West Virginia, the coal and power industries and their work forces need to become part of the solution instead of remaining the problem. If they do, all parties – including the coal industry and miners – will benefit. WVU should be a key factor in this process, as should our federal and state legislators and the governor. There’s another consideration I have to mention. The three schools I attended for my education – MIT, the University of Chicago, and Cornell – differ considerably in character but they’ve averaged 60 Nobel Prizes, compared to zero at WVU. Their average endowment is $4.9 billion, compared to $0.4 billion at WVU. They became leaders through a bootstrap process upon which I believe WVU can now embark. We started too late on molecular biology, microcomputers, and nanotechnology, but we can seize this new opportunity and achieve greatness. I'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss this vision at a Board of Governors meeting. I think I can convince you in an hour that the state of West Virginia, its industries, and its institutions of higher learning must move quickly in this new direction.
Sincerely,
Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512
Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512
-
James Kotcon -
Paul Brown