I'm attending a meeting about this iniative this week and intend to distribute some ideas as grey literature in the hopes of influencing a scientific culture toward approaching global change from an engineering perspctive.
My initial reaction to the DOE initiative was deep skepticism. If it's Sim Earth, it's certainly writ large. The target platform is computers 1000 times more powerful than any currently in existence. I have come around. I think that the systems engineering perspective can, with care, make effective use of such large resources. I am working on a broad brush explanation of how this might happen. I will nevertheless admit that it is much easier to use such vast resources ineffectively, and that the odds of that happening are substantial at the very least. Your idea seems entirely reasonable. I think the process by which procedures like a new EGEAS (note that this is the first I've heard of EGEAS) is developed in fact could benefit from very large computations, and with your permission I will quote you in trying to make such a case. One perverse aspect of all this is that if we can't make a case for this as a very largeh scale supercomputing application, (and I admit that my argument that it can will be outside scope of conventional wisdom) it will be difficult to arouse interest within this program, and if it isn't "Big Science" in one form or another, it's hard to see it emerging from today's DOE at all. mt On 5/29/07, Don Libby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Don Libby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 1:17 PM > Subject: [Global Change: 1390] Re: Interesting DOE initiative > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 11:58 AM > > Subject: [Global Change: 1389] Interesting DOE initiative > > > > > >> > >> I am curious as to what the group's opinions might be on this project: > >> > >> http://www.science.doe.gov/ascr/Misc/Energy-ecology-security-initiative.pdf > >> > > > > A few flip remarks based on first impressions. How does this differ from > > the popular computer game SimCity? > > On a more serious note, what you have there is a research proposal that was > obviously written by a committee who believed that by pooling three small > loosely related ideas they may stand a better chance of getting at least one > of them funded. Taking into consideration their combination of skills and > interests in crafting software for integrated energy resource planning, I > would like to suggest a very practical need that this DOE research team > might fulfill. > > I read through the Environmental Impact Statement for the Elm Road > Generating Station yesterday, prompted by the comment by David Roberts in > the "Oildrum" thread that conservation, efficiency, and distributed > renewables are cheaper & better substitutes for coal than nuclear, which is > essentially the position of the Sierra Club in the public comment section of > the EIS. > > The decision to certify a big new plant as a public necessity rests largely > on a software package called the Electric Generation Expansion Analysis > System (EGEAS), which is "a modular production-costing, generation-expansion > software tool that is used to find least-cost generation system plans by > comparing all combinations of multiple generation options to meet forecasted > system load. EGEAS inputs include forecasted energy and demand, the > characteristics of existing and possible new generation units, fuel price > forecasts, known or expected energy purchase or sales, desired reserve > margin, and the forecasted cost of emission allowances" > > Among several scenarios modeled, an option that includes demand-side > management (DSM - technospeak for "conservation and efficiency") appears to > be least-cost, and interestingly, if no limit is placed on the amount of > wind power production, the model chooses to add wind power and gas turbines > to the grid out to 2014, with no new coal or nuclear plants. A new nuclear > plant in 2013 is chosen by the model if carbon is monetized and new nuclear > plant construction is permitted under the law (aside: a Wisconsin > Legislative Assembly committee last week voted to bring a bill to lift the > ban on new plant construction to the floor in the next session). > > Now to the point. In the section of the EIS that discusses conservation, it > was noted that several shortcomings of the analysis - including old, > outdated measurements and technological assumptions - led to an > underestimate of conservation and efficiency potential. It was estimated > that DSM during the 1990s reduced demand by the equivalent of 500MW (about > the size of one big gas or coal-fired generating unit, or an AP600 nuclear > plant). The further potential for savings was estimated to be anywhere > between 10MW to 470MW - but again, underestimated due to lack of accurate > modeling assumptions. > > So, here's something practical the DOE could put those computer scientists > to work on, consistent with the emphasis on conservation and efficiency in > the Joint Statement of the Academies: update the database for conservation > measurement and modeling, and update the EGEAS software to include > conservation, efficiency and small-scale distributed generation. More fun > and more useful than SimCity, I'm sure, and perhaps more immediately useful > than "encoding all known relevant physical laws with engineering practices, > production, utilization, distribution and environmental factors". If the > good scientists can re-program the decision support tools currently being > used to assess the necessity of big new coal plants, they may very well > solve the global problem one plant at a time. > > -dl > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
