Abstract: Over decades, assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many others has bolstered understanding of the climate problem: unequivocal warming, pervasive impacts, and serious risks from continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases. Societies are increasingly responding with early actions to decarbonize energy systems and prepare for impacts. In this emerging era of climate solutions, new assessment opportunities arise. They include learning from ongoing real-world experiences and helping close the gap between aspirations and the pace of progress. Against this backdrop, I will consider core challenges in assessment, in particular: (1) integrating diverse evidence; (2) applying rigorous expert judgment; and (3) deeply embedding interactions between experts and decision-makers. Examples span climate risks and portfolios of mitigation and adaptation responses. For climate and broader global change, the presentation will explore how transparent, high-traction assessment can support decisions about contested and uncertain futures.
About the Speaker: Katharine Mach is a Senior Research Scientist at Stanford University, an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, and a Visiting Investigator at the Carnegie Institution for Science. She leads the Stanford Environment Assessment Facility (SEAF). From 2010 until 2015, Mach co-directed the scientific activities of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which focuses on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. This work culminated in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report and its Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Mach received her PhD from Stanford University and AB from Harvard College.
What next for climate? Assessing the risks and the options
Global biodiesel production grew by 23% per annum between 2005 and 2015, leading to a seven-fold expansion of the sector in a single decade. Rapid development in the biodiesel sector corresponded to high crude oil prices, but since mid-2014, oil prices have fallen dramatically. This paper assesses the economic and policy factors that underpinned the expansion of biodiesel, and examines the near-term prospects for biodiesel growth under conditions of low fossil fuel prices. We show that the dramatic increase in biodiesel output would not have occurred without strong policy directives, subsidies, and trade policies designed to support agricultural interests, rural economic development, energy security, and climate targets. Given the important role of policy—and the political context within each country that shapes policy objectives, instruments, and priorities—case studies of major biodiesel producing countries are presented as a key element of our analysis. Although the narrative of biodiesel policies in most countries conveys win-win outcomes across multiple objectives, the case studies show that support of particular constituents, such as farm lobbies or energy interests, often dominates policy action and generates large social costs. Looking out to 2020, the paper highlights risks to the biodiesel industry associated with ongoing regulatory and market uncertainties.
The Stanford Center at Peking University (SCPKU) held its second annual Lee Shau Kee World Leaders Forum at the center on Oct 13. This year’s conference, titled “Climate Change and Clean Energy,” was keynoted by Dr. Steven Chu, the William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Physics and Professor of Molecular and Cellular Physiology in the Medical School at Stanford University; the 12th U.S. Secretary of Energy; and co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for laser cooling and atom trapping. Two panel discussions with a diverse set of experts from academia, government, and industry were also part of the event.
After welcoming remarks by SCPKU Director Jean C. Oi and Xiamen University Dean of the School of Energy Research Ning Li, the conference kicked off with the first panel, “Paths to Clean Energy” which centered around two questions: Is renewable energy feasible and how does China move away from coal as a dominant energy source? The second panel, “Challenges and Opportunities to Clean Energy,” focused on barriers preventing China from being progressive on climate change. China’s National Energy Advisory Committee, British Petroleum-China, and the U.S. Commission on Natural Resources Protection were among the organizations represented by panelists.
[[{"fid":"224612","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"Panelists discuss climate change and clean energy at SCPKU's World Leaders Forum held October 13.","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"Stanford University","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Panelists discuss climate change and clean energy at SCPKU's World Leaders Forum held October 13.","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 600px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]
Panelists discuss climate change and clean energy at SCPKU's World Leaders Forum held October 13. Courtesy of Stanford University
Steven Chu’s keynote wrapped up the forum, which touched on new data reflecting the risks of climate change and the need to continue progress on the development of clean energy. Regarding the pressing issue of pollution, he cited data from a British study inferring that the risk of contracting lung cancer is 29x higher in Beijing than other cities and highlighted Stanford’s research on nano-fiber filtration as a possible solution. Chu also spoke on the topic of energy storage and how the full cost of renewable energy needs to account for backup generation capacity, transmission and distribution systems, as well as the storage itself. Two things, he said, will likely play large roles in the future: high voltage lines (HVDC), and machine learning, which will be needed for largely autonomous management of the electrical grid. Nuclear energy will also be important to mitigate blackouts when transitioning to clean energy. In closing, Chu shared a poignant phrase from ancient Native Americans: “We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.”
The purpose of the forum is to raise public understanding of the complex issues China and other countries face in the course of development. Funded by a generous gift from the Lee Shau Kee Foundation, the forum seeks to increase support for Asia-Pacific cooperation and turn ideas into action.
[[{"fid":"224609","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"Steven Chu poses with SCPKU World Leaders Forum attendees after delivering keynote.","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"Stanford University","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Steven Chu poses with SCPKU World Leaders Forum attendees after delivering keynote.","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 600px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]
Steven Chu poses with SCPKU World Leaders Forum attendees after delivering keynote. Courtesy of Stanford University
[[{"fid":"224614","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"Reception following SCPKU's World Leaders Forum featuring the China National Symphony Orchestra Concert Quartet in the center's courtyard.","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"Stanford University","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Reception following SCPKU's World Leaders Forum featuring the China National Symphony Orchestra Concert Quartet in the center's courtyard.","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 600px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]
Reception following SCPKU's World Leaders Forum featuring the China National Symphony Orchestra Concert Quartet in the center's courtyard. Courtesy of Stanford University
In 2007, "solar market gardens" were installed in 2 villages for women’s agricultural groups as a strategy for enhancing food and nutrition security. Data were collected through interviews at installation and 1 year later from all women’s group households (30–35 women/group) and from a random representative sample of 30 households in each village, for both treatment and matched-pair comparison villages. Comparison of baseline and endline data indicated increases in the variety of fruits and vegetables produced and consumed by SMG women’s groups compared to other groups. The proportion of SMG women’s group households engaged in vegetable and fruit production significantly increased by 26% and 55%, respectively (P < .05). After controlling for baseline values, SMG women’s groups were 3 times more likely to increase their fruit and vegetable consumption compared with comparison non-women’s groups (P < .05). In addition, the percentage change in corn, sorghum, beans, oil, rice and fish purchased was significantly greater in the SMG women’s groups compared to other groups. At endline, 57% of the women used their additional income on food, 54% on health care, and 25% on education. Solar Market Gardens have the potential to improve household nutritional status through direct consumption and increased income to make economic decisions.
We explored the potential to colocate solar installations and agriculture.
Water use at solar installations are similar to amounts required for desert plants.
Co-located systems are economically viable in some areas.
Colocation can maximize land and water use efficiency in drylands.
Solar energy installations in arid and semi-arid regions are rapidly increasing due to technological advances and policy support. Although solar energy provides several benefits such as reduction of greenhouse gases, reclamation of degraded land, and improved quality of life in developing countries, the deployment of large-scale renewable energy infrastructure may negatively impact land and water resources. Meeting the ever-expanding energy demand with limited land and water resources in the context of increasing demand for alternative uses such as agricultural and domestic consumption is a major challenge. The goal of this study was to explore opportunities to colocate solar infrastructures and agricultural crops to maximize the efficiency of land and water use. We investigated the energy inputs/outputs, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and economics of solar installations in northwestern India in comparison to aloe vera cultivation, another widely promoted and economically important land use in these systems. The life cycle analyses show that the colocated systems are economically viable in some rural areas and may provide opportunities for rural electrification and stimulate economic growth. The water inputs for cleaning solar panels are similar to amounts required for annual aloe productivity, suggesting the possibility of integrating the two systems to maximize land and water use efficiency. A life cycle analysis of a hypothetical colocation indicated higher returns per m3 of water used than either system alone. The northwestern region of India has experienced high population growth in the past decade, creating additional demand for land and water resources. In these water-limited areas, coupled solar infrastructure and agriculture could be established in marginal lands with low water use, thus minimizing the socioeconomic and environmental issues resulting from cultivation of economically important non-food crops (e.g., aloe) in prime agricultural lands.
The Stanford Center for Sustainable Development and Global Competitiveness (CSDGC) held its 2015 Annual Partner Meeting on May 16 at SCPKU. The meeting included a discussion on innovation-driven sustainable industrial development and upgrades with a focus on smart learning, the application of green technology in building a smarter society, and smart manufacturing and operation in the industrial transformation. Participants also exchanged ideas about CSDGC's future development in China. Attendees included CSDGC Affiliate companies, representatives from collaborating universities, and visiting scholars.
It is August again, and my wife and I are back on our farm. We have a medium-sized operation in east-central Iowa that produces soybeans, alfalfa, and corn, and that also supports an Angus cow-calf herd. These summers are supposed to be quiet, relaxing times away from the bustle of Stanford University. However, the days here seem anything but tranquil. Two years ago my almanac report dealt with one of the worst droughts in Iowa’s history; last year the focus was on flooding and the wettest planting season on record. I suppose it is only fair that wind should be the main topic this year. For our rural neighborhood, only problems, not answers, seemed to have been blowin’ in it.
Two evenings after our arrival from California, we were sent scurrying to our doubly reinforced “safe” room in the basement. Warning sirens blared, all television stations went on emergency broadcasting, and the spontaneous neighborhood phone line magically got activated. Everything was for real, and all hell broke loose. Eighty-five m.p.h. flat-line winds, grape-sized hail, and buckets of rain. The power went out, and our safe-room conversation centered on whether or not to start our small generator—not for lights, but to assure that the sump pump continued working!
For a swath three miles wide and 15 miles long the tornado danced—jumping here and skipping there. Some farms were spared; others were pretty much demolished. We were moderately lucky. We lost an infinite number of branches and our largest oak tree—a four-foot diameter, 70-foot tall specimen. Entire trees were twisted off like toothpicks. Shingles from roofs went missing, as did white fencing. But we were among the lucky ones—no major buildings were lost and no people or animals were injured.
Two farms over, the five-bin corn storage unit took a direct hit. Two 120-foot tall elevators that lift grain to the top (called legs, although the anatomy analogy makes no sense) lay in a crumpled mess. These bins hold some 240,000 bushels of corn and there are massive amounts of steel involved. The broken legs looked, at 120X scale, like an angry third-grader had deliberately slammed his Lego creations onto the ground. The difference is that the repairs, labor costs, and replacement parts for the bins and legs total $750,000. Farmers soon began re-reading their insurance policies about acts of God, depreciation allowances, and the rules for full versus partial replacement.
The morning following the storm, an eerie calm was soon replaced by a different form of energy. Other work seemed to stop in a region larger than the storm-hit area. No one arranged it, but neighbors suddenly appeared at each other’s farmsteads with tractors, loaders, pickups, and chainsaws. Small mountains of brush, trees, and building parts began to emerge, to be burned at a later date—no doubt with generous burn permits being granted by the county.
At the time of the storm, corn was about waist high. Like the trees, it took a serious beating throughout the storm’s path. The corn stalks were tightly packed in narrow rows as a consequence of the changed density of planting—from 20,000 kernels per acre 20 years ago to 35,000 currently. (Bags of seed corn containing 80,000 kernels now typically sell in excess of $300, putting seed costs per acre about on a par with the cost of nitrogen fertilizer.) This tightly woven carpet of corn was now leaning at 45 degrees—or worse. The question was whether the stalks would straighten up. And the answer turns out to be “sort of.” Many of them are “goose-necked,” a much used word now in farmer conversations. The concern is, IF large ears develop, will the stalks be sturdy enough to support them? Or, will a large amount of “ear droppage” seriously reduce yields and profits? We continue to be optimistic, and are still hoping for corn yields of 190 bushels per acre, not far from our best year of 220 bushels.
Morning coffee conversations at the old limestone café have been fairly somber affairs this summer. (The general store has changed hands, but unfortunately, the watery coffee and the stale cookies have not improved.) Farmer faces were grim even before the storm, mainly because of what has happened to corn prices. In August 2012, local farmers were being offered $7.65/bushel [56 pounds] of corn; in August 2013, the price was $6.20/bushel, and on August 20, 2014, the price was $3.60/bushel. Suddenly the rush to buy new pick-ups and large harvesting equipment slowed drastically. John Deere, the major farm-equipment manufacturer, has already laid off hundreds of workers at various Iowa sites.
Orders have not stopped entirely, however, largely because of crop insurance. Virtually all farmers have either 75% or 85% revenue protection. If a combination of yield and/or price declines cause revenue to be less than 75% (85%) of normal, farmers are reimbursed by private insurance companies. The premiums for this revenue-protection insurance are heavily subsidized by the federal farm program. Taxpayers underwrite more than 60% of the total insurance premiums, which last year resulted in subsidies to farmers of about $9 billion. Historic yields are used in the insurance contract, and this year the early insurance lock-in price was $4.62/bushel. That price looked low in the spring, but now looks extremely favorable. Unfortunately, many of my neighbors chose the “wrong” insurance option. They were able to purchase 75% revenue protection for about $4.50/acre, whereas the 85% protection cost about $19/acre. For a farmer with 1500 acres of corn, the difference in insurance premiums was more than $20,000. But given declining corn prices, the cheaper insurance option for 2014 will surely turn out to be the most costly choice at the end of the season. Farm decision making these days is mostly about risk management, and that is why crop insurance was such a big element in the new farm program.
Perhaps the hottest topic of conversation at morning coffee centered again on wind, but not of the tornado variety. It turns out that “the wind comes sweeping down the plain” in Iowa as well as in Oklahoma. Iowa is the third-largest producer of wind energy, and wind power supplies a hefty 27 percent of Iowa’s total energy use. So why are my neighbors upset? It is something called the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL), and a bit of history is in order.
Image
The old Rock Island Line was a rail company—made more famous than it really deserved to be by Johnny Cash. The line ran five miles south of our farm, and yes, it was a “mighty fine line” that did carry cows, sheep, pigs, and mules. But it went bankrupt in 1975. The Rock Island Clean Line originally planned to use some of the old right-of- way for quite a different purpose—transporting wind-generated power from northwest Iowa on huge towers, with cables carrying direct-current electricity into the Illinois market to the east. It turned out, however, that too much of the old right of way went through urban areas and was unsuitable, so RICL will purchase some 500 linear miles of farmland right-of-way for the towers.
Farmers are rationally and irrationally furious. (The line was originally scheduled to go across the full length of our farm, so we have been directly involved in the discussions.) It has been extremely difficult to get straight answers about the line, with the company and the Iowa Utilities Board doing a dance in which neither wants to lead. There is no doubt that these140-foot towers create an ugly line of sight; they complicate farming with large machinery; and they seriously impact adjoining fields during the construction phase. The company believes that it is offering generous one-time compensation—the equivalent of $10,000 to $15,000 per acre in most cases—but it then retains easement rights to this land forever, including the authority to sell the rights. Farmers are livid—they basically do not want the line from which they will receive no benefits—but they are being faced with potential eminent domain proceedings if they do not agree to sell. All sorts of NIMBY arguments are being brought forward, from the “government can’t tell us what to do,” to “the lines will emit electrical forces that will cause health effects,” to “they are not paying enough,” to “why should we use good Iowa soil to transport electricity rather than to produce food for the hungry?” The last of these comments is the one I have heard most often. When I inquired as to whether the coffee group was also against ethanol—since 40% of Iowa corn is going into gas tanks rather than hungry mouths—I was NOT regarded as a helpful contributor to the conversation!
In the end, I suspect that the Rock Island Clean Line will prevail, and that farmers and their families will learn to accommodate the power towers. Many farmers will grumble publically, but smile privately en route to their banks with rather large checks. However, both the process and outcome have stirred up deep passions about who controls the land.
Not all farmers are sad this summer, and the winds of good fortune have blown in the direction of cattle feeders. The structure of cattle feeding in Iowa has changed enormously in recent times. I am the son of a mid-sized feeder, and spent a good deal of my youth working with cattle and driving cattle trucks. Most east Iowa farms these days are strictly grain farms, in large part to free farmers from the 24/7 burden of animal care. My neighbor talks about his corn-Texas crop rotation—growing corn in the summer and going to Texas for the winter.
Two black angus calves.
There are only two large cattle feeding operations left in Linn County where I live, and both are within four miles of our farm. I was invited by one of the owners to attend a cattle auction with him, and to see for myself just how much things had changed. He owns his own 18-wheeler, and almost every week takes a load (36 head) of prime beef to the auction. Cattle are taken to the auction pens the night before the sale and are taken off of feed and water. These steers weigh between 1400 and 1500 pounds, and buyers want assurance that the animals have not gorged on feed and water just before crossing the scales. The cattle are weighed early the morning of the sale, and weights are then flashed on a scoreboard as the animals enter the sale ring.
There is still an amazing amount of ritual at a cattle auction—I had forgotten just how much! Prime steers are typically sold in lots of 12 animals. They enter the ring from one side, and are moved about by a “ring man” so that buyers can get a good view of them. Part of the ritual is where various people sit. A small group of farmers/sellers sits in one section, typically bantering about whom has the best cattle and whose will “top the sale.” The buyers sit near the top of the bleachers, in the same spot each week, but separated from each other. (They would not want a casual conversation between them to be construed as collusion!) There is also the auctioneer with his chatter, mile-a-minute delivery, and selling antics. The sale itself happens very rapidly. There are typically two to four bidders for a particular lot of animals, and the bids go back and forth among them at lightning speed. The bidding cues are highly personalized—one buyer uses the flip of his tally sheet, another raises his index finger, and one simply arches his eyebrow. In less than 45 seconds, the winning buyer has spent $27,000! And then the next lot appears. Cattle from this sale went to packing plants in Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois.
On the 25-mile ride home, my neighbor talked about how pleased he was with what had happened. His steers had gained well and had topped the market in terms of price at $1.57 per pound. He said that corn was very cheap, as was distiller’s grain—the high protein by-product from making corn-based ethanol—which is now an important part of cattle feeding rations. There would be a healthy profit from this load of steers that had grossed about $80,000.
But then he turned somber. What should he do about next year? The price of 600-pound calves that he would put into the feedlot for feeding and sale next year are selling at the astronomical price of $2.50 per pound and even higher. Perhaps next year, he said, was the year to stay out of the ring and go to Texas or Arizona for the winter. Risk had reared its ugly head once again. But my neighbor is first and foremost a cattle feeder, with a cattle feeder’s mindset toward risk. My conjecture is that he will somehow find a rationale for purchasing replacement calves, and that he will do everything all over again next year.
Stanford-Sasakawa Peace Foundation New Channels Dialogue 2014
Energy Challenge and Opportunities for the United States and Japan
February 13, 2014
Bechtel Conference Center, Encina Hall, Stanford University
Sponsored and Organized by Sasakawa Peace Foundation (SPF) and Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (S-APARC) in Association with U.S.-Japan Council
Japan Studies Program at Shorenstein APARC, Stanford University has launched a three-year project from 2013 to create new channels of dialogue between experts and leaders of younger generations from the United States, mostly from the West Coast, and Japan under a name of "New Channels: Reinvigorating U.S.-Japan Relations," with the goal of reinvigorating the bilateral relationship through the dialogue on 21st century challenges faced by both nations, with a grant received from the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.
Frontiers in Food Policy: Perspectives on sub-Saharan Africa is a compilation of research stemming from the Global Food Policy and Food Security Symposium Series, hosted by the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The series, and this volume, have brought the world's leading policy experts in the fields of food and agricultural development together for a comprehensive dialogue on pro-poor growth and food security policy. Participants and contributing authors have addressed the major themes of hunger and rural poverty, agricultural productivity, resource and climate constraints on agriculture, and food and agriculture policy, with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa.
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Stanford Center on Food Security and the Environment
We compare the cost of generating electricity with coal and wind in Chile’s Central Interconnected System (SIC). Our estimates include the cost of marginal damages caused by coal plant emissions.
On average, we estimate that the levelized cost of coal, including externalities, is $84/MWh. It is efficient to abate emissions of air pollutants (SOx, NOx and PM2.5) but not of CO2. Then the cost wrought by environmental externalities equals $23/MWh, or 27% of total cost. Depending on the price of coal, the levelized cost of coal may vary between $72 and $99/MWh.
The levelized cost of wind is $144/MWh with capacity factors of 24%. This cost includes the cost of backup capacity to maintain acceptable loss of load probability (LOLP), which equals $13/MWh or 9% of total cost. The levelized cost of wind varies between $107/MWh with capacity factors of 35% to $217/MWh with capacity factors of 15%.
We conclude that wind is competitive only when it achieves capacity factors around 35% and coal prices are very high. So far the average annual capacity factor achieved by existing wind farms in Chile has been less than 20%, which suggests why wind has developed only slowly.
Two black angus calves.