SustainabilityattheEnergy-Water-Food-ClimateNexusAIChE NorCal Symposium

JohnD.Wind,Ph.D.CEO,PartnersinSustainabilityIntegration

April28,2017

Overview

• Whatissustainability?• Climatechange• Energy• Water• Food• Waste• Solutions

– DigitalDecarbonization– STEAMEducation HarrisRanch,2014

WhatisSustainability?

• Allecosystemsaredynamic– Wecannotpreventsomechange– Changeneedstobemanagedandplanned

• Equilibrium– Doesnotmeansystemisstatic– Balanceisachieved

• MassandEnergyBalances– Input– output+generation=accumulation– Conservationofmass/energyholdsacrossallsystems

SustainableDevelopment:tomeettheneedsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds.-- Brundtland Commission(1987)

GlobalSustainability

• Water-Energy-Foodnexus

• Supply/Demand– populationgrowth

– economicgrowth

– resourceavailability

– climatechange

4Rockstrom et al., A safe operating space for humanity, Nature, 2009

SustainabilityChallengesandOpportunities

Energy• GHGemissions• Energysecurity• Reliability/Resiliency

Food/Feed/Fiber• Yields• Landuse• Inputs• Foodsecurity• Foodwaste

Water• Scarcity• Reliability• Quality

food/feedfiber

water/wastewater

fuel/heat/power

OverarchingIssues• ClimateChange• Biodiversity• Eutrophication

TheWorldin2050

Year CO2eEmissions

(GT)

WaterDemandGm3

Population(billion)

1990 34 36002010 46 6.92050 6.8 5500 ~9.5

Challenges• Willadd2.6billionpeoplefromnowuntil2050• Food,energyandwatersecuritywillbestronglyimpactedbyclimatechange

80%reductionvs.1990levels

Sources:USEPA,OECD,BrookingsInst.

ClimateSecurity

• WorldfaceshugechallengestostabilizeatmosphericGHGconcentrationstoenableclimatesecurity

• Paynoworpay(muchmore)later

• Mitigationandadaptationneeded

7

Source: U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2013

GlobalGHGEmissions

IPCC,2007

bygas bysource

GHGEmissionsPathForward

• Currentemissionstrajectoryis‘worstcasescenario’

• Theagreed-upontargetis2°Cwarmingcomparedtopre-industrial(we’recurrentlyat0.8°Cwarming)

MITSloan,2015

Next-GenerationProcessingFacilities

LEDs

LED lighting now displacing kerosene, candles and incandescents in developing countries

Haitz’s Law: every 10 years for LEDs● price decreases 10X● flux/unit increases 20X

Source: Zheludev, Nature, 2007

Additional benefits● LEDs reducing power consumption for displays (phones, tablets, TV)

SolarPVPriceDeclines

NREL,U.S.SolarPhotovoltaicSystemCostBenchmark,2016.

SolarPVMarketGrowth

SEIA/GTMResearchU.S.SolarMarketInsight™

EnergyStorage

LETTERS NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2564

0100200300400500600700800900

1,0001,1001,2001,3001,4001,5001,6001,7001,8001,9002,000

2005 2010 2015 2020Year

2025 2030

2014

US$

per

kW

h

95% conf interval whole industry95% conf interval market leadersPublications, reports and journals

News items with expert statementsLog fit of news, reports, and journals: 12 ± 6% decline

Additional cost estimates without clear methodMarket leader, Nissan Motors, Leaf

Market leader, Tesla Motors, Model SOther battery electric vehicles

Log fit of market leaders only: 8 ± 8% declineLog fit of all estimates: 14 ± 6% declineFuture costs estimated in publications

<US$150 per kWh goal for commercialization

Figure 1 | Cost of Li-ion battery packs in BEV. Data are from multiple types of sources and trace both reported cost for the industry and costs formarket-leading manufactures. If costs reach US$150 per kWh this is commonly considered as the point of commercialization of BEV.

100

1,000

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Cumulative MWh

Whole industry, LR = 9 ± 1.1% Log−log fit R = 0.99; p = 0.006Market leaders, LR = 6 ± 0.6% Log−log fit R = 0.99; p = 0.004Other industry, LR = 6 ± 1.6% Log−log fit R = 0.94; p = 0.031

2014

US$

per

kW

h

Figure 2 | Modelled experience curves for battery packs. Learning rate isbased on modelled cost data and estimated cumulative capacity for thewhole industry, market leaders, and other industry with market leaderssubtracted. Underlying uncertainty in cost data must be taken into accountwhen interpreting results.

most important, and costs as low as US$300 per kWh due to suchimprovements have been discussed2. Together with improvementsdue to economies of scale, a 12–14% learning rate is conceivable.A techno-economic explanation for the identified rapid decline incost is that the period since 2007 represents the earliest stage ofsales growth for BEVs. The estimates for the industry as a wholethus reflect a wide range of Li-ion battery variants at initiallylow production volumes, as well as necessarily immature batterypack production techniques among BEV manufacturers. A rapidlydeveloping and restructuring industry in its early phase could yieldhigh learning rates at pack level. However, the learning rate forNiMH batteries in hybrid vehicle applications have historicallybeen 9% (ref. 2), much closer to the modelled learning rates inthis paper. Hence, we believe that the 8% annual cost decline formarket-leading actors is more likely to represent the probable futurecost improvement for Li-ion battery packs in BEV, whereas the14% decline for the industry as a whole to some degree representsa correction of earlier, overestimated costs. It is likely that themanufacturers with the highest car sales at present will have the

most competitive battery pack costs and that these represent a morerealistic long-term learning rate. With a cost level of approximatelyUS$300 per kWh these market-leading actors now set the de factocurrent costs for state-of-the-art battery packs.

It can be expected that the cost gap between market leadersand the industry as a whole will narrow over the coming years. Insuch a scenario2, assuming continued sales growth of the order of100%, and using learning rates and cost declines identified in thispaper, there is a convergence of estimates of battery cost for thewhole industry and costs for market-leading car manufacturers in2017–2018 at around US$230 per kWh. This is significantly lowerthan what is otherwise recognized in peer-reviewed literature, andon par with the most optimistic future estimate among analystsoutside academia (by McKinsey), which stated in 2012 that US$200per kWh can be reached in 2020, and US$160 per kWh in 2025(ref. 15). From US$230 per kWh, costs need to fall a further third toreach US$150 per kWh, at which BEVs are commonly understoodas becoming cost competitive with internal combustion vehicles5.More recent academic studies find similar target costs16, but analystsof, for example, the US market suggest that competitiveness withinternal combustion vehicles is reached already at US$400 per kWhfor fuel cost of US$6 per gallon, and US$250 per kWh at US$3–4.5per gallon11,15, the latter range reflecting current conditions. TheInternational Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that parity withinternal combustion cars in general is reached at US$300 per kWh(ref. 17). However, there are large uncertainties in these typesof scenarios, and recent empirical research has found no clearcorrelation between fuel prices and actual BEV uptake18. BEV salesare taking o� at today’s cost of US$300 per kWh, but BEVs are still aniche product among early adopters. As well as lower battery costs,important explanatory factors behind this take-o� include publicincentive schemes, and the local or regional presence of charginginfrastructure and national manufacturers18, because each of thesecontribute to alleviating cognitive barriers10. However, if costs reachas low as US$150 per kWh this means that electric vehicles willprobably move beyond niche applications and begin to penetratethe market widely, leading to a potential paradigm shift in vehicletechnology.However, it should be noted that factors such as resourceavailability and environmental impacts from a life-cycle perspective

330 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 5 | APRIL 2015 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

Nykvist andNilsson,Nature,2015

• Batterycostreductionsexceedingprojections• TeslaGigafactory openedinReno

costparityw/InternalCombustionEngines

HeatandPowerDecarbonization

• Solar– Thermal– Electric– Cogen

• Wind• Bioenergy

– Biogas– Biologicalconversionofsugars,methane(syntheticbiology)– Thermochemicalconversion

• Geothermal• Wasteheatrecovery• Demandresponse• Smartgrids

PowerLawBehaviors

ChipFabricationTechnologies

• Traditionalphotolithography• Immersionlithography• Nanoimprint lithography• Self-assemblingmolecularelectronics

Moore’sLawtypebehaviorseeninLED,SolarPVlearningcurves

DataStorageCosts

HierarchyofNeeds

Humans(Maslow,1943)

Reliability

HESCompliance

Optimization

Sustainability

ProcessPlants

• Sustainability:plantsneedtooperatereliablywithexcellentHESperformanceinordertooptimize

• Optimizationconservesenergy,water,waste

BigDataandDigitalDecarbonizationTM

Convergenceoftechnologies• Lowcostcomputerprocessing• Lowcostdatastorage• Cloudcomputing• Bigdataanalytics• Pythonprogramminglanguage

• Optimization• Reliability• Efficiency

• Automationofknowledgework• Life-cycleassetoptimization

TransportSectorDecarbonization

CurrentLarge-Scale• CAFEstandards(lightweighting,turbocharging)• Biofuelsmandates• CNG(biogas)• HybridElectric,Plug-inHybrid,BatteryElectricVehicles• Ridesharing

Emergingtechnologies• MobilityasaService(MaaS)– integratedtransportalternatives

apps• V2G(Vehicle-to-Grid)integration

7

Economic frameworks to inform decision-making

infrastructure rather than in the raw resource, will address only a further 20 percent of the gap (Exhibit II). Even today, a gap between water demand and supply exists—when some amount of supply that is currently unsustainably “borrowed” (from nonreplenishable aquifers or from environmental requirements of rivers and wetlands) is excluded, or when supply is considered from the perspective of reliable rather than average availability.

If these “business-as-usual” trends are insufficient to close the water gap, the result in many cases could be that fossil reserves are depleted, water reserved for environmental needs is drained, or—more simply—some of the demand will go unmet, so that the associated economic or social benefits will simply not occur. The impacts of global climate change on local water availability, although largely outside the scope of this study, could exacerbate the problem in many countries. While such impacts are still uncertain at the level of an individual river basin for the relatively short time horizon of 2030, the uncertainty itself places more urgency on addressing the status quo challenge.

Exhibit II

Business-as-usual approaches will not meet demand for raw water

SOURCE: 2030 Water Resources Group – Global Water Supply and Demand model; IFPRI; FAOSTAT

1 Based on historical agricultural yield growth rates from 1990-2004 from FAOSTAT, agricultural and industrial efficiency improvements from IFPRI

2 Total increased capture of raw water through infrastructure buildout, excluding unsustainable extraction

3 Supply shown at 90% reliability and includes infrastructure investments scheduled and funded through 2010. Current 90%-reliable supply does not meet average demand

Billion m3

Historical improvementsin water productivity1

Demand with no productivity improvements

Remaining gap

Increase in supply2 underbusiness-as-usual

Existing accessible, reliable supply3

Today2

6,000

5,000

3,000

8,000

7,000

2030

Portion of gapPercent

20%

60%

20%

WaterSustainability

• Watersuppliesareatriskduetoscarcityanddegradationofwaterquality

• Majorrecentdroughts(e.g.Saõ Paulo,California,Madagascar)

2030WaterResourcesGroup,ChartingourWaterFuture,2009

WaterManagement

• Wastewatertreatment– Transitiontoresourcerecoveryfacilities– Recovercarbon,nitrogen,phosphorous– Becomenet-energyproducers

• Towardsdistributedtreatmentsystems(analogoustodistributedpowergeneration)– buildresiliency

• Waterreuse(withinfacilitiesandbetweenfacilities)• Brackishwaterutilization• Keysectors

– Ag– Thermo-electricpower– Industry– Municipaldrinkingandirrigationwater

coolingtower

Water-ClimateNexusinCalifornia

• 2011-2016– Extreme/ExceptionalDrought

• 2017– Recordprecipitation– 560”snowatKirkwoodSkiResort– OrovilleDamspillwaybreach

• DirectPotableReuse• Climatechangeandwater:somespecificissues• California:exceptionaldroughttorecordprecipitation,Oroville

Damexample– Atmosphericriversandclimatechange– Subsidence,groundwateroverdraft– Groundwaterstorage(aquiferrecharge)

• Climatechangeandairquality(e.g.ozone,PM2.5)

FoodWaste– MajorOpportunity• FoodwasteislargesourceofGHGemissions

– LabelingchangesinU.S.

• Reducefoodwasteby:– Improvedlogisticsandinformationaccess– Improvedpackagingand– Bettermonitoringofthermalhistoryofproduce(e.g.RFIDtags)

USEPAFAO,2011

RankingSustainabilityInvestments

• Discountedcashflowanalysistocompareinvestmentalternatives

• Probabilisticeconomicanalysis• Assignvaluetosustainabilitymetrics

– Carbonmarketpriceandsocialcostofcarbon– Valueofwater(notthecostofwater)

• Sensitivityanalysis• Riskanalysis

Source:Wikimedia

Automation,AIandLaborMarket

• AutomationandArtificialIntelligence(AI)willradicallytransformtheU.S.andglobaleconomies

• Socialandeconomicimpacts– Supply/Demandbalanceforlabor– Socialstability

• Advancedmanufacturingopportunities– Deepdecarbonization– Waterconservation– Minimalwastegeneration&emissions

STEAMEducation

• WehaveaneducationalcrisisintheUnitedStates• BetsyDeVos willmakethingsworse• PartnersinSustainabilityIntegrationisworkingwithOlimpico

LearningonSTEAMeducationinRichmondandOakland• BenefitsofSTEAM

– Rebuildinganinformedsociety– DevelopskillstoactuallymakeAmericagreat,areal leader

ConcludingThoughts

• Processengineeringisausefulframeworktounderstandsynergiesandtrade-offsinmanagementofenergy,water,foodandwastematerials

• Systems-levelactioniscritical• ReducingGHGemissionscanbeachievedacrossallsectorsof

economybyapplyingadvancedtechnologyandbestoperatingpractices

• AGoldenAgeofchemicalengineeringmaybeemergingduetoadvancedcomputingandautomationcapabilities