The theme of the National Academy of Engineering’s 58th Annual Meeting, to be held Oct. 2-3, 2022, is “Energy Transitions.” NAE President John Anderson sat down to talk about the national and global transition to net-zero carbon emissions and how engineers — and NAE in particular — can support that shift.

This summer sent mixed signals about prospects for navigating climate change. We’ve seen more of the kinds of damaging extremes linked to climate change — wildfires in the West, severe flooding, Europe’s heat wave. But the U.S. also passed a law that will incentivize a major shift toward cleaner energy. So, how hopeful (or not) are you feeling right now, in terms of whether we can decarbonize swiftly enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change?

Anderson: When it comes to mitigating climate change and addressing the potential impacts on all living species on the planet, there’s a sense of urgency for all of us. The sooner we decarbonize, the better for our planet.

Significant changes in lifestyle around the world will be necessary, and we need to be mindful of the potential for deleterious effects on society if we go too fast, especially in economically disadvantaged countries. There are also energy security issues associated with the transition, and we’ve seen some of them already. Our objective is not just holding the temperature rise to less than one and a half or 2 degrees centigrade from its pre-industrial level, but also the health of society. And the health of society might not be linearly dependent on that goal.

Much technology has to be developed, not just on emissions, but on sequestration and all the other technologies we’re talking about to get to zero carbon. The transition from our current fossil hydrocarbon-based energy system to a net-zero carbon future is going to require a massive reconfiguration of our entire global energy system.

Efforts by our best engineering talent and science talent are essential if we’re going to succeed in maintaining the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. Scientists ask the question “what?” and they’ve done a very good job of modeling the climate and pointing out likely scenarios. Engineers differ in that they ask the question “how?” Now that we know what the goals are, we have to ask how we can achieve those goals – by what paths can we attain the net-zero carbon emission economy?

The “how” involves both technical and social hurdles, so the importance of the social sciences in reaching our goals is immense. We should not underestimate the challenge of convincing populations of the importance of making sacrifices now to realize benefits 30 years from now; human beings are not set up for that.

As we make that big transition, what should the priorities be for engineering? What key technological hurdles still need to be solved for that to happen?

Anderson: The first priority is to deploy known technologies that have been developed over the past 20 or 30 years to address easy-to-decarbonize processes. So what’s easy to decarbonize? HVAC in homes, local transportation around cities, electric vehicles, household appliances, and so on, because we have various solutions already available.

The second priority is research and development and deployment of new technologies to apply to difficult-to-decarbonize processes, which account for about 25% of the U.S. energy consumption. These are sectors like aviation, shipping, long-haul transportation, and energy-intensive manufacturing such as steel and cement. There’s no easy fix for these energy uses.

The third priority is adaptation. We know that even if we decarbonize now, we’re still going to have problems in the future. Extreme weather, sea rise, loss of Arctic ice, and so on — that’s not going to stop right away, even if CO2 emissions are cut to zero. We have to accept that and address it, and that’s where attention to equity will be important. A lot of low-income communities are in low-lying areas that are affected by hurricanes and flooding. We have to look at where the vulnerable places are and put money into more resilient infrastructure — and avoid new construction in the most vulnerable places.

I put together a list of actions that need to happen on a high level to decarbonize effectively, abbreviated as CARSS. The C refers to “Cross-disciplinary teams”; you need cross-disciplinary teams of engineers, physical scientists, social scientists, business leaders, and lawmakers acting in unison to effect positive change. The A refers to “Avoidance of unintended consequences,” which can occur even if you have good intentions. For example, Freon® was a godsend in that it saved lives — refrigerators no longer needed ammonia, so people didn’t get sick or die from contaminated food — but it put a hole in the ozone layer, which is an unintended consequence we are dealing with today. The R stands for “Resources,” which will be required to research, develop, and deploy new technologies including infrastructure building. The first S stands for “Systems approaches” — looking at things as a system – which is where engineers are at their best. And finally — and I think really importantly — the second S is “Social acceptance” of change and sacrifice. To me, social acceptance is going to be the most difficult.

If you want to learn more about what engineering can do, I suggest you tune in to the NAE Annual Meeting on October 3. The day begins with a special lecture by Dr. John Holdren, former presidential adviser and head of OSTP under President Obama. Dr. Holdren will address how we can meet the energy-climate challenge. Following the special lecture will be a forum on transitioning to net-zero carbon energy, with experts discussing the growth of solar energy, the development of modular nuclear reactors, carbon sequestration, and modification of the electric grid. Both of these events will be livestreamed to the public. These presentations are focused on how we can decarbonize our energy system.

You noted that there will be challenges and sacrifices involved in decarbonizing, but there will also be economic opportunities. How can the U.S. make the most of the economic opportunities offered by that transition?

Anderson: Government must play a role, as it has in the past, in nurturing the translation of new concepts to businesses. It will take subsidies to make the most of these opportunities. The internet did not happen without government subsidies, and the development of the oil and gas industry would not have happened as fast as it did without significant government subsidies to the industry.

There are and will be many opportunities. Wind power is pretty well developed now. In solar power, there will be tremendous opportunities, because it can scale from households to large solar farms; the cost is coming down, and efficiency has gone up. That actually touches people directly — you can put panels on rooftops and in some areas of the country produce more energy than the home needs — with the opportunity to “sell” the excess to the utility company. Improvements in battery technology also offer economic opportunities. There will be many opportunities in the developing technologies related to modular (small) nuclear reactors.

New technologies will always produce economic opportunities — just different opportunities than exist now, and they will require changes in the labor force. This will mean building the skilled technical workforce. And in fact, in the new CHIPS and Science Act, there’s money to support that.

Does NAE have work underway that can help inform the nation’s transition to a decarbonized economy?

Anderson: Yes — I’ll give you three examples. The first is my President’s Business Advisory Committee, which has formed working groups made up of its many members, most from industry but also some academics. They’re putting together a special edition of the NAE’s quarterly publication The Bridge focused on the energy transition, which will be written for both experts and non-experts. The papers in this edition will focus on the grid, reducing carbon in industrial processes, security and resilience in the energy system, the scale-up of wind and solar power, carbon capture techniques, and new modular nuclear reactors. We also have a working group on sustainability, which is a bigger issue than just decarbonization.

Another example is our National Academies study currently underway on how to lay the foundation for new and advanced nuclear reactors in the United States. Advanced nuclear technologies could play an important role in moving the United States towards a zero-carbon future, especially in service as a back-up energy supply complementing renewable sources like wind and solar. Next-generation nuclear reactors have the potential to be smaller, safer, less expensive to build, and better integrated with the modern grid.

The third example is our recently released report on accelerating decarbonization of the U.S. energy system. Both engineers and scientists served on the study committee. It contains data and recommendations for what must be done to accomplish deep decarbonization goals.

A study published last spring found that climate change science was not well understood by many engineering students. It found that only 30% of seniors surveyed across 66 programs understood the specific causes of climate change and how to address it. Given how central engineers are going to be in the energy transition, should engineering programs be doing something differently?

Anderson: I agree that engineering students should learn about climate change and its potential impacts; that should be incorporated into the undergraduate and graduate engineering curricula. And this is something that I hope is being brought up to accreditation boards of engineering programs.

In my final years of teaching thermodynamics in the chemical engineering department at Illinois Institute of Technology, I discussed some issues of energy as they relate to climate change. Knowing where CO2 sits on the free-energy scale is important when assessing technologies related to its capture and use. I would further argue that basic concepts of thermodynamics should be taught to all students, including humanists. If that happened, we’d have much more intelligent discussions of climate change, because these concepts are central to understanding the basic issues related to decarbonization and energy transitions.

You recently attended the presidential signing of the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. What are your hopes and expectations for how that law will impact American manufacturing and innovation?

Anderson: Well, I think it’s a great move. The CHIPS legislation will pump significant money into manufacturing, R&D, and education to recapture U.S. leadership in electronic chip technology. The government has to play a role; it’s not just the free market system. Other countries are supporting their technologies as well. And so the CHIPS part of it has appropriations of about $54 billion — that’s going to be great, and it’s going to help companies modernize.

Funds now authorized but not yet appropriated will increase both basic and use-inspired research at federal agencies. One notable initiative is establishment of the Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships at NSF — known as “TIPS” — designed to improve the translation of basic research to commercial development and innovation.

The legislation will have an effect not only on manufacturing and R&D but also on education. It appropriates funding for that purpose — from the skilled technical workforce required in manufacturing to the Ph.D. students researching new concepts of integrated circuits. This investment is going to produce more students in this area who, in turn, will go out and make great advances. So I think it’s really good for the nation — and especially good for the engineering community.