Spring 2014 EMERGING ISSUES IN EARTH RESOURCES ENGINEERING

The BRIDGE LINKING ENGINEERING AND SOCIETY

Geothermal Energy: An Emerging Option for Heat and Power Roland N. Horne and Jefferson W. Tester Shale Gas Development: Opportunities and Challenges Mark D. Zoback and Douglas J. Arent Supplying Society with Natural Resources: The Future of Mining—From Agricola to Rachel Carson and Beyond Leigh W. Freeman and R. Patrick Highsmith Mining Goundwater for Sustained Yield John D. Bredehoeft and William M. Alley Carbon Dioxide Capture, Utilization, and Storage: An Important Part of a Response to Climate Change Sally M. Benson and S. Julio Friedmann Geologic Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel: An Earth Science Perspective John A. Cherry, William M. Alley, and Beth L. Parker

The mission of the National Academy of Engineering is to advance the well-being of the nation by promoting a vibrant engineering profession and by marshalling the expertise and insights of eminent engineers to provide independent advice to the federal government on matters involving engineering and technology. The BRIDGE

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING

Charles O. Holliday Jr., Chair C.D. (Dan) Mote Jr., President Maxine L. Savitz, Vice President Thomas F. Budinger, Home Secretary Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Foreign Secretary Martin B. Sherwin, Treasurer

Editor in Chief: Ronald M. Latanision Managing Editor: Cameron H. Fletcher Production Assistant: Penelope Gibbs The Bridge (ISSN 0737-6278) is published quarterly by the National Aca­demy­ of Engineering, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20418.

Periodicals postage paid at Washington, DC. Vol. 44, No. 1, Spring 2014 Postmaster: Send address changes to The Bridge, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20418. Papers are presented in The Bridge on the basis of general interest and time- liness. They reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily the position of the National Academy of Engineering. The Bridge is printed on recycled paper. C © 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

A complete copy of The Bridge is available in PDF format at www.nae.edu/TheBridge. Some of the articles in this issue are also avail- able as HTML documents and may contain links to related sources of information, multimedia files, or other content. The Volume 44, Number 1 • Spring 2014 BRIDGE LINKING ENGINEERING AND SOCIETY

Editors’ Note 3 Emerging Issues in Earth Resources Engineering Mary P. Anderson and Charles Fairhurst

Features 7 Geothermal Energy: An Emerging Option for Heat and Power Roland N. Horne and Jefferson W. Tester Renewed interest in geothermal energy is the result of world economic and political forces as well as its environmental attributes, high capacity factor, base load character, and technological advances that make it more accessible. 16 Shale Gas Development: Opportunities and Challenges Mark D. Zoback and Douglas J. Arent The development of shale gas resources in an environmentally responsible manner presents a critical opportunity to move toward decarbonizing the global energy system. 24 Supplying Society with Natural Resources: The Future of Mining—From Agricola to Rachel Carson and Beyond Leigh W. Freeman and R. Patrick Highsmith Emerging and affluent economies make challenging bedfellows when weighing the value of structural steel against the value of a bird’s song. 33 Mining Goundwater for Sustained Yield John D. Bredehoeft and William M. Alley The long response time of groundwater systems can complicate the task of managing this valuable resource. 42 Carbon Dioxide Capture, Utilization, and Storage: An Important Part of a Response to Climate Change Sally M. Benson and S. Julio Friedmann Carbon capture with storage in deep geological formations is a critical tool for achieving large and rapid emission reductions in the coming decades. 51 Geologic Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel: An Earth Science Perspective John A. Cherry, William M. Alley, and Beth L. Parker A geologic setting with appropriate engineered barriers offers good prospects for containment in a secure long-term deep geological repository of nuclear waste.

(continued on next page)

The BRIDGE

NAE News and Notes 60 Tribute to NAE President Emeritus Charles M. Vest 61 NAE Class of 2014 65 Message from Outgoing NAE Vice President Maxine Savitz 67 National Academy of Engineering 2013 Donor Recognition 80 NAE Newsmakers 83 2014 National Meeting 84 2013 EU-US Frontiers of Engineering Held in Chantilly, France 86 Mirzayan Fellows Join Program Office 87 New NSF Grant Supports Expansion of NAE’s Online Ethics Center 87 Energy Ethics in Science and Engineering Education— Project Outcomes 88 Educating Engineers to Meet the Grand Challenges 88 Calendar of Meetings and Events 88 In Memoriam

90 Publications of Interest

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self- The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National perpetuating society of distin­ guished­ scholars engaged in scientific Acade­my­ of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and appropriate pro­fes­sions in the examination of policy matters pertaining technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the author- to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility ­ity of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional char- has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal gov­ernment­ on ter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, The National Research Council was organized by the National under the charter of the Nation­ al­ Academy of Sciences, as a parallel Academy of Scienc­ ­es in 1916 to associate the broad community of organization of outstand­ ing­ engineers. It is autonomous in its adminis- science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of fur­ther­ing tration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National knowledge and advising the federal government. Func­tion­ing in Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal gov­- accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the ernment. The National Academy of En­gineer­ ing­ also sponsors engi- Council has become the principal operating agency of both the neering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages edu- National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engi- cation and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of neering in providing services to the government, the public, and the engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy scientific and en­gi­neer­ing communities. The Council is administered of Engineering. jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair­ and vice chair, respec- tively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org FALL 2006 3 Editors’ Note

lithosphere—the deepest mine is 4 km and the deep- est borehole 12 km. Traditionally, engineers work at relatively small spatial and temporal scales relevant to a specific site (e.g., a mine) or facility (e.g., a spoils pile), while earth scientists are concerned with much larger scales as they study whole Earth processes. However, in recent decades this distinction has blurred as engineers design on bigger scales and longer time periods (e.g., geological repositories for high-level radioactive waste) and earth scientists provide input on site-scale problems Mary P. Anderson Charles Fairhurst (Cornet 2014, Chapter 1; DOE 2007). In 2008 the NAE published a report on grand chal- Mary P. Anderson (NAE) is professor emerita, Department of lenges for engineering (NAE 2008), which prompted Geoscience, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Charles Fairhurst (NAE) is senior consultant, Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis, the Academy’s ERE section to develop some grand chal- and professor emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, University lenges specific to ERE (NAE Section 11 2010). The six of Minnesota. papers in this issue of the Bridge highlight some emerg- ing issues in ERE related to those challenges. Four of the Emerging Issues in Earth six papers discuss extraction of earth resources: energy resources (shale gas/oil and geothermal), minerals, and Resources Engineering groundwater; the other two concern challenges of car- Earth resources engineering (ERE) has roots in min- bon sequestration to deal with the consequences of ing and petroleum engineering but more broadly is burning fossil fuels and geological repositories for high- engineering applied to the discovery, development, level radioactive waste resulting from the production of and production of subsurface earth resources such as nuclear energy. minerals, hydrocarbons, groundwater, and geothermal energy. Production of such resources includes mineral Grand Challenges for Earth Resources processing and the application of technology for envi- Engineering ronmental remediation. Earth resources engineers also The overarching grand challenge for ERE is “to supply apply technology to isolate industrial waste products society with its essential needs for energy, minerals, and (e.g., radioactive wastes and CO2) from the biosphere groundwater and to use the earth itself as a resource for and to protect people and facilities from extreme protecting people and the environment” (NAE Sec- events at the surface, both natural (e.g., earthquakes, tion 11 2010, p. 3). This in turn comprises four specific severe weather, landslides, volcanic eruptions) and challenges: (1) make the earth “transparent,” (2) quan- human-made. tify and engineer subsurface processes, (3) minimize the Earth resources engineers are trained in one or more environmental footprint, and (4) protect people. of the following disciplines: mining engineering, petro- “Transparent earth” implies the ability to “see” into leum engineering, geological engineering, rock mechan- the subsurface. It requires technologies capable of imag- ics, geomechanics, hydrogeology, and geophysics. As in ing the subsurface—analogous, in principle, to medi- other branches of engineering, interdisciplinary inter- cal technologies for imaging the human body. With action among engineers and scientists is at the core of new technologies such as geophysical tomography and ERE research, development, and application. nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging from bore- Problems in ERE occur at many different spatial and holes engineers can “see” into the subsurface, but it is temporal scales. In most continental areas the Earth’s still not possible to image in real time more than a few crust is approximately 40 km thick, but extraction of meters from a borehole or tens of meters ahead of a tun- earth resources is restricted to the relatively shallow nel-boring machine, nor is there a cost-effective way to The 4 BRIDGE

Earth resources engineers strive to protect workers from hazards associated with extraction of earth resources and to protect people and essential facili- ties from adverse surface effects (Winquest and Mell- gren 1988). The subsurface can be engineered to house urban infrastructures such as transportation corridors, water pipes, and electrical cables; and to store waste products, especially high- level radioactive waste.

The Long Transition to a Sustainable Future FIGURE 1 Coupled thermal, hydrologic, mechanical, and chemical processes important in the Resource sustainability can subsurface. These processes are quantified in numerical models to help plan the extraction of energy, mineral, and groundwater resources and the prevention, mitigation, and remediation of resulting be defined to mean that adverse effects. Rxns = reactions. Reprinted with permission from Yow and Hunt (2002). sufficient energy, mineral, and water resources will monitor the fracture systems that control the deforma- be available for future generations. Mineral and water tion of a rock mass and flow of groundwater. resources are sustainable, whereas fossil fuels are not Hydrologic, mechanical, thermal, and chemical (Tinker et al. 2013). Furthermore, renewable energy processes in the subsurface are intricately coupled in resources are site-specific and currently supply only a complex interactions (Figure 1). These processes are small fraction of US energy needs: renewable energy important to the production of oil and gas and geother- (mainly hydroelectric and wind with lesser amounts of mal resources, exploration for mineral deposits (because geothermal, solar, and biofuels) provided just 9 percent the processes control the precipitation of minerals), of US energy consumption in 2011, nuclear energy 8 design of minimally invasive borehole mining methods, percent, and fossil fuels 83 percent (DOE 2013a, Figure subsurface storage of wastes, remediation of contami- 52, p. 60).1 By 2040, renewables are predicted to con- nated soils and groundwater, and earthquake prediction tribute 13 percent, nuclear 9 percent, and fossil fuels and control. Numerical models are essential tools to 78 percent (DOE 2013a, Figure 52, p. 60). The transi- forecast the effects of subsurface processes, but the gen- tion to renewable sources of energy is under way but eral lack of data and uncertainties involved dictate an it will take many decades. During this transition to a approach designed to gain understanding and explore new energy future, it is essential that hydrocarbons and potential tradeoffs and alternatives, rather than make nuclear resources be developed in a manner that pro- absolute predictions as in other branches of engineering tects people and the environment. (Starfield and Cundall 1988). In this issue, Roland Horne and Jefferson Tester To minimize any adverse environmental effects, (2014) review the current status and potential of geo- earth resources engineers develop and implement tech- thermal energy; especially promising are geothermal res- nologies to remediate and protect groundwater, surface ervoirs enhanced by induced fracturing. Widespread use water, soils, and the landscape both during and after of renewable energy is in the future but in the meantime extraction of earth resources. For example, remedia- technological advances may spur further exploitation of tion might include application of nanotechnology and numerical models of subsurface processes to help design 1 DOE (2013b) provides information about current and projected implementation strategies. global energy use. SPRING 2014 5

fossil fuels. For example, the recent development of gas John Cherry, William Alley, and Beth Parker (2014) and oil from low-permeability shales, made possible by examine the long-standing problem of disposal of spent new technology for horizontal drilling and hydraulic fuel and other high-level waste (HLW) from nuclear fracturing, has fundamentally transformed the world’s power production. All of the more than 30 countries immediate energy future by turning vast unconven- that have stockpiles of HLW have opted for isolation in tional gas resources into reserves, as described by Mark subsurface geological repositories. In the United States Zoback and Douglas Arent (2014). the geological repository at the Waste Isolation Pilot With recycling, substitution, and the potential for Plant (WIPP) site in Carlsbad, New Mexico, has stored mining the ocean and ocean floor, the Earth’s supply of transuranic (intermediate-level, long-lived radioactive) minerals is enormous and may be limitless (Price 2013). waste since 1999, and Finland, France, and Sweden are However, mineral deposits are dependent on geology far advanced in developing HLW sites (although none and are not evenly distributed around the world. Leigh has yet opened). The US Nuclear Regulatory Commis- Freeman and R. Patrick Highsmith (2014) use socioeco- sion requires isolation of HLW for one million years— nomic arguments to show that development of mineral much longer than the current existence of the human resources, while essential to the well-being of society, race! Formulating a risk assessment strategy to guar- comes at a nonnegligible price to both the environment antee isolation in a subsurface repository on the scale and society. Addressing those environmental and soci- of geologic time is a formidable challenge facing earth etal concerns in a complex international political and resources engineers. social milieu is a critical challenge for earth resources We hope this collection of papers will inform readers engineers, as is remediation of damage from past mining of the scope and importance of ERE and also stimulate operations and minimization of such effects in the future. interest in the challenges and opportunities ahead. Water is a renewable resource, limitless in principle, but one that requires sound management (Bredehoeft Acknowledgments 2013). Groundwater resources will become increasingly We thank Bill Alley, Lyn Arscott, Brian Clark, Brent important in providing clean water for drinking as well Hiskey, Roland Horne, Yannis Yortsos, and Mark as industrial and agricultural uses. Groundwater use Zoback for providing helpful comments on a draft of this will also increase if droughts become more prevalent as introduction. We also thank the following who each a result of climate change. In this issue John Brede- reviewed one of the papers in this issue: Lyn Arscott, hoeft and William Alley (2014) explain the challenges Grant Ferguson, Steven Gorelick, Brent Hiskey, Erik of managing groundwater systems subject to a long Webb, and one anonymous reviewer. response time—potentially hundreds of years—from the time pumping begins until a new sustainable equi- References librium is established. Benson SM, Friedmann SJ. 2014. Carbon dioxide capture, Requirements to mitigate adverse effects of resource utilization, and storage: An important part of a response to development—such as loss of water from rivers and climate change. The Bridge 44(1):42–50. wetlands as a result of groundwater pumping, and con- Bredehoeft J. 2013. US water resources: Cleaner, and more tamination from the subsurface disposal of high-level valuable. In: The Impact of the Geological Sciences on radioactive waste, drilling fluids, and mining byproducts Society, Special Paper 501. Bickford ME, ed. Boulder: Geo- (waste rock, slurry, and water)—bring about additional logical Society of America. pp. 53–68. challenges. Two articles address global-scale waste dis- Bredehoeft JD, Alley WM. 2014. Mining groundwater for sus- posal problems. tained yield. The Bridge 44(1):33–41. Sally Benson and Julio Friedmann (2014) discuss Cherry JA, Alley WM, Parker BL. 2014. Geologic disposal subsurface storage of carbon dioxide generated by of spent nuclear fuel: An earth science perspective. The hydrocarbon-burning power plants as well as possibili- Bridge 44(1):51–59. ties for CO2 utilization. While carbon capture and stor- Cornet FH. 2014 (in press). Elements of Crustal Geomechan- age (CCS) would have to be implemented on a massive ics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. scale just to slow climate change, the authors make the DOE [US Department of Energy]. 2007. Basic research case that CCS could be an important part of a global needs for geosciences: Facilitating 21st century energy response to changing climate. systems. Report from the workshop held February 21–23. The 6 BRIDGE

Sponsored by the DOE Office of Basic Energy Sciences. Special Paper 501. Bickford ME, ed. Boulder: Geological Available at science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/reports/ Society of America. pp. 1–20. files/geo_rpt.pdf. Starfield AM, Cundall PA. 1988. Towards a Methodology DOE. 2013a. Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with projections for Rock Mechanics Modelling. International Journal of to 2040. DOE/EIA-0383. Available at www.eia.gov/fore- Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics casts/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf. Abstracts 25(3):99–106. DOE. 2013b. International Energy Outlook 2013. DOE/ Tinker SW, Lynch H, Carpenter M, Hoover M. 2013. EIA-0484. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/ Global energy and the role of geosciences: A North pdf/0484%282013%29.pdf. American perspective. In: The Impact of the Geo- Freeman LW, Highsmith RP. 2014. Supplying society with logical Sciences on Society, Special Paper 501. Bick- natural resources: The future of mining—From Agricola to ford ME, ed. Boulder: Geological Society of America. Rachel Carson and Beyond. The Bridge 44(1):24–32. pp. 21–52. Horne RN, Tester JW. 2014. Geothermal energy: An emerg- Winquest T, Mellgren KE. 1988. Going Underground. Stock- ing option for heat and power. The Bridge 44(1):7–15. holm: Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences. NAE [National Academy of Engineering]. 2008. Grand Chal- Yow J, Hunt J. 2002. Coupled processes in rock mass perfor- lenges for Engineering. Available at www.engineeringchal- mance with emphasis on nuclear waste isolation. Interna- lenges.org/cms/8996/9221.aspx. tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences NAE Section 11. 2010. Grand Challenges in Earth Resources 39(2):143–150. Engineering. Available at https://www.nae.edu/106328.aspx. Zoback MD, Arent DJ. 2014. Shale gas development: Oppor- Price J. 2013. The challenges of mineral resources for soci- tunities and challenges. The Bridge 44(1):16–23. ety. In: The Impact of the Geological Sciences on Society, Renewed interest in geothermal energy is the result of world economic and political forces as well as its environmental attributes, high capacity factor, base load character, and technological advances that make it more accessible.

Geothermal Energy An Emerging Option for Heat and Power

Roland N. Horne and Jefferson W. Tester

Geothermal energy could be called an “underground” renewable energy source not only because of its physical origin but also because its impor- tance remains largely unknown to many decision makers and members of the Roland N. Horne public. Although historically high oil prices in the early 1980s stimulated a substantial expansion of geothermal capacity, there followed a period of very slow growth for almost 20 years. The past several years, however, have been a boom time for international geothermal energy development, with sub- stantial interest and activity in the United States and many other countries.

Background The geothermal resource base consists of thermal energy stored in the Earth’s crust to a prescribed depth—usually taken to be about 10 km, which is acces- sible using current drilling technologies. Heat is produced in the form of steam or hot water at the surface from wells that tap into permeable and porous regions of hot rock. Jefferson W. Tester

Roland N. Horne (NAE) is Thomas Davies Barrow Professor of Earth Sciences, Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, and past president of the International Geothermal Association (2010–2013). Jefferson W. Tester is Croll Professor of Sustainable Energy Systems, director of the Cornell Energy Institute, and associate director for energy at the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future, Cornell University. The 8 BRIDGE

Geothermal energy development uses the heat of Geothermal sources are already being used to pro- the Earth either directly or by conversion to electricity. vide clean energy in commercial applications in many The energy can be used directly to provide heating (e.g., countries. In 2012 they were the fourth largest renew- for district heating, industrial process heat, agriculture, able source of electricity in the United States (behind aquaculture, and balneology and spas) or to generate hydro, wind, and biomass). Geothermal energy plants, electricity in a power cycle. Electric power is generated with their underground energy supply, have smaller from hydrothermal systems using two types of systems: surface footprints than hydro, wind, or solar and are open cycle dry steam (or flash) plants that make use of capable of baseload generation with a low-carbon emis- the natural produced fluids extracting power in a tur- sion profile and without a need for storage because bine, and binary plants with a closed Rankine cycle that they are not subject to daily or seasonal intermittency uses an organic working fluid to exchange heat with the (Tester et al. 2007). geothermal fluid before being expanded in a turbine. As with any energy source, however, there are envi- In addition, geothermal heat pumps draw on thermal ronmental concerns: (1) water consumption for hydrau- energy in shallow wells, trenches, ponds, and lakes, sig- lic stimulation and long-term productivity, particularly nificantly improving the electrical efficiency of heating in arid regions, and (2) risk of induced seismicity, because and air conditioning by factors of four or more over air- most operating geothermal plants are located in seismi- to-air heat pumps. cally active regions; geothermal development projects High-grade hydrothermal systems use natural fluids must therefore include careful measurements, monitor- that either occur in the subsurface region of the geother- ing, and management of seismicity levels to mitigate the mal reservoir or have been injected into the reservoir to risk of enhancing or triggering damaging seismic events. sustain flows and pressure. The natural replenishment Geothermal energy in the United States varies of heat in active reservoirs by thermal conduction and regionally in importance. Western states are advantaged convection with proper subsurface system management geologically because they have extensive areas of recent enables the sustainable use of geothermal energy. If the volcanism resulting in high heat flows and geothermal region of hot rock has insufficient natural fluids, perme- gradients. California and Nevada in particular benefit ability, and/or porosity, these can be stimulated using from this energy source, with about 6 percent of their enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) technology to cre- total electricity generation from conventional geother- ate a connected open fracture network that simulates mal reservoirs in 2010 (Table 1). Geothermal energy the characteristics of a conventional (natural) hydro- also provides electrical generation in Hawaii, Oregon, thermal system. Utah, Alaska, and Idaho, and accounts for significant

TABLE 1 2010 Renewable electricity profiles for California and Nevada, from Energy Information Administration data released March 2012 (www.eia.gov). GWhr = gigawatt-hour; MSW = municipal solid waste.

Generation (in GWhr) California (CA) CA percent Nevada (NV) NV percent Total Electricity Net Generation 204,126 100.0 35,146 100.0

Total Renewable Net Generation 58,881 28.8 4,444 12.6

Geothermal 12,600 6.2 2,070 5.9

Hydro (conventional) 33,431 16.4 2,157 6.1

Solar 769 0.4 217 0.6

Wind 6,079 3.0 0 0

Wood/wood waste 3,551 1.7 0 0

MSW biogenic/landfill gas 1,812 0.9 0 0

Other biomass 639 0.3 0 0 SPRING 2014 9

direct use in the West (e.g., municipal district heating facilities in Boise, Idaho, and Klamath Falls, Ore- gon). Recent drilling activ- ity for oil and gas in shale deposits has helped to refine quantitative assessments of geothermal resources in Eastern states, which have lower average heat flows and temperature gradients. While these lower-grade areas are not attractive for electricity generation using conventional hydrothermal conversion technology at today’s energy prices, they FIGURE 1 Actual and projected world geothermal electricity, installed generating capacity (mega- could be competitive for watts; MW), and total produced electrical energy (gigawatt hours; GWh), 1950–2020. Reprinted with permission from Bertani (2010). direct use and cogeneration applications. In addition, many areas make extensive expected to exceed 18,000 MWe (Figure 1). use of geothermal heat pumps in residences and com- This renewed interest is the result of world economic mercial buildings. and political forces—mainly increased oil prices and moral preference for renewable energy—combined with National and International Expansion advances in technology that make geothermal energy The United States is currently the world leader in both more accessible. There have been three particularly sig- geothermal electrical generation and deployment of nificant innovations in utilization technologies: geothermal heat pumps, with over a million units in 1. Increasing use of innovative power plants, often by operation. Internationally, geothermal energy has been marrying steam turbine (flash) plants with binary used to great advantage in places that are geologically cycle plants or using cogeneration approaches for suitable. For example, Iceland, the Philippines, El Sal- providing both heat and electric power. The result vador, Tibet, and New Zealand produce 20 percent or is an increased recovery of thermal energy in the more of their electrical energy from geothermal sourc- resource. es—in Iceland, these resources supply 95 percent of the 2. Use of fluids of lower temperature, with refined country’s heating demand and 20 percent of its electri- binary cycle power plants. The result is a wider cal demand. Iceland also makes use of cascaded systems availability of producible resources. A noteworthy that deliver energy for a range of uses below the boiling example is the 250 kilowatt (kW) organic Rankine point of water (Fox et al. 2011). cycle plant in Chena Hot Springs, Alaska, which Although slowed somewhat by the financial crisis of produces electricity from a very low temperature 2008–2009, installed geothermal generating capacity in (74°C) geothermal resource (Lund et al. 2010a). the United States has steadily risen, and between March 3. Reservoir enhancement techniques. Over the past 2012 and March 2013 147 MWe (megawatts electrical 35 years, many EGS field projects at various scales output) of capacity, or 4 percent of the 2012 total of have been under development globally. The first 3,385 MWe, was added (GEA 2013). Similar expansions commercial EGS plant began operation in Landau, are occurring in many other countries, with an increase Germany, in 2007 (Schellschmidt et al. 2010), and of 1,782 MWe in installed capacity worldwide (from by 2013 active EGS field projects were operating at 8,933 to 10,715 MWe) between 2005 and 2010 (Ber- three sites in Europe, one in Australia, and five in tani 2010). By 2015, worldwide generating capacity is the United States. The 10 BRIDGE

These innovations offer exciting challenges and solar operations in Ahuachapán (Alvarenga et al. 2008; opportunities in earth resources engineering. Handal et al. 2007) and Stillwater, Nevada (Greenhut et al. 2010). The combination of geothermal and solar ther- Innovative Plants mal energy provides an opportunity to raise source fluid For many years geothermal power plants had a degree temperatures and even out the inherent intermittency of uniformity thanks to the general adoption of strate- of insolation. The combination of solar photovoltaic gies that had worked in the small number of early flash and geothermal sources allows for increased generation plants. Based on experience in the dry steam fields at in the hot afternoon, when the air-cooled condensers of the Geysers in California, the 55 MW plant came to geothermal binary plants are at their lowest efficiency. be accepted as “normal” in size, and based on reservoir Other designs combining gasified biomass and geother- temperatures common at the time turbine inlet pressures mal heat are under consideration (Tester et al. 2010). tended to be in the vicinity of 600 kilopascals (kPa). Innovation will certainly continue with new hybrid Recently, however, there has been considerable energy combinations for the supply of heat and pow- variation in plant design. A good example is the com- er and for the possible use of geothermal reservoirs to bined cycle plant at Rotokawa, New Zealand, one of the sequester CO2 generated from fossil fuel power plants first built with binary bottoming cycles supplied from (Randolph and Saar 2011). the exhaust of a steam flash plant. It combines a back- pressure steam turbine that has a very high inlet pres- Lower Resource Temperatures sure (2,550 kPa) with multiple binary cycle plants that In a cross-sectoral study of US energy use, Fox and col- receive the exit steam (Legmann and Sullivan 2003). leagues (2011) estimated energy consumed as a function This combined cycle unit has a steam consumption of of temperature. By integrating the demand from the around 5 kg/kWh (kilowatt hour), which is superior to lowest temperature to higher temperatures, they deter- the steam consumption of about 8 kg/kWh at the Gey- mined that about 20 percent of US total primary energy sers (computed from data in Sanyal and Enedy 2011) or (20 exajoules out of 100 exajoules annually) is used at around 9 kg/kWh in Ahuachapán, El Salvador (Handal or below the boiling point of water (100oC or 212oF). et al. 2007). Much of this energy is supplied by burning heating oil and gas, an incredible waste as higher-grade electricity could be generated from these hot combustion gases before they are used for heating applications at lower There is also interest in the temperatures. Direct use of low-temperature geothermal fluids would avoid this large exergy loss as geothermal combination of geothermal supply temperatures are closer to temperatures for end- generation with other sources, use applications. Geothermal heat pumps, which use energy stored in such as solar thermal energy. rock and soil near the surface in horizontal trenches or vertical wells, are increasing the efficiency of energy use to heat and cool residences and commercial buildings. Combinations of binary and flash plants are now A key metric of their efficiency is the coefficient of per- found in several other projects and in some cases have formance (COP), a direct measure of the net heating or been integrated into a range of direct uses and other cooling achieved per unit of electricity consumed. As applications. An excellent example of such integration a heat source during the winter and a heat sink in the is the Svartsengi power plant on Iceland’s Reykjanes summer, the COP of geothermal heat pumps averages 4 Peninsula. It provides hot water and CO2 for a range or more, which is substantially higher than conventional of uses—fish farming, carbon recycling, enhanced crop air-to-air heat pumps can achieve. For this reason the use and algae growth in geothermally heated and lighted of geothermal heat pumps is growing: worldwide there greenhouses and photobioreactors, and warm water for were about 3 million units installed in 2013, over four the Blue Lagoon spa resort. times the number installed in 2000 (Lund et al. 2010b). There is also interest in the combination of geother- Lower geothermal resource temperatures can also mal generation with other sources, as in the geothermal- be used to produce electricity in binary power plants. SPRING 2014 11

FIGURE 2 Net megawatt (MW) capacity of a geothermal well as a function of temperature. The productivity index (PI) is defined as the ratio of the volumetric flow rate of produced fluid divided by the pressure drop through the reservoir. l/s/bar =liters/second/bar. Reprinted with permission from Sanyal et al. (2007).

Although not yet common, there are examples of remote 2011). The global oil industry produces as much as 300 or isolated electrical loads such as at Chena Hot Springs million barrels of water per day (540,000 kg/sec) and in (Lund et al. 2010a), which is tens of kilometers from the many places the temperatures are within the range of closest electrical transmission line and would otherwise operational geothermal power plants. Oil field opera- be dependent on diesel-fueled generation. In fact, there tions are often also substantial consumers of electrical are many off-grid communities in Alaska that could ben- power, so the generation of electricity local to the oper- efit from geothermal electricity generation in place of ation is of particular benefit. diesel fuel, which is very costly to supply to these remote The importance of resource temperature is somewhat areas and often leads to significant local emissions pollu- more complex than appears at first. Although in simple tion. An active drilling program is under way at Akutan terms it is true that hotter is better, there remains a “hole” Island in the Aleutian chain (Kolker and Mann 2011), in resource accessibility because self-flowing steamwater and similar advantages are to be gained in island com- wells in hydrothermal systems drop substantially in pro- munities such as in the Caribbean (Huttrer 2010). ductivity at temperatures below a certain range, while As electricity production from lower temperatures in pumped wells the downhole pumps are effective only becomes more common, another intriguing possibility up to a specific temperature range. This was succinctly is the recovery of geothermal energy from coproduced described by Sanyal and colleagues (2007), who showed fluids, such as water brought to the surface in oil fields. that a gap lies roughly between 190 and 220°C, where Pilot projects are in operation in Wyoming (Johnson neither pumped nor self-flowing wells provide sufficient and Walker 2010) and Huabei, China (Gong et al. thermal output (Figure 2). This resource temperature The 12 BRIDGE gap represents a technological challenge that is being outcome has been the creation of the National Geo- addressed by the geothermal industry. thermal Data System (www.geothermaldata.org/), which incorporates new data on subsurface tempera- Enhanced Geothermal Systems tures and on new geologic and geophysical information. Although new conventional geothermal reservoirs are For example, in New York and Pennsylvania alone, being discovered and exploited, the fact remains that where there has been considerable activity in the past the likelihood of major conventional resource discov- few years associated with drilling for gas in the Marcel- eries is diminished. The world is not likely to have lus Shale, the number of wells included in the geother- another resource like the California Geysers or the mal resource assessment database has increased from high-density, high-grade hydrothermal systems found about 20 to 7,400 (Aguirre et al. 2013; Shope et al. in tectonically and/or volcanically active areas such 2012; Stutz et al. 2012). as Iceland, New Zealand, Italy, and Indonesia. Even New data and other enhancements have led to updat- the most optimistic estimates of undeveloped hydro- ed geothermal resource maps for heat flow, gradients, thermal systems in the United States would amount and temperature at specific depths. Figure 4 provides to only about 20 to 30 GWe, just a few percent of an example for the continental United States of tem- the current total electric generating capacity of about peratures at a depth of 5.5 km, which is well within 1,000 GWe. accessible drilling depths using conventional drilling The prospect for major expansion of geothermal technology. Substantial portions of the East and Mid- development lies in EGS when one or more of the three west also have attractive geothermal gradients that critical ingredients for an operable system are lacking: could be used if technology were in place to extract sufficient reservoir permeability and porosity, sufficient the energy. Such a development would fundamentally quantities of natural steam or hot water in the reservoir, change the belief that geothermal energy is found only and sufficiently high temperatures (Figure 3). in regions with high-grade hydrothermal systems. Using A large effort, led by the US DOE with support from EGS technology, the nation as a whole could enjoy the private industry, is under way to improve the quality 5–6 percent geothermal electricity production found in of US geothermal resource information. An important California and Nevada today. EGS provide a means of using geothermal energy when hydrothermal condi- tions are not ideal, that is, when natural conditions in the host rock do not provide sufficient fluid content and/ or connected permeability. The idea behind EGS is to emulate what nature pro- vides in high-grade hydro- thermal reservoirs at depths where rock temperatures are sufficient for power or heating applications. A fractured reservoir is stimu- lated hydraulically and con- nected to an injection and production well separated FIGURE 3 The continuum of geothermal resources as a function of average temperature gradient, by sufficient distances to natural connectivity, and fluid content. Relative values of permeability (k) and porosity (φ) indicate effective ranges in natural geologic settings. The arbitrary scale for permeability is the ratio between yield a sustainable system the effective permeability of the entire geothermal system relative to a very permeable unconsoli- for extracting the stored dated sand. Adapted from Thorsteinsson et al. (2008). ∇T = geothermal temperature gradient. thermal energy in the rock. SPRING 2014 13

EGS research started in the 1970s with the Hot Dry Rock (HDR) project, led by the Los Alamos National Laboratory with the support of the Energy and Development Admin- istration (predecessor of the US Department of Energy). This first HDR reservoir, at the Fenton Hill site near a large hydrothermal sys- tem in the Valles Caldera of northern New Mexico, had very low permeability and porosity in crystalline rock at depths ranging from 3 to 5 km. In Figure 3, the Fenton Hill site would be FIGURE 4 Rock temperature contours at a vertical depth of 5.5 km for the continental United located in the conduction- States, based on updated bottomhole temperature and geologic data and predictions. Reprinted with permission from Blackwell and Richards (2011). dominated region, with rock matrix permeabilities less than a microdarcy and Conclusion o porosity with an average gradient of about 60 C/km. Geothermal energy has experienced a renaissance in the During the past 35 years a number of large-scale EGS past ten years as many new technologies and countries demonstration projects followed, in Rosemanowes, UK; have joined the industry. The technology for generat- Soultz, France; Cooper Basin, Australia; Landau, Ger- ing electricity and deploying district heating from high- many; Basel, Switzerland; and Japan (two sites); and grade hydrothermal systems is relatively mature and the United States added sites at Newberry Caldera in reliable. Technologies for geothermal heat pumps are Oregon, the Geysers and Clear Lake in California, and also mature and are being deployed at increasing rates Desert Peak, Nevada. in the United States and Europe. The use of innova- These demonstration tests have done much to estab- tive hybrid and combined heat and power plants, lower lish the technical feasibility of the EGS concept, show- resource temperatures, and enhanced reservoir stimu- ing the feasibility of directional drilling to 5+ km and lation methods are making geothermal energy acces- o 300 C, of hydraulically stimulating and seismically sible in a much greater variety of places. At a number mapping 2+ cubic km regions of rock, and of producing of field test sites in the United States and elsewhere, sustained flow and heat extraction between injection EGS technologies are being demonstrated at a scale that and production wells in the stimulated region. is approaching commercial levels and, if operated long But there remain several important challenges before enough to prove sustained production, would enable the EGS will be ready for commercial development: an deployment of a substantially increased fraction of the increase in production rates by a factor of 2 to 4 to reach huge geothermal resource base, which for the United levels comparable to those of commercial hydrothermal States amounts to about 14 million exajoules (Tester reservoirs, the achievement of sustained production et al. 2007). with sufficient reservoir thermal lifetimes, and demon- stration of the effective application of EGS technol- References ogy over a range of geologic conditions. An MIT-led Aguirre GA, Stedinger JR, Tester JW. 2013. Geothermal study (Tester et al. 2006, 2007) and recent IPCC report resource assessment: A case study of spatial variability and (Goldstein et al. 2011) provide detailed evaluations of uncertainty analysis for the states of New York and Pennsyl- the technical and economic requirements and deploy- vania. Proceedings of the 38th Workshop on Geothermal ment status and potential of EGS. Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, February 11–13. The 14 BRIDGE

Alvarenga Y, Handal S, Recinos M. 2008. Solar steam booster Geothermal Project: Five years of operation. International in the Ahuachapán geothermal field. Geothermal Resourc- Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, September. es Council Transactions 32:395–399. Lund JW, Gawell K, Boyd TL, Jennejohn D. 2010a. The Unit- Bertani R. 2010. Geothermal power generation in the world: ed States of America country update 2010. Proceedings 2005–2010 update report. Proceedings World Geothermal World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April 25–29. Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April 25–29. Lund JW, Freeston DH, Boyd TL. 2010b. Direct utilization Blackwell D, Richards M. 2011. Map of rock temperatures at of geothermal energy 2010 worldwide review. Proceedings 5.5 km depth for the continental US. Based on 2011 geo- World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April 25–29. thermal resource database provided by the SMU Geother- Randolph JB, Saar MO. 2011. Combining geothermal energy mal Laboratory, Dallas, Texas. Available at http://smu.edu/ capture with geologic carbon dioxide sequestration. Geo- geothermal/GeothermalMap/geothermalmap.html. physical Research Letters 38:L10401. Fox DB, Sutter D, Tester JW. 2011. The thermal spectrum of Sanyal SK, Enedy SL. 2011. Fifty years of power generation low-temperature energy use in the United States. Energy at the Geysers geothermal field, California: The lessons and Environmental Science 4(10):3731–3740. learned. Proceedings of the 36th Workshop on Geother- GEA [Geothermal Energy Association]. 2013. Annual US mal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, January Geothermal Power Production and Development Report, 31–February 2. April. Available at www.geo-energy.org. Sanyal SK, Morrow JW, Butler SJ. 2007. Net power capacity Goldstein B, Hiriart G, Bertani R, Bromley C, Gutiérrez- of geothermal wells versus reservoir temperature: A prac- Negrín L, Huenges E, Muraoka H, Ragnarsson A, Tester J, tical perspective. Proceedings of the 32nd Workshop on Zui V. 2011. Geothermal energy. In: IPCC Special Report Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Miti- January 22–24. gation. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth Schellschmidt R, Sanner B, Pester S, Schulz R. 2010. Geo- K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, Zwickel T, Eickemeier P, Hansen thermal energy use in Germany. Proceedings World Geo- G, Schlömer S, Von Stechow C, eds. Cambridge and New thermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April 25–29. York: Cambridge University Press. Shope EN, Reber TJ, Stutz GR, Aguirre GA, Jordan TE, Tes- Gong B, Liang H, Xin S, Li K. 2011. Effect of water injec- ter JW. 2012. Geothermal resource assessment: A detailed tion on reservoir temperature during power generation in approach to low-grade resources in the states of New York oil fields. Proceedings of the 36th Workshop on Geother- and Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the 37th Workshop on mal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, January Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, 31–February 2. January 30–February 1. Greenhut AD, Tester JW, DiPippo R, Field R, Love C, Stutz GR, Williams M, Frone Z, Reber TJ, Blackwell D, Jor- Nichols K, Augustine C, Batini F, Price B, Gigliucci G, dan T, Tester JW. 2012. A well by well method for esti- Fastelli I. 2010. Solar-geothermal hybrid cycle analysis for mating surface heat flow for regional geothermal resource low enthalpy solar and geothermal resources. Proceedings assessment. Proceedings of the 37th Workshop on Geo- World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia, April 25–29. thermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Janu- Handal S, Alvarenga Y, Recinos M. 2007. Geothermal steam ary 30–February 1. production by solar energy. Geothermal Resources Council Tester JW, Blackwell D, Petty S, Richards M, Moore MC, Transactions 31:503–510. Anderson B, Livesay B, Augustine C, DiPippo R, Nich- Huttrer GW. 2010. 2010 Country update for Eastern Carib- ols K, Veatch R, Drake E, Toksoz N, Baria R, Batchelor bean Island nations. Proceedings World Geothermal Con- AS, Garnish J. 2006. The future of geothermal energy: An gress, Bali, Indonesia, April 25–29. assessment of the energy supply potential of engineered Johnson LA, Walker E. 2010. Oil production waste stream, a geothermal systems (EGS) for the United States. Massa- source of electrical power. Proceedings of the 35th Work- chusetts Institute of Technology and Department of Energy shop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford Uni- Report, for the US DOE Idaho National Laboratory, INL/ versity, February 1–3. EXT-06-11746 (2006) presented at the 32nd Workshop on Kolker A, Mann R. 2011. Akutan Geothermal Project. Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP) Forum, March. January 22–24, 2007. Available at http://geothermal.inel. Available at http://alaskarenewableenergy.org. gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf. Legmann H, Sullivan P. 2003. The 30 MW Rotokawa I Tester JW, Anderson BJ, Batchelor AS, Blackwell DD, DiP- SPRING 2014 15

ippo R, Drake EM, Garnish J, Livesay B, Moore MC, Nich- opportunities for lower grade geothermal resources in the ols K, Petty S, Toksoz MN, Veatch RW, Baria R, Augustine Northeast: A case study of the Cornell site in Ithaca, NY. C, Murphy E, Negraru P, Richards M. 2007. Impact of Proceedings of the Geothermal Resources Council Annual enhanced geothermal systems on US energy supply in the Meeting, Sacramento, CA, October 24–27. twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Thorsteinsson H, Augustine C, Anderson BJ, Moore MC, Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Tester JW. 2008. The impacts of drilling and reservoir Sciences 365:1057–1094. technology advances on EGS exploitation. Proceedings of Tester JW, Joyce WS, Brown L, Bland B, Clark A, Jordan T, the 33rd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Andronicos C, Allmendinger R, Beyers S, Blackwell D, Stanford University, January 28–30. Richards M, Frone Z, Anderson B. 2010. Co-generation The development of shale gas resources in an environmentally responsible manner presents a critical opportunity to move toward decarbonizing the global energy system.

Shale Gas Development Opportunities and Challenges

Mark D. Zoback and Douglas J. Arent

The use of horizontal drilling and multistage hydraulic fracturing tech- nologies has enabled the production of immense quantities of natural gas, to date principally in North America but increasingly in other countries around Mark D. Zoback the world. The global availability of this resource creates both opportunities and challenges that need to be addressed in a timely and effective manner. There seems little question that rapid shale gas development, coupled with fuel switching from coal to natural gas for power generation, can have ben- eficial effects on air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy security in many countries. In this context, shale gas resources represent a critically important transition fuel on the path to a decarbonized energy future. For these benefits to be realized, however, it is imperative that shale gas resources be developed with effective environmental safeguards to reduce their impact on land use, water resources, air quality, and nearby communities.

Background Douglas J. Arent Geologists have long known that large amounts of organic matter and natu- ral gas are trapped (usually by clay and other fine-grained minerals) in many

Mark D. Zoback (NAE) is a professor of geophysics at Stanford University. Douglas J. Arent is executive director of the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. SPRING 2014 17

shale formations. The principal reason these forma- tions have not been exploited is their extremely low permeability (the measure of the ease with which fluids flow through them): on average, it is about 6 orders of magnitude lower than that of conventional oil and gas reservoirs. As a result, commercial production of shale gas did not take off until about a decade ago, when the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic frac- turing were used extensively in the Barnett Shale in the Ft. Worth/Dallas area of north-central Texas. To access trapped natural gas, the operator drills a ver- tical wellbore to near the depth of the shale (Figure 1), typically about 2–3 km (Fisher and Warpinski 2011). During the drilling, steel casing is cemented into the well to stabilize the wall of the wellbore and to prevent FIGURE 1 Artist’s rendering of a horizontal well drilled for well fluids from contaminating the geologic formations shale gas production (courtesy N. Fuller, SayoStudio.com). The cased and cemented wellbore is drilled vertically to 2–3 km and being drilled through. It is particularly important to pro- then is drilled horizontally through the shale for about 1.5 km. tect shallow aquifers from contamination as these could be a current or future source of potable water. When the turing fluid consists of acid, an organic viscosifier (to well almost reaches the depth of the shale, its direction help suspend the proppant), and other chemicals that is deviated as the drilling shifts to progressively higher reduce friction, prevent growth of microorganisms, and angles until the wellbore is horizontal through the layer reduce corrosion of the casing. of shale that contains the natural gas. The length of this Because of shale’s extremely low permeability, it is horizontal section averages about 1.5 km, although this only through the use of horizontal drilling and multistage varies by region. Pad drilling is quite common, in which hydraulic fracturing that commercial quantities of natural multiple wells (commonly 4 to 12, but as many as 75) gas can be produced. It is worth noting that these tech- are drilled at the same site to optimize the efficiency nologies are also proving to be quite successful in stimu- of drilling operations. This approach also dramatically lating oil production in low-permeability oil reservoirs in lowers the amount of land used, new road and pipeline geologic formations in North America and elsewhere. construction, and overall impact on communities. Once this drilling is completed, the horizontal section Opportunities is typically fully cased and cemented. (Alternatively, a A number of gains are already apparent from the wide- length of steel tubing is run into the well with attached spread development of North American shale gas packers that isolate the sections of the wellbore to be resources, including the direct economic benefit of hydraulically fractured.) Small shape charges are then jobs created, taxes paid, and overall stimulus associated used to perforate the casing in the sections of the well with development activities and royalty payments to to be hydraulically fractured. the mineral interest owners. According to IHS (2012), As discussed in detail by King (2012), hydraulic frac- unconventional oil and gas development in the Unit- turing uses water at elevated pressure to extend frac- ed States is responsible for approximately 1.7 million tures through the shale. The fracturing is done in stages, jobs, $63 billion in federal, state, and local taxes, and starting at the toe of the well (the most distant part) and an overall contribution to the US economy of $238 working back toward the heel (closest to the vertical billion. IHS predicts that both the number of jobs and section). A wellbore that extends 1.5 km laterally may economic benefits will roughly double by 2020. be hydraulically fractured in 10 to 20 stages spaced more In addition, many other countries that are now heav- or less evenly along its length. ily dependent on coal for electricity generation are Fracturing fluids used for shale formations are usually considering development of their domestic shale gas 99 percent water and sand, which is used as a proppant resources (Figure 2). When natural gas is used for elec- to hold open the hydraulic fractures when the well goes trical power generation in place of coal it has the poten- into production. Approximately 1 percent of the frac- tial to reduce postcombustion CO2 emissions by more The 18 BRIDGE

But to realize the many benefits of enhanced use of natural gas, it is critically important for shale gas resources to be developed safely and in an environ- mentally responsible and socially acceptable manner.

Challenges: Limiting the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Development Development of shale gas resources is a large-scale industrial process that involves drilling tens of thousands of wells, carrying FIGURE 2 Technically recoverable shale gas resources in selected countries. TCF = trillion cubic out hundreds of thousands feet. Based on data from US Energy Information Agency (EIA 2011, Table 1-3). of hydraulic fracturing operations, and building than 50 percent (see discussion below under Methane numerous roads and pipelines. Associated environ- Emissions and Greenhouse Gases). Thus a substantial mental concerns include surface contamination due shift from coal to natural gas in China, Australia, South to spills; localized increases in air pollution resulting Africa, and countries in Europe could result in a signifi- from drilling, trucking, and hydraulic fracturing opera- cant reduction in global CO2 emissions. tions; potential contamination of subsurface aquifers by In the United States, for example, coal-generated hydraulic fracturing; the use of large quantities of fresh electricity produces roughly 2 billion metric tonnes of water in arid regions; the safe disposal of wastewater; CO2 annually. But in the past six years a switch from and the cumulative impact of traffic, drilling opera- coal to natural gas, along with continued growth in tions, and road and pipeline construction on residents renewables and expansion of energy efficiency measures, and ecosystems. In addition, land disturbance and com- has resulted in a 20 percent reduction of CO2 emissions munity issues such as truck traffic raise concerns. associated with electrical power generation. In China, The industrial nature of shale gas development, the on the other hand, coal-generated electricity currently rights of owners to access their mineral resources, and produces about 7 billion tonnes of CO2 each year, and the need for reasonable setback distances from residen- growth in energy consumption over the next ~25 years tial communities (currently 150 m or less in many juris- is expected to double these emissions. Preventing such dictions) introduce tensions among developers, mineral a dramatic increase in emissions should be a first-order rights owners, and land owners. Even in traditional oil global priority among efforts to combat climate change. and gas regions such as Weld County, Colorado, where Increased natural gas use mitigates air pollution, more than 18,000 wells have been drilled in recent thanks to the absence of mercury and particulate mat- years and most residents have been strongly supportive ter in flue gas as well as significantly reduced sulphur of the industry, recent activities at the edge of residen- content. It also significantly reduces emissions of NOx tial communities have given rise to discussions about (e.g., NO and NO2), approximately 70 percent of which appropriate setbacks from residential property lines and are from oxidation of the nitrogen in the coal. Hence, subdivisions. switching from coal to natural gas would lead to signifi- Environmental issues generally fall into four main cate- cant health and quality-of-life improvements, especially gories—air, land, water, and community (Figure 3)—and in large urban centers in the developing world and in shale gas development may affect them all. We address coal mining communities. three issues about which there has been widespread SPRING 2014 19

concern: potential con- tamination of groundwater by drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations, earth- quakes triggered by injec- tion of flowback water, and methane emissions.

Groundwater Contamination Most of the wastewater associated with shale gas development is flowback from the shale formation after hydraulic fracturing operations.1 It may con- tain salt, elements such as selenium, arsenic, and iron, and small amounts of natu- rally occurring radioac- tive materials, all of which come from the gas-produc- ing shale formations. Practices related to water usage and treatment are rapidly evolving and improving. In some areas, for example, nearly all of FIGURE 3 Risk factors associated with large-scale shale gas development. GHG = greenhouse gas; the flowback water is reused VOC = volatile organic compound. for the hydraulic fracturing of subsequent wells, thus returning the contaminants to 3,000 meters deep) and well separated from the much the shale formations from which they originated. This shallower depth of aquifers (typically less than a few hun- reduces both the need for new sources of water and con- dred meters). The vertical distribution of microseismic cerns associated with truck traffic and wastewater dis- events that occur during hydraulic fracturing (Fisher and posal. In other areas, brackish or saline water is used for Warpinski 2011) clearly shows more than 1,000 meters drilling and hydraulic fracturing, thus minimizing the of separation between the shallowest events and the use of fresh water. deepest aquifers. Second, once the shale gas wells go into There is also concern that hydraulic fracturing could production, the pressure in the shale decreases markedly facilitate methane migration from the depth of the shale and the direction of water flow in the rocks above the to that of near-surface aquifers. This is not occurring for formation is downward (i.e., into the shale below). two reasons. First, the shale gas formations produced to In apparent support of these arguments, detailed stud- date in North America are quite deep (typically 2,000– ies of groundwater contamination in areas of shale gas development have consistently shown that hydraulic 1 Numerous publications have addressed water issues related to the fracturing itself is not the source of the contamina- availability, quantity, transport, and treatment of produced water tion; rather, the contamination appears to result from (or other aboveground operations) as well as contamination of poor well construction or poor drilling practice (see, for local aquifers via underground methane contamination (Heilweil et al. 2013; Jackson et al. 2012, 2013; Molofsky et al. 2013; Olm- example, Jackson et al. 2012, 2013). stead et al. 2013; Rahm and Riha 2012; Rahm et al. 2013; Vengosh Regarding well construction, King (2012) and King et al. 2013; Warner et al. 2012). and King (2013) discuss the importance of preventing The 20 BRIDGE contamination of aquifers and/or methane leakage and into the shale during subsequent hydraulic fracturing identify many operational issues that require close atten- operations (as mentioned above). tion to achieve proper construction. Krupnick and col- When injection wells are used for disposal, some leagues (2013) surveyed experts from industry, academia, straightforward steps can reduce the probability of trig- NGOs, and the government about their opinions of the gering seismicity (Zoback 2012), such as avoiding injec- most likely source of accidents leading to environmental tion into potentially active faults. This seems obvious, impacts. The view of all four groups is that the greatest but characterization studies are generally not required potential for groundwater contamination is associated before siting injection wells. Other steps include man- with poor well construction (see Figure 5 and Table 16 aging injection rates to minimize pore pressure increases in Krupnick et al. 2013) and, in particular, failure of at depth (i.e., injecting at lower rates in a single well or the casing and/or cement. To minimize environmental using multiple injection wells), monitoring pore pres- impacts of shale gas development, the Secretary of Ener- sure changes at depth, and installing local seismic moni- gy Advisory Board (SEAB 2011, p. 16) recommended toring arrays if there are reasons to be concerned about that industry “adopt best practices in well development triggering seismicity. In addition, it would be helpful to and construction, especially casing, cementing, and establish protocols in advance that define how opera- pressure management. Pressure testing of cemented cas- tions should be modified in the event of seismicity. ing and state-of-the-art cement bond logs should be used Operators need to be prepared to alter injection opera- to confirm formation isolation.” tions and, if necessary, abandon an injection well.

Methane Emissions and Greenhouse Gases The final issue of public concern that we address briefly Some straightforward steps is air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, can reduce the probability of specifically emissions from vehicles and engines at drill sites; methane emissions that occur during drilling, triggering seismicity. hydraulic fracturing, and well production; and emissions associated with transmission and distribution (which are not unique to shale formations and are the subject Earthquakes of considerable study, as detailed below). Although hydraulic fracturing operations very rarely Air pollution results from the concentration of diesel trigger earthquakes, a number of small to moderate engines that run generators and heavy equipment at a earthquakes in recent years appear to be associated drill site and the truck traffic associated with drilling with an increase in the rates and volumes of injected activities. For example, when hydraulic fracturing oper- flowback water (NRC 2012 and accompanying video at ations are under way, large diesel engines run at near http://youtube/Uuh9lHavdvc). It has been known since full capacity almost 24 hours a day. Options are being the 1960s that the increase in pore pressure that results evaluated for the use of natural gas engines and hybrid from injection may trigger seismicity by decreasing the natural gas–renewable systems (e.g., taking advantage normal stress on potentially active preexisting faults and of local solar or wind resources), particularly for rela- thus triggering the release of stored elastic strain energy. tively modest power needs such as those for control and In effect, the pore pressure increase from fluid injection monitoring systems and communications. advances the timing of an earthquake that would even- The accidental release of methane during shale gas tually have occurred as a natural geologic process. development has garnered attention in the academic The permeability and overall capacity of a formation literature and general media and has become a subject of determine the rates and volumes of wastewater that research. There are two principal approaches to measur- can be injected. There are approximately 150,000 EPA ing such emissions: bottom up and top down. Bottom- Class II injection wells in the United States that are up studies focus on emissions related to the production used for wastewater disposal. In regions without suit- and delivery of natural gas, normally following the pro- able geologic formations for such injection (i.e., regions cess steps from drilling to well completion. Top-down without laterally extensive porous and permeable saline studies focus on atmospheric measurements and infer aquifers at depth), flowback water can be injected back emissions from well fields or other sources. SPRING 2014 21

Most of the bottom-up studies have involved mod- eling or analysis (Logan et al. 2012 and references therein; Alvarez et al. 2012; O’Sullivan and Paltsev 2012; Weber and Clavin 2012); only one used a rig- orous inventory (Logan et al. 2012). They typically take a life cycle approach and compare methane emis- sions on the basis of gCO2/ unit energy equivalent to CO2, focusing on the use of natural gas for power gen- eration and thus reporting gCO2eq/MWh (grams of CO2 equivalent per mega- watt hour of generation). A number of these stud- ies were provoked by the claim of Howarth and col- leagues (2011) that using shale gas for electrical FIGURE 4 An equivalent basis life cycle analysis for assessing the equivalent CO2 emissions of power generation would using natural gas for electrical power generation instead of coal. Low EUR and high EUR refer to cause more climate damage estimates of the average estimated ultimate recovery from the wells. When the EUR is high, the relative importance of a given amount of fugitive methane release is diminished. NGCC = natural than coal per unit of energy gas combined cycle. Reprinted with permission from Logan et al. (2012). produced. This study has been widely criticized because it did not do a life cycle do not reflect the heterogeneity of shale production assessment (for example, it did not include the sig- across the nation. nificant CO2 emission reductions that result from the Furthermore, nearly all LCA comparisons have used efficiency of natural gas combustion compared to coal) a 100-year global warming potential (introduced by the and it assumed much larger estimates of methane leak- IPCC [2007]) as a benchmark. Others have proposed age than indicated by other studies (see Burnham et al. alternative indicators (e.g., Alvarez et al. 2012; IPCC 2012; Hultman et al. 2011; Jiang et al. 2011; Laurenzi 2013), pointing to the utility of metrics for net benefits and Jersey 2013; Stephenson et al. 2011). and emission rates, particularly for the use of natural gas A standardized comparison (Figure 4) shows that life for transportation. cycle assessment (LCA) studies are in general agree- Naturally, it is also important to eliminate leakage in ment that the GHG intensity of natural gas–derived the pipeline and distribution system, as methane leakage power is about 50 percent of that of coal-derived to the atmosphere has a significant deleterious effect on power—much lower than suggested by Howarth and global warming. Full climate modeling to assess the long- colleagues (2011). However, robust, verified data are term (e.g., up to the year 2100) radiative forcing from incomplete, and it is of paramount importance for the methane leakage would provide valuable information to scientific community to pursue detailed data collection, help resolve questions and determine appropriate steps. verification, and analysis. The best information avail- Top-down studies of potential methane emissions able, which shows moderate ranges across the LCA from shale operations typically use atmospheric measure- studies, should be viewed with caution because of com- ments and a range of techniques to span a wide spatial mon underlying assumptions and EPA inventories that scale (city to continent) and temporal scale (months to The 22 BRIDGE decades). They systematically find larger emissions than IHS. 2012. America’s New Energy Future: The Unconven- predicted by inventory-based LCAs (Petron et al. 2012; tional Oil and Gas Revolution and the US Economy, vol 2: Townsend-Small et al. 2012; Wennberg et al. 2012). State Economic Contributions. Englewood, CO. Although these methods can distinguish biogenic emis- IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. 2007. sions from fossil sources, they cannot identify the source Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of of the fossil methane emissions. Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Pachauri RK, Reisinger A, eds. Geneva. A Path Forward IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science The development of shale gas resources in an environ- Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assess- mentally responsible manner presents a critical oppor- ment Report of the IPCC. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner tunity to take a major step toward decarbonizing the GK, Tignor MMB, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia global energy system. There is much concern about Y, Bex V, Midgley PM, eds. New York: Cambridge Uni- inexpensive natural gas crowding out renewable energy versity Press. sources such as wind and solar, but fast startup and effi- Jackson RB, Vengosh A, Darrah TH, Warner NR, Down A, cient combined-cycle natural gas plants will complement Poreda RJ, Osborn SG, Zhao K, Karr JD. 2012. Increased such renewable energy resources by providing reliable stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells backup power regardless of the time of day or weather near the Marcellus Shale gas extraction. Proceedings of conditions. It is therefore important for countries around the National Academy of Sciences 110(28): doi: 10.1073/ the world to implement energy policies that allow for iti2813110, 11213–11214. the effective development and use of natural gas while Jackson RE, Gorody AW, Mayer B, Roy JW, Ryan MC, Van continuing to deploy renewable energy sources. Stempvoort DR. 2013. Groundwater protection and uncon- ventional gas extraction: The critical need for field-based References hydrogeological research. Groundwater 51(4):488–510. Alvarez RA, Pacala SW, Winebrake JJ, Chameides WL, Ham- Jiang M, Griffin WM, Hendrickson C, Jaramillo P, Van- burg SP. 2012. Greater focus needed on methane leakage Briesen J, Venkatesh A. 2011. Life cycle greenhouse gas from natural gas infrastructure. Proceedings of the National emissions of Marcellus Shale gas. Environmental Research Academy of Sciences 109(17):6435–6440. Letters 6:034014. Burnham A, Han J, Clark CE, Wang M, Dunn JB, Palou- King G. 2012. Hydraulic fracturing 101: What every rep- Rivera I. 2012. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale resentative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, inves- gas, natural gas, coal, and petroleum. Environmental Sci- tor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer should ence and Technology 46:619−627. know about estimating frac risk and improving frac perfor- EIA [US Energy Information Agency]. 2011. World Shale Gas mance in unconventional gas and oil wells. Presentation Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside at the Society of Petroleum Engineers Hydraulic Fractur- the United States. Washington: US Department of Energy. ing Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, February 6–8 Fisher K, Warpinski N. 2011. Hydraulic fracture-height (SPE 152596). growth: Real data. SPE 145949, presented at the Society King G, King DE. 2013. Environmental risk arising from well of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and construction failure: Difference between barrier and well Exhibition, Denver, October 30–November 2. failure, and estimates of failure frequency across common Heilweil VM, Stolp BJ, Kimball BA, Susong DD, Marston well types, locations and well age. Presentation at the Soci- TM, Gardner PM. 2013. A stream-based methane moni- ety of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference toring approach for evaluating groundwater impacts associ- and Exhibition, New Orleans, September 30–October 2 ated with unconventional gas development. Groundwater (SPE 166142). 51(4):511–524. Krupnick A, Gordon H, Olmstead S. 2013. Pathways to Dia- Howarth RW, Santoro R, Ingraffea A. 2011. Methane and the logue: What the Experts Say about the Environmental greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale forma- Risks of Shale Gas Development. Washington: Resources tions. Climatic Change 106:679–690. for the Future. Hultman N, Rebois D, Scholten M, Ramig C. 2011. The Laurenzi IJ, Jersey GR. 2013. Life cycle greenhouse gas emis- greenhouse impact of unconventional gas for electricity sions and freshwater consumption of Marcellus shale gas. generation. Environmental Research Letters 6:044008. Environmental Science and Technology 47(9):4896–4903. SPRING 2014 23

Logan J, Heath G, Macknick J, Paranhos E, Boyd W, Carlson SEAB [Secretary of Energy Advisory Board]. 2011. SEAB K. 2012. Natural Gas and the Transformation of the US Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Second 90-Day Energy Sector: Electricity. Technical Report No. NREL/ Report – Final (November). Washington: US Department TP-6A50-55538. Golden, CO: Joint Institute for Strategic of Energy. Available at www.shalegas.energy.gov/resourc- Energy Analysis. es/111811_final_report.pdf. Molofsky LJ, Connor JA, Wylie AS, Wagner T, Farhat SK. Stephenson T, Valle JE, Riera-Palou X. 2011. Modeling 2013. Evaluation of methane sources in groundwater in the relative GHG emissions of conventional and shale Northeastern Pennsylvania. Groundwater 51(3):333–349. gas production. Environmental Science and Technology NRC [National Research Council]. 2012. Induced Seismicity 45:10757−10764. Potential in Energy Technologies. Washington: National Townsend-Small A, Tyler SC, Pataki DE, Xu X, Christensen Academies Press. LE. 2012. Isotopic measurements of atmospheric methane Olmstead SM, Muehlenbachs LA, Shih J-S, Krupnick AJ. in Los Angeles, California, USA: Influence of “fugitive” 2013. Shale gas development impacts on surface water fossil fuel emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research quality in Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the National Acad- 117:D07308. emy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213871110. Vengosh A, Warner N, Jackson R, Darrah T. 2013. The effects O’Sullivan F, Paltsev S. 2012. Shale gas production: Potential of shale gas exploration and hydraulic fracturing on the versus actual emissions. Environmental Research Letters quality of water resources in the United States. Procedia 7:044030. Earth and Planetary Science 7:863–866. Petron G, Frost BR, Miller AI, Hirsch SA, Montzka A, Warner NR, Jackson RB, Darrah TD, Osborn SG, Zhaaob K, Karion M, Trainer C, Sweeney AE, Andrews L, Miller J, White AK, White A, Vengosh A. 2012. Geochemical evi- Kofler A, Bar-Ilan EJ, Dlugokencky L, Patrick CT, Moore dence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation TB Jr, Ryerson C, Siso W, Kolodzey PM, Lang T, Conway P, brine to shallow aquifers in Pennsylvania. Proceedings of Novelli K, Masarie B, Hall D, Guenther D, Kitzis J, Miller the National Academy of Sciences 109(30):11961–11966. D, Welsh D, Wolfe W, Neff P. 2012. Hydrocarbon emis- Weber CL, Clavin C. 2012. Life cycle carbon footprint of sions characterization in the Colorado Front Range: A shale gas: Review of evidence and implications. Environ- pilot study. Journal of Geophysical Research 117:D04304. mental Science and Technology 46:5688. Rahm BG, Riha SJ. 2012. Toward strategic management of Wennberg PO, Mui W, Wunch W, Kort EA, Blake DR, San- shale gas development: Regional, collective impacts on water toni EL, Wofsy SC, Diskin GS, Jeong S, Fischer M. 2012. resources. Environmental Science and Policy 17:12–23. On the sources of methane to the Los Angeles atmosphere. Rahm BG, Bates JT, Bertoia LR, Galford AE, Yoxtheimer Environmental Science and Technology 46:9282. DA, Riha SJ. 2013. Wastewater management and Mar- Zoback MD. 2012. Managing the seismic risk posed by waste- cellus Shale gas development: Trends, drivers, and plan- water disposal. Earth 57(4):38–43. ning implications. Journal of Environmental Management 120(15):105–113. Emerging and affluent economies make challenging bedfellows when weighing the value of structural steel against the value of a bird’s song.

Supplying Society with Natural Resources The Future of Mining—From Agricola to Rachel Carson and Beyond

Leigh W. Freeman and R. Patrick Highsmith

Mining is virtually as old as humanity. Supplying basic materials for shel- ter, tools, and weapons and supporting energy, food, and high-technology industries, it is directly linked to quality of life, which in turn is linked to Leigh W. Freeman affluence. In the 21st century affluence will continue to grow faster than population, resulting in unprecedented growth in demand for basic mineral products and taxing the supply of major mineral commodities such as copper and iron.

Overview The middle of the 20th century marked a paradigm shift in attitudes about the environment and natural resource development. The 1950s and 1960s saw extraordinary economic growth, the publication of a provocative book, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1962), and landmark legislation that led to the formation of the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. The result was a tectonic shift in mining exploration and development, which R. Patrick Highsmith until then had been driven by science and engineering since the first mining “textbook,” De Re Metallica (Agricola 1556). Environmental and social considerations grew in importance through the

Leigh W. Freeman is a principal and general manager of Downing Teal Inc. R. Patrick Highsmith is the principal of Resource Advisory Corporation. SPRING 2014 25

second half of the 20th century and beyond. According balization (Osterhammel and Petersson 2009). Many of to Glausiusz (2007), Silent Spring heralded the begin- the inputs to these matters of great debate are global ning of the environmental movement and with it a in influence but subject to national laws, making them slow, galvanizing realization that “messy” problems (Metlay and Sarewitz 2012), which we discuss below. • the world is finite, • the “solution to pollution is dilution” is no longer an Mining and Minerals in the Economy acceptable mantra, and Mining can be considered the beginning of the supply chain for critical components of the US economy: value • the means used by society to ensure quality of life, is added as the mineral materials move from the mine to and even adequate food, do matter if quality of life manufactured products, and this downstream manufac- includes, as Carson posited, a bird’s song. turing creates more jobs and generates more tax revenue Costs attributed to mineral production transcend- than mining alone. Moreover, unlike mining, which is ed the tangible to include the intangible and then linked to specific geology, manufacturing is geographi- extended to mammoth issues such as climate change cally diverse, located near workforces, infrastructure, and biodiversity. The extension of these concepts to and markets. a global scale introduces geographical and temporal ambiguity that requires at least a modicum of shared The Relationship Between Population and Affluence beliefs and values, represented by the term cultural glo- With a population of over 300 million and an average

FIGURE 1 Role of nonfuel minerals in the US economy (estimated values in 2012). Reprinted from USGS (2013). The 26 BRIDGE

FIGURE 2 Demand growth for selected mineral materials with respect to per capita GDP. US pennies per pound of copper and US dollars per ton of iron ore, in 2010 dollars and cents. Reprinted with permission from Rio Tinto (2012).

GDP per capita of nearly $52,000 per year (World Bank The Relationship Between Consumption and 2014), the US economy reflects the role of minerals in Affluence an affluent, populous country. The footprint of mines in In addition to population impacts, consumption of fuel such countries affects a greater number of stakeholders, and other resources increases with affluence—and glob- although the direct role of mining in developing econo- al affluence is growing faster than population. Over the mies may appear more significant. This is because a next generation (2010–2040), global affluence as repre- developed economy enjoys a significant multiplier effect; sented by average annual GDP per capita will increase in the United States, the value of mined nonfuel prod- from $10,000 to $26,000, a 160 percent increase. Over ucts in the overall economy is $76.5 billion (Figure 1). the same period the world’s population will increase by After a greater than ninefold multiplier from the value 14 percent, from 6.9 billion to 9.0 billion (UN 2013). of mined products to their processed derivatives, the Menzie and colleagues (2005) observed that, while direct impact on the US economy from mineral prod- mineral consumption is very low at minimal income ucts is approximately $704 billion. For example, mined levels, it grows as income grows, slowly at first but then clay can be used to manufacture bricks, which in turn are rapidly once it exceeds a certain income threshold. used to build houses. Mined products also provide energy The relation between affluence and per capita mineral for the greater economy—56 percent of US electricity is consumption (demand) also varies with the mineral derived from coal and uranium (EIA 2013). commodity and its end use. For example, the demand This multiplier effect explains why the economic for iron (steel) and copper rises faster at lower income impact of mining appears to diminish with greater levels than the demand for nickel (specialty steels), population and affluence: it increasingly blurs into the titanium dioxide (pigments and paints), borates (glass), supply chain. Thus in 2011, the ratio of the entire US and diamonds (Figure 2). manufacturing sector to the mining sector was 52 to 1 Iron and copper are two of the most critical building (BEA 2013), whereas in Australia, a much less populous blocks of industrialization. For more than two genera- but similarly affluent country with a comparable mining tions there was balance between supply and demand, as industry, the ratio is 1 to 1 (DFAT 2013). SPRING 2014 27

their real prices decreased systematically from 1960 to 2003. Then the market failed for these and other metals, and prices have since surged to historic highs in both commodities (Figure 3). The case of copper illus- trates the challenge of sup- plying the mineral materials needed for growth. China’s economic growth is respon- sible for the majority of global minerals consump- tion (Menzie 2012), and between 2008 and 2025 the country’s annual GDP per capita is expected to rise from $8,000 to $18,000. The Chinese population will also increase during that period, from 1.32 bil- lion to 1.45 billion (NBSC 2011; UN 2013). Because copper consumption can be directly linked to affluence, these projections will trans- late to an increase in annu- al consumption of copper in China from approximately 4 kg to just over 9 kg per person (Rio Tinto 2012), or an increase in the coun- try’s total annual copper consumption from 5 mil- FIGURE 3 Copper price and iron ore prices since 1960. Adapted from Lennon (2012). lion to 13 million tonnes (e.g., Menzie et al. 2005; World Bank Group 2006).1 The situation is similar for iron ore demand as China This anticipated growth in demand is equivalent to and India build out their infrastructure. There is a lag of seven times the annual output of the Escondida Mine up to 20 years from initial capital investment to com- in Chile, the largest copper producer in the world. mercial production from a new mine (Davis and Samis 2006). Thus when the supply-demand balance is bro- ken, prices can rise sharply as it takes substantial time 1 A mining industry source is cited for these projections of cop- to raise production to balance demand. per consumption in China, and other mining companies have reported corroborating figures. We are not able to verify these The Mining Industry pre–Silent Spring data from independent sources, although some documents from public sources, such as the UN and World Bank, do show strong Early humans extracted raw materials from the earth projected growth in Chinese copper consumption that may be for tools, weapons, and shelter. Coal, for example, was extrapolated to support these estimates. known and used for millennia in various capacities, The 28 BRIDGE

although large-scale mining of it for metallurgical and The Mining Industry post–Silent Spring thermal purposes probably began with the Romans. The publication of Silent Spring and other events of There was widespread trade of coal in the northwest the mid-20th century triggered an evolution in beliefs Roman Empire (Smith 1997)—and given the nature of and values that broadly affected lifestyles and practices, Roman occupation, one can imagine many social issues including the production of mineral materials. Carson’s surrounding their coal mines. book redefined the “costs” of supplying the inputs for quality of life to encompass complex social and political challenges. Passions were stirred. The resulting discus- The limiting factor to sion around the insecticide DDT, the focus of Carson’s book, spawned court battles and decades of controversy. innovation in support of In 2010 Discover magazine ranked Silent Spring number 16 on its list of the 25 most important science books sustainability appears to be ever published.

risk avoidance rather than Accelerating Change: The Role of Social License technological challenge. The societal rate of change is generational (Carlson 2010), but social license can accelerate the impact of changing beliefs and values. These days nearly instanta- The first known scientific accounts of geology and neous communication through global news outlets, the metals mining were published by Georgius Agricola in Internet, and social media magnify the potential effect of 1556 (Wolf 1959). Mining practices and technologies stakeholders on mining projects through social license. evolved systematically from this first treatise on mining Social license is secured outside formal permitting principles to meet exponential growth in demand for and regulatory processes and is sustained through con- mineral materials. The unique nature of mining (i.e., tinuous efforts to manage social capital and trust-based the minerals are dependent on geology) soon prompted relationships (Yates and Horwath 2013). It embodies the early economies to look far and wide for ores (an beliefs and values manifested both informally through early illustration of “going global”). The forces of con- socially acceptable practices and formally through quest and colonial power led to exploitation of gold, political processes that result in new or amended rules silver, copper, gems, and other mineral products across and regulations. much of the world; for example, the Spanish conquista- In their seminal paper on this topic, Thomson and dors were bent on harvesting gold and silver from Latin Boutilier (2011) state that social license manifests “a America beginning in the 1500s. community’s perceptions of the acceptability of a com- Although exploitation did not cease, the first half pany and its local operations.” It is increasingly recog- of the 20th century was witness to a “corporate” nized—by stakeholders, communities, corporations, approach. This period saw the emergence of many and governments—as a prerequisite for development global mining enterprises, and large corporations such and a requirement for continued operation. as Anglo-American, Broken Hill Proprietary (now BHP Billiton), Rio Tinto, Anaconda Copper, and A Global Resource Model with Social Conflict Kennecott Copper grew from individual mines to con- The relationship between technology and society has glomerates. changed fundamentally since the mid-20th century During this pre–Silent Spring era, mining progressed (Metlay 2012, p. 3): from a necessity for survival to international commerce. The progress, dramatic and substantial, built on centu- Where once choices among technological alternatives were made by a narrow set of parties, either entrepre- ries of discovery and technological development. The neurs or government officials, those decisions increas- focus of mine finders and mine builders was on science, ingly became subject to public scrutiny and influence. engineering, markets, economics, and the commercial Where once the consequences of a technology were bottom line; the literature contains few accounts of seen as largely localized, impacts came to be understood mine developments blocked by protests or regulators as more wide-ranging—geographically and temporally. during this period. Where once a particular technology could be assessed SPRING 2014 29

independently, its interaction with others now needed One class of problems, termed messy, wicked, or ill- to be considered . . . . structured, is characterized by (1) a high degree of uncer- tainty about how options are linked to outcomes and In a lecture titled “Humanity’s Greatest Risk Is Risk (2) substantial controversy over trade-offs among values. Avoidance,” Lawrence Cathles (2011) asserted that society potentially has the technological and inno- This situation is not unique to the future of mining. vative capacity to supply a world population of 10.5 Global climate change, hydraulic fracturing, nuclear billion in 2100 with sufficient mineral resources to energy, biodiversity, endemic poverty, and world peace achieve affluence equivalent to that of the European all present messy problems. Union. His model began with energy, because with enough energy most engineering problems can be Changing Definition of Costs solved (Cathles 2011). Rachel Carson’s book and the resulting tidal shifts in He argued, however, that risk aversion tends to thinking about the value of the environment intro- impede the use of technologies, and cited examples duced new cost components that now factor into almost of risk-averse objections: wind turbines kill birds, coal all economic calculations. The struggle for a working emits greenhouse gases, nuclear has no adequate plan model for modern resource development is to capture for waste disposal, and hydroelectric dams disrupt fish- and incorporate environmental and social costs while eries. There is a long history of innovation that sug- maintaining the benefits of development. gests potential mitigation of each of the above risks, but innovations take time to develop and deploy, and often come with their own risks. Thus the limiting factor to The challenge to support innovation in support of sustainability appears to be risk avoidance rather than technological challenge. quality of life has moved from Implications of Globalization a solely economic exercise The World Values Survey is a global research project that explores values, beliefs, and their political impact. to include environmental It has been conducted since 1981 by an international and social factors. network of social scientists using complex question- naires in nearly 100 countries, representing nearly 90 percent of the world’s population (Carlson 2010). The survey clearly reveals that value systems vary signifi- Because environmental and social elements do not cantly around the world. Differences at the national lend themselves to quantification, innovative holis- level are profound, but they become even more complex tic approaches to costing have emerged. In standard at the level where social license operates: provinces, accounting practices the bottom line is revenue minus regions, communities, and tribes. expenses. Environmentalists and social justice advocates Thus, although the locations of the world’s mineral introduced the concept of full cost accounting, adding two deposits depend on geology and not political or cultural more lines below the profit bottom line, people and planet, boundaries, the diversity of global beliefs and values cre- and in 1994 John Elkington (1997) coined the term tri- ates a special challenge in developing mineral resources. ple bottom line (TBL). The TBL approach recognizes eco- nomic, social, and environmental contributions to the A Special Class of Problem: The “Messy” Problem bottom line and is a way to address the messy problem. Supplying mineral resources for a sustaining population in a socially and environmentally responsible way con- Strategic Minerals: An Example of Global Demand stitutes a special class of problem that is truly global, and Local Impact highly uncertain with respect to options and outcomes, The 17 rare earth elements (REEs) on the periodic and subject to considerable controversy. It thus appears table have special and useful chemical properties but to meet the definition of a messy problem (Metlay and only rarely occur in mineral concentrations suitable for Sarewitz 2012, p. 6): mining. They represent the beginning of an important supply chain and are a clear example of global demand The 30 BRIDGE and local impact. Used in nearly all electronic, clean duction. Thomas L. Friedman (2005) divides the his- energy, electric transport, and military technologies, tory of globalization into three periods: they are critical for national defense, renewable ener- • 1492–1800: globalization of countries gy, and virtually all high-tech innovation (Paul and Campbell 2011). • 1800–2000: globalization of companies China controls 97 percent of the world supply of • 2000–present: globalization of individuals REEs (Bleiwas and Gambogi 2013, p. 6), but produc- tion from two REE deposits in the United States would In this discussion we interpret the third phase as decrease dependence on China for these minerals. The exemplified by the concept of social license. The inter- Mountain Pass mine in California is located 15 miles section of the globalization of companies and of individ- from Primm, Nevada (population 1,132), and is under- uals in the mining industry is evident in the following going a major expansion, and the Bear Lodge Project, recent developments: 6 miles from Sundance, Wyoming (population 1,213), • In 1999 nine of the largest mining and metals com- is under consideration for development.2 The physical panies launched the Global Mining Initiative (GMI) footprint of each is on the order of hundreds of acres. to address the role of mining in global sustainability; and in 2001 the International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM) was formed to carry out GMI recom- Mining must continue to mendations. ICMM member companies operate their mines and mineral projects according to Council adopt practices consistent standards, which are described as meeting or exceed- with the diversity and ing promulgated rules and regulations. • Insightful and effective global guidelines continue complexity of evolving to be developed, such as the ISO 14000 and 26000 global beliefs and values. series for auditable environmental and social pro- cesses, and the Equator Principles, which provide an environmental and social risk framework that has This example of national need and local impact been adopted by financial institutions covering over illustrates the type of thought required for dealing with 70 percent of the international project finance debt messy problems pertaining to sustainability. Production in emerging nations. of REEs from two mineral deposits in rural America The effectiveness of the ICMM standards, ISO near communities with just over a thousand people may certifications, and Equator Principles, all driven by affect the country’s high-tech innovation, clean energy global commercial enterprises to address social, envi- and transport, and national defense technology. How ronmental, and political issues, is a work in progress. should society balance the economic, environmental, But because of its fundamental importance, mining and social costs and benefits of this potential new REE must continue to adopt practices consistent with the production? Who should sit at the table to decide? diversity and complexity of evolving global beliefs and Evolution and Effects of Globalization values. Increasingly, social and political systems affected by cultural globalization will serve as the fulcrum for the We believe that globalization drives the mining indus- supply-demand balance for mineral materials. try to a greater extent than many other sectors. It affects In this and future generations, technical and financial supply-demand balances (and, implicitly, commodity expertise will be employed through an ever more com- prices) as well as rules and regulations governing pro- plex social-political filter in a global arena governed by national laws and private sector–based guidelines. Pric- es of critical mineral materials will record the efficiency 2 Information about these plans is in the quarterly SEC reports (or lack thereof) of transitioning from the globalization of the responsible companies, Molycorp Inc. (for the Mountain Pass mine; June 2013) and Rare Element Resources Ltd. (for the of companies to the globalization of individuals as the Bear Lodge Project; September 2012), available through Edgar– market supports the world’s population three genera- Securities and Exchange Commission (http://sec.gov/edgar.shtml). tions hence. SPRING 2014 31

Conclusions Mining and other industries continue to evolve, but Supplying society with mineral and other natural it remains very difficult to value a bird’s song on a bal- resources presents a number of enigmas: ance sheet.

• Processes that affect global issues are governed by Authors’ Recommendations national laws and regulations. Government, industry, and private sector leaders tasked • Risk avoidance impedes the technological innova- with delivering mineral resources into the supply chain tion needed to support projected population growth. can meet the challenges described above by adopt- ing the tactics used for messy problems: disaggregate • Social license gives small groups influence over natu- or redefine the problem into small problems that lend ral resource development that may have broad detri- themselves to simpler solutions with the potential to mental and/or beneficial impacts. attract a broad base of constituencies; work systemati- • People in developed versus emerging economies may cally and patiently toward the solution of the larger differently value the relative importance of structural problem through small successes (Metlay and Sarewitz steel (for example) versus a bird’s song. 2012); and, in this instance, remind stakeholders of the relevance of mineral resources and of the multiplied The consumption of mined materials is directly pro- benefits of downstream manufacturing. We also suggest portional to population and affluence. Because affluence the following steps: is growing faster than population, it is not sufficient to view consumption in terms of population growth alone. • Link mined products to everyday consumption. Do The demand for some metals, particularly iron and cop- the math. For example, how many copper mines are per, increases sharply in emerging economies, as in the necessary to serve China’s demand? United States in the early 1900s and China and India • Feed the supply chain. Define mining as the begin- today (and tomorrow). ning of the supply chain for consumable products, Mining is the beginning of the supply chain for man- broadening its relevance to a global audience. ufactured goods, highlighting the importance of mineral materials as necessities for infrastructure and consumer • Highlight the link to national defense and more. Tell goods. Silent Spring marked a monumental awakening to the rare earths story. The value of the mined com- society’s impact on the world and introduced the value modity pales next to downstream strategic and high- of a bird’s song to the “calculation” of quality of life. tech implications. Since then the challenge to support quality of life has • Consider who gains or suffers. Affluent populations moved from a solely economic exercise to include envi- are more likely to value a bird’s song over a new ronmental and social factors. This thinking has trans- mine to produce iron; this is less true of populations formed decision making, requiring consideration of a in developing countries that need structural steel to new triple bottom line. build their economies. This difference can lead to National laws and regulations evolve slowly, inequities when rules and regulations significantly reflecting the changing beliefs and values of soci- restrain production and result in significant price ety. But the power of social license makes it possible increases for much-needed structural steel. to express those beliefs and values more quickly. Min- eral resource production is thus subject to this par- Finally, bear in mind that society has only three adox: a project can comply with national laws and generations to confront this messy problem before the regulations but never operate because of the denial of world reaches its projected peak population. social license. References Traditional mining has evolved since Agricola to serve society over numerous generations. In contrast, Agricola G. 1556. De Re Metallica. Hoover HC, Hoover LH, society has had less than two generations to understand transl. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1950 (reprint the implications of Silent Spring on the redefinition of of 1912 edition). costs, and will have a mere three generations to adapt BEA [US Bureau of Economic Analysis]. 2013. Industry Data, before the world reaches its projected peak population Gross Output by Industry. Updated January 31, 2014. of 10.5 billion in 2100. Available at www.bea.gov/industry/gdpbyind_data.htm. The 32 BRIDGE

Bleiwas DI, Gambogi J. 2013. Preliminary Estimates of Quan- Toman MA, Ayres RU, eds. Washington: Resources for the tities of Rare-Earth Elements Contained in Selected Prod- Future. pp. 33–53. ucts and in Imports of Semimanufactured Products in the Metlay D. 2012. Editor’s note: How social science informs United States, 2010. USGS Open File Report 2013-1072. engineering practice. The Bridge 42(3):3–4. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Metlay D, Sarewitz D. 2012. Decision strategies for addressing Carlson JD. 2010. Generational Value Change, Cultural and complex, “messy” problems. The Bridge 42(3):6–16. International Relations: The World Values Survey and NBSC [National Bureau of Statistics of China]. 2011. China Political “Generation Gaps.” University of California, Statistical Yearbook 2011, chapter 3: Population. Available Merced. From Selected Works of Jon D. Carlson. Avail- at www.stats.gov.cn/english/. able at http://works.bepress.com/jondcarlson/7. Osterhammel J, Petersson NP. 2009. Globalization: A short Carson R. 1962. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin. history. Geyer D, transl. Princeton University Press. Cathles L. 2011. Humanity’s Greatest Risk Is Risk Avoid- Paul J, Campbell G. 2011. Investigating Rare Earth Element ance. GSA 2011 SEG Distinguished Lecture, Minne- Mine Development in EPA Region 8 and Potential Envi- apolis, October 10. Available at www.geo.cornell.edu/ ronmental Impacts. EPA Document 908R11003. Washing- eas/PeoplePlaces/Faculty/cathles/Cathles%20GSA%20 ton: US Environmental Protection Agency. Humanities%Greatest%Risks.pdf. Rio Tinto. 2012. Chartbook. Available at www.slashdocs. Davis G, Samis M. 2006. Using real options to manage and com/imiwiq/rio-tinto-chartbook-2012.html. value exploration. Society of Economic Geologists Special Smith AHV. 1997. Provenance of coals from Roman sites in Publication 12(14):273–276. England and Wales. Britannia 28:297–324. DFAT [Australian Governmental Department of Foreign Thomson I, Boutilier RG. 2011. Social license to operate. Affairs and Trade]. 2013. Trade Performance at a Glance, In: SME Mining Engineering Handbook (pp. 1779–1796). Australia’s Economy. Available at www.dfat.gov.au/publi- Darling P, ed. Littleton, CO: Society of Mining Metallurgy cations/trade/trade-at-a-glance-2012.html. and Exploration. EIA [US Energy Information Administration]. 2013. Annu- UN [United Nations]. 2013. World Population Prospects: al Energy Outlook 2014, Early Release Overview, p. 14. The 2012 Revision. United Nations Department of Eco- Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/index.cfm. nomic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Interac- Elkington J. 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom tive data: Medium variant estimate. Accessed February 11, Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing. 2014. Available at http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm. Friedman TL. 2005. It’s a flat world after all. New York Times USGS [US Geological Survey]. 2013. Mineral Commodity Magazine, April 3. Summaries 2013. Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/ Glausiusz J. 2007. Can a maligned pesticide save lives? Dis- minerals/pubs/mcs/2013/mcs2013.pdf. cover, November 20. Wolf A. 1959. A History of Science, Technology and Philoso- Lennon J. 2012. Base metals outlook: Drivers on the supply phy in the 16th and 17th Centuries: Vol II, 2nd ed. New and demand side. Macquarie Commodities Research, Feb- York: Harper & Brothers. ruary. Available at www.macquarie.com/dafiles/Internet/ World Bank. 2014. World DataBank; World Development mgl/msg/iConference/documents/18_JimLennon_Presen- Indicators. Available at http://databank.worldbank.org/ tation.pdf. data/views/reports/tableview.aspx. Menzie D. 2012. China’s global quest for resources and impli- World Bank Group. 2006. Background paper: The outlook for cations for the United States. Congressional testimony, metals markets. Prepared for G20 deputies meeting, Syd- USGS, January 26. ney, September. Oil, Gas, Mining, and Chemicals Depart- Menzie WD, Singer DA, deYount JH Jr. 2005. Mineral ment. Washington. resources and consumption in the twenty-first century. Yates BF, Horwath CL. 2013. Social license to operate: How In: Scarcity and Growth Revisited: Natural Resource and to get it, and how to keep it. Working paper, Pacific Energy the Environment in the New Millennium. Simpson RD, Summit, April 2–4, Vancouver. The long response time of groundwater systems can complicate the task of managing this valuable resource.

Mining Groundwater for Sustained Yield

John D. Bredehoeft and William M. Alley

Water is a critical resource, and groundwater is an important component of that resource. Water differs from other ground-based resources in that it is renewable: other extractive resources are expected to be depleted eventually, John D. Bredehoeft whereas it is possible to develop groundwater so that it will last indefinitely— a very attractive possibility. In this paper we explore under what circumstances a groundwater sys- tem can be developed for perpetual use. The principles are well established; however, there are practical problems of implementation that involve the incompatibility of the time horizon of human decision making (years or decades) with the dynamic response of groundwater systems over a much longer period (often hundreds of years). In many instances the incompat- ibility of the two time frames creates groundwater developments that mine the resource—that is, permanently remove groundwater from the system. The basic principles of groundwater physics and chemistry are well under- stood. Hydraulic head in an aquifer can be defined as the elevation that William M. Alley water stands in a piezometer inserted into the groundwater system at a point; groundwater flows from high to lower hydraulic head. Often an analogy can guide one’s intuition: the flow of groundwater is analogous to the flow of heat

John D. Bredehoeft (NAE) is founder and principal of the Hydrodynamics Group. William M. Alley is director of science and technology with the National Ground Water Association. The 34 BRIDGE in a solid body, groundwater hydraulic head is analo- cone of depression, spreads out over expansive areas of gous to temperature in heat flow, hydraulic conductiv- the aquifer. ity is analogous to thermal conductivity, heat capacity is Capture is concerned with the changes in recharge analogous to aquifer storativity. With these definitions and/or discharge created by pumping—not the initial of analogous quantities, the mathematics that describe values of recharge and/or discharge. Pumping removes groundwater flow are directly analogous to the math- water from storage in the aquifer when the hydraulic ematics that describe heat flow in solids. head in the groundwater system declines. At some point the head declines in the discharge area and the reduced discharge is captured by pumping. Groundwater systems in Capture can occur in different ways. Pumping causes water table declines in areas of phreatophytes (deep- their natural state are at rooted plants that get their water from below the water table), which may cause the plants to die, reducing equilibrium: long-term transpiration of groundwater. If pumping lowers heads recharge and discharge in the vicinity of springs, the spring flow declines. If it lowers heads near streams that receive base flow from are in balance. groundwater, the stream flow declines (Alley and Leake 2004). Pumping can also increase recharge by drawing from surface water bodies. Groundwater Capture The groundwater system goes through a period of The first principle of quantitative groundwater hydrol- transition in which the capture increases over time. Ide- ogy is that groundwater systems in their natural state ally, the system eventually reaches a new equilibrium are at equilibrium: the long-term rate of recharge is when the capture equals the pumping rate—no more balanced by the long-term rate of discharge. Lohman water is drawn from storage and water levels through- (1972, p. 8) provides a concise explanation of the out the system are stable. The transition process was response of a groundwater system when a well is pumped described by the Nevada State Engineer (1971, p. 13): and defines the key concept of capture: Transitional storage reserve is the quantity of water in Water withdrawn artificially from an aquifer is derived storage in a particular ground water reservoir that is from a decrease in storage, a reduction in the previous extracted during the transition period between [undis- discharge from the aquifer, an increase in the recharge, turbed] equilibrium conditions and new equilibrium or a combination of these changes (Theis 1940). The conditions under perennial-yield concept of ground decrease in discharge plus the increase in recharge water development. is termed capture. Capture may occur in the form of In the arid environment of Nevada, the transitional decreases in ground-water discharge into streams, lakes, storage reserve of such a reservoir means the amount of and the ocean, or decreases in that component of evapo- stored water which is available for withdrawal by pump- transpiration derived from the saturated zone. After a ing during the non-equilibrium period of development new artificial withdrawal from the aquifer has begun, the (i.e., the period of lowering of water levels). head in the aquifer will continue to decline until the The quote shows recognition that the system had to new withdrawal is balanced by capture. undergo a period of transition before reaching a new This description, introduced by Theis (1940), contains equilibrium, but in 1971 there was a lack of informa- the essence of quantitative groundwater hydrology and tion about the duration of that period. It is now known is elegant in its simplicity. that the transition period can be very long, especially if Pumping initially lowers the hydraulic head at the the system under development is dominated by a water well, creating a gradient in hydraulic head that causes table aquifer with large storativity. flow to the well. Soon after starting to pump the hydrau- lic head takes on an inverted cone shape, with the well Development of Groundwater Resources at the center of the cone. This is what hydrologists call Sustainable Development the cone of depression. Later the area of reduced head Sustainable development was defined in 1987 by the caused by pumping, still commonly referred to as the World Commission on Environment and Development SPRING 2014 35

(known as the Brundtland Commission) as “develop- the area’s groundwater is depleted, farmers will have ment that meets the needs of the present without com- to return to dryland farming. In contrast, in Nebraska, promising the ability of future generations to meet their where the aquifer underlies almost the entire state, the own needs” (chapter 2, I-1). Alley and Leake (2004, quantity of groundwater in storage remains so large that p. 13) elaborated: “groundwater sustainability com- although there are many wells, there has not been a big monly is defined in a broad context, and somewhat percentage change in water levels. ambiguously, as the development and use of groundwa- Less clear are intermediate developments. For these ter resources in a manner that can be maintained for an systems, the difficulties of analyzing the development of indefinite time without causing unacceptable environ- groundwater so that pumping can be maintained indefi- mental, economic, or social consequences.” nitely and capture much of the entire potential resource In the current groundwater lexicon, however, “sus- are manifold: tainable” often has a much more restrictive definition. • The conceptual model of the system is often uncertain. Pumping groundwater is considered sustainable if the system can reach a new equilibrium in which no more • The geology of the system is invariably complex. groundwater is removed from storage and water levels • The hydrologic data for even a well-investigated stabilize throughout the system. groundwater system leave uncertainties; for example, We propose that the long-term yield of a groundwa- recharge is often estimated with an uncertainty of ter system is the largest quantity of capture that can be +/−30 percent. achieved without undesired impacts. In some situations this quantity is equal to the total undisturbed discharge • The yield of a system can be defined only for a speci- from the system, and since in the undisturbed state fied development scheme. the system is in balance, the discharge is equal to the Given the uncertainties, there is room for differing recharge. This leads to the often heard statement that analyses and interpretations by qualified experts, and the safe yield cannot exceed the recharge. But the idea arguments about whether an intermediate system is sus- that pumping should not exceed undisturbed recharge tainable often result in litigation. is not ironclad. Pumping near lakes or streams can induce additional recharge so that the capture, in some instances, is greater than the undisturbed recharge. While recharge may indicate an upper limit to long- Factors such as effects on term development, in many situations other factors such as effects on surface water, water quality, and subsidence surface water, water quality, can limit groundwater development (Alley 2007). and subsidence can limit Continuum of Development Approaches groundwater development. Groundwater developments exist in a continuum (Pierce et al. 2013): at one extreme are those that can be maintained indefinitely, and at the other are those Understanding the Importance of Time that clearly mine the resource. These two extremes are So far our discussion has been almost entirely an alge- relatively easy to identify. braic, budget exercise in which inflow equals outflow, The development of the High Plains Aquifer, which but groundwater systems are dynamic and time plays an spans Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, New all-important role in them. Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, illustrates these two When development occurs, the groundwater system, extremes (Figure 1). The southern part of the aquifer (in as described above, transitions to a new equilibrium Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas) is a well-known area of state (assuming the development is not so big that a groundwater mining. Groundwater pumping for irriga- new equilibrium is impossible). Establishing the new tion in the area began in the 1930s and really got going equilibrium takes time. For many groundwater systems, after World War II to support the region’s dominant the time to reach the new equilibrium is quite long— crop, cotton. It was recognized from the early days that often hundreds of years—especially for water table aqui- this was a groundwater mining operation and that once fers. This long time poses a problem. The 36 BRIDGE

FIGURE 1 Map of the High Plains Aquifer illustrating the impacts of groundwater pumping from predevelopment to 2011. Reprinted from McGuire (2013). SPRING 2014 37

When Theis (1940) and Lohman (1972) elaborated these ideas they had no good way to estimate the time required for complete capture—the tools did not exist. As the profession has gained experience with modeling, there is a new appreciation of the length of time required for a devel- oped groundwater system to reach a new equilibrium (Bredehoeft and Durbin 2009; Walton 2010). For example, modeling of systems under consider- ation for development in Nevada indicates that it may take more than several hundred years for these sys- tems to reach a new equi- librium (Bredehoeft 2011). This means that as water is drawn from storage in FIGURE 2 Plot of selected water budget components for the Paradise Valley groundwater system, the system, groundwater calculated from data in Prudic and Herman (1996). ac-ft = acre-feet. levels continue to decline. These systems in Nevada are not unique; it is becoming Many of these principles and associated challenges increasingly clear that many groundwater systems take a are illustrated in two examples—a groundwater devel- very long time to reach a new equilibrium state. opment in Paradise Valley, Nevada, and pumping on the Colorado Plateau of Arizona—that fall in the mid- Water Management dle of our development continuum. Responsible water managers seek to create groundwater systems capable of long-term yield. However, as hydroge- Paradise Valley, Nevada ologists inform these managers, a stable system (i.e., one Paradise Valley is a typical basin and range valley that that does not experience continuing significant water opens at the Humboldt River Valley and extends north level declines) can be established only over a very long from Winnemucca for approximately 50 miles. The val- time, so the groundwater system must be managed dur- ley floor is about 10 miles wide and is underlain by per- ing the period of transition, when water levels decline as meable alluvial deposits in which high-yield irrigation large quantities are pumped from storage. If the pumping wells can be drilled. continues, this water will not be replaced—it is mined. Irrigated farming of potatoes in Paradise Valley began In this context, the fact that the pumping meets some in the late 1960s and by 1980 more than 30,000 acre- definition of long-term sustainability has very little rel- feet (ac-ft) of groundwater was pumped annually to evance for the water manager who is concerned with irrigate the crops. Inevitably, there has been pressure to the system over the next several decades. Often the only increase the development. The US Geological Survey inkling that the system may be behaving according to (USGS) undertook an investigation to assess the impact some criteria of long-term equilibrium is a groundwa- of doubling the size of the development and produced a ter model analysis. Hydrogeologists place great faith in two-layer groundwater model to forecast future devel- these analyses. opment under various scenarios (Prudic and Herman The 38 BRIDGE

the model-calculated draw- down of the Paradise Valley water table after 300 years of pumping, shows water table declines over much of the valley and a large cone of depression in the south- ern part where the decline is more than 150 feet. All of the water in the aquifer associated with the decline is removed from storage and will not be replaced as long as the pumping contin- ues. The State of Nevada referred to this water as transition storage but it is water that is mined from FIGURE 3 Isometric projection of calculated water table drawdown after 300 years of simulated the system. The creation pumping at 72,000 ac-ft/yr. The grid on the projection is oriented north-south and east-west; the of the cone of depression view is from the northwest looking toward the southeast. Based on data from Prudic and Herman is an integral part of system (1996). ac-ft = acre-feet. response and is necessary 1996). Scenario five called for pumping 72,000 ac-ft/yr for the system to reach a new steady state. from the valley, much of it in the vicinity of the present The hypothetical development in Paradise Valley development. could reach a new equilibrium that could be maintained Figure 2 is a plot of the trajectories in input and out- indefinitely. However, that equilibrium would induce put indicated by the model analysis. There are several flow from the Humboldt River. This is a problem because features to observe in the figure: Humboldt River water is already fully appropriated. Therefore, if this development proceeded the diversion 1. Pumping is held steady at 72,000 ac-ft/yr through- of Humboldt River water would pose a problem for the out the 300-year simulation. Nevada State Engineer and affected downstream users. 2. Initially much of the water pumped comes from storage; at 100 years the rate of water removal from Northeastern Arizona storage is approximately 10,000 ac-ft/yr (14 per- Groundwater is the principal source of water for much cent of pumping), at 200 years the rate is approxi- of northeastern Arizona. A groundwater model was mately 5,000 ac-ft/yr (7 percent), and at 300 years developed to assess the impact of increased pumping it is approximately 2,500 ac-ft/yr (3 percent). proposed in an area south of the community of Leupp 3. The lowering of the water table diminishes evapo- (Figure 4). Of particular concern was the potential transpiration, much of it by phreatophytes. impact on two perennial streams in the area, Clear 4. The cone of depression lowers the water table Creek and Chevelon Creek. Although the scenario beneath the stream in the valley and captures all shown in Figure 4 stops the pumping after 50 years, of the streamflow in Paradise Valley. streamflow capture of water from both creeks contin- 5. The cone of depression created by pumping reach- ues to rise for another 20 or more years. Thus if one es the Humboldt River where it induces flow from were monitoring these two streams with the expecta- the river, which increases over time. tion that streamflow depletions would decrease once The USGS analysis suggests that after 300 years the pumping ceased, it would actually be at least 20 years system will be close to equilibrium, as only 3 percent before such a decline. This is a significant challenge to of the pumping will still come out of storage (Prudic the monitoring of hydrologic system development for and Herman 1996). Figure 3, an isometric projection of making groundwater management decisions. SPRING 2014 39

Mitigating Measures for many aquifers on a multigenerational time horizon Since the 1950s groundwater depletion has spread from (50 to 100 years), while also acknowledging longer-term isolated pockets to large areas in countries throughout impacts. But, as we’ve illustrated, these are still much the world. This phenomenon is well recognized, even if shorter than the response time of many aquifers. Per- poorly documented in many areas. Much less recognized haps the greatest value of setting longer groundwater is how the long response time of groundwater systems policy horizons is in fostering greater awareness of the can complicate the already difficult task of manag- long-term effects of pumping. ing this shared resource. In fact, some assessments of Monitoring and Modeling groundwater depletion simply ignore capture (e.g., Wada et al. 2010). Monitoring and computer modeling are complementary To manage groundwater resources sustainably, it is activities but too often are treated separately, ignor- critical to consider the time scale of the consequences. ing important linkages and feedbacks. An idealized But society is poorly adapted to balance environmental framework for integration of monitoring and model- issues and economic development over intergeneration- ing includes a long-term network that is systematically al timescales. Likewise, there are significant limitations monitored over time. in current predictive capabilities. Models and their periodic updates can integrate There is no silver bullet to address these challenges, new information, address questions as they arise, and but the following measures can help mitigate long-term advance understanding of how the aquifer system problems: (1) longer groundwater policy horizons, (2) responds to human development. This is an iterative integrated monitoring and modeling, and (3) adaptive and reciprocal process: long-term monitoring provides management with explicit recognition of its limita- input to modeling, and the latter provides insights into tions. These measures should supplement other socio- the adequacy of and gaps in monitoring data. Unfortu- economic groundwater governance principles (not nately, monitoring networks are rarely evaluated at the addressed here) such as enhanced local community conclusion of a modeling study. involvement. Figure 5 shows that every simulation model is built on a conceptual model. Because data typically fit more than Groundwater Policy one conceptual model (Bredehoeft 2003), the appropri- Groundwater policy horizons, when they exist, have ateness of the model is tested as a groundwater model is typically been 5 to 20 years. Gradually, these time frames built and field observations are compared to the model are being increased; for example, the Texas Water Devel- simulations. Reevaluation of the conceptual model is an opment Board requires groundwater management areas important part of updating simulation models. to set goals for 50-year horizons. Gleeson and colleagues In addition to long-term monitoring networks, peri- (2012) suggest setting groundwater sustainability goals odic studies should be integrated into each stage of

FIGURE 4 Map of northeastern Arizona showing the area of proposed groundwater pumping, and a hydrograph that shows the simu- lated impact of the pumping on Clear and Chevelon Creeks. Reprinted from Leake et al. (2005). The 40 BRIDGE

not the pumping, that is Time (not to scale) the problem. Spring flow Past Present Future also illustrates the difficulty Long-Term Monitoring Networks (water levels, water quality, streamflow, and other components) of predicting local phenom- ena of interest with a rea-

ConceptualConceptual Simulation sonable degree of reliability. Model ConceptualConceptuModelal Simulation ModelModel ConceptualConceptModelual Simulation MModelodel Model Conclusion Conceptual Simulation Model Model Groundwater development EnvironmentalEnvironm Tracer Data can be viewed as a con- GGeologiceologic aandn HydrologicEnvironmentalEnvir Studiesonm Tracer Data GeologicGeologic andan HydrologicEnvironmentalEnvir Studiesonm Tracer Data tinuum. At one extreme GeologiGeologicc aandn Hydrologic Studies Environmental Tracer Data are developments that Geologic and Hydrologic Studies quite deliberately mine the resource, at the other are developments that can clearly be maintained FIGURE 5 A framework for integration of monitoring and modeling in the context of groundwater indefinitely. Between these assessment (modified from Alley 2006). extremes are developments that seek to maximize use model development (Figure 5). For example, informa- of the resource while allowing pumping to continue tion about the age of the water (time since recharge) indefinitely. It is this third type of development that and water sources obtained from environmental tracers most challenges hydrogeologists and water managers. Figure D1. A framework for integration of monitoring and modeling in the context of ground-water assessment (modifiedcan be fromcompared Alley, 2006). to groundwater ages and flow paths Once pumping of an aquifer begins, a new equilibrium inferred from modeling. And geologic and geophysical state must be established in order for the pumping to studies may yield new insights into the hydrogeologic be maintained indefinitely. Establishing the new equi- framework. librium state is a dynamic process that often takes long periods of time. The time response of a groundwater Adaptive Management system is often much slower than the planning horizons The third mitigating measure, adaptive management that society is used to; therein lies the dilemma faced by or staged decision making, is an approach to making many attempting to manage groundwater. choices about long-term management under uncer- The challenges in effectively managing groundwater tainty. At predetermined decision points or triggered by continue to lead to groundwater developments that are certain indicators, management approaches are evalu- oversubscribed, even with the best intentions of man- ated by all interested and affected parties, and choices agement to create a system that accommodates goals of are made about whether to proceed along the current sustainability. The pressure is invariably to pump more path or reconsider next steps. For example, a minimum rather than less, and this is unlikely to change as popu- water level might be set below which pumping would lation and resource needs continue to grow. be deemed to have a significant deleterious effect on spring flow; pumping would be curtailed if this water References level were breached. Alley WM. 2006. Tracking US groundwater: Reserves for the But the effectiveness of adaptive management for future? Environment 48(3):10–25. addressing groundwater depletion problems remains Alley WM. 2007. Another water-budget myth: The signifi- untested. There is concern that it may become a ratio- cance of recoverable ground water in storage. Groundwater nale for early inaction. Conditions will likely continue 45(3):251. to deteriorate after any trigger point is reached, and it is Alley WM, Leake SA. 2004. The journey from safe yield to difficult to cease pumping once it begins. For example, sustainability. Groundwater 42(1):12–16. if a water-level indicator of spring flow is triggered, pro- Bredehoeft JD. 2003. From models to performance assess- ponents of continued pumping may argue that unusu- ment: The conceptualization problem. Groundwater ally dry conditions are the cause—that it is the climate, 41(5):571–577. SPRING 2014 41

Bredehoeft JD. 2011. Report on the Hydrogeology of Proposed Nevada State Engineer. 1971. Water for Nevada, Report #3: Southern Nevada Water Authority Groundwater Develop- Nevada’s Water Resources. Carson City: State Engineer’s ment. Prepared for Office of the Nevada State Engineer on Office. behalf of Great Basin Water Network. Sausalito, CA: The Pierce SA, Sharpe JM Jr, Guillaume JHA, Mace RE, Eaton Hydrodynamics Group. DJ. 2013. Aquifer-yield continuum as a guide and topology Bredehoeft JD, Durbin T. 2009. Ground water development: for science-based groundwater management. Hydrogeology The time to full capture problem. Groundwater 47(4):506– Journal 21(2):331–340. 514. Prudic DE, Herman ME. 1996. Ground-water flow and sim- Gleeson T, Alley WM, Allen DM, Sophocleous MA, Zhou ulated effects of development in Paradise Valley, a basin Y, Taniguchi M, VanderSteen J. 2012. Towards sustainable tributary to the Humboldt River in Humboldt County, groundwater use: Setting long-term goals, backcasting, and Nevada: Regional aquifer system analysis—Great Basin managing adaptively. Groundwater 50(1):19–26. Nevada-Utah. US Geological Survey Professional Paper Leake SA, Hoffmann JP, Dickinson JE. 2005. Numerical 1409-F. Washington: US Government Printing Office. ground-water change model of the C aquifer and effects of Theis CV. 1940. The source of water derived from wells. Civil ground-water withdrawals on stream depletion in selected Engineering 10(5):277–280. reaches of Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and the Little Wada Y, van Beek LPH, van Kempen CM, Reckman JWTM, Colorado River, Northeastern Arizona. US Geological Vasak S, Bierkens MFP. 2010. Global depletion of ground- Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5277. Res- water resources. Geophysical Research Letters 37:L20402, ton, VA: USGS. doi: 10.1029/2010GL044571. Lohman SW and others. 1972. Definitions of selected ground- Walton WC. 2010. Aquifer system response time and ground- water terms: Revisions and conceptual refinements. US water supply management. Groundwater 49(2):126–127. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1988. Washington: World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. US Government Printing Office. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press. McGuire VL. 2013. Water-level and storage changes in the Available at www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I. High Plains aquifer, predevelopment to 2011 and 2009– 11. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5291. Reston, VA: USGS. Carbon capture with storage in deep geological formations is a critical tool for achieving large and rapid emission reductions in the coming decades.

Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage An Important Part of a Response to Climate Change

Sally M. Benson and S. Julio Friedmann

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have risen to 400 ppm from a preindustrial baseline of about 280 ppm. With the relentless increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) over the past 150 years Sally M. Benson and their impacts on climate, hydrology, ocean chemistry, and landscapes, the case for urgent and profound action grows stronger (IPCC 2007, 2012, 2013; Keeling et al. 2001). Action on all fronts is needed: energy conserva- tion and improved efficiency, a switch from coal to natural gas to reduce emissions from power generation, development and adoption of no- and low-carbon power sources such as renewables and nuclear power, land-use changes, and application of direct emission control technologies for CO2. To avoid increasing global average temperature by more than 2°C, within the next 40 years global GHG emissions must be reduced by 50 to 80 percent (IPCC 2007). At the same time, energy supplies must grow to meet grow- ing energy needs of emerging economies, where access to modern forms of energy is crucial for economic development and improving people’s lives S. Julio Friedmann (Karekezi et al. 2012). Notwithstanding remarkable improvements in energy

Sally M. Benson is a professor in the Department of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford University and director of the Global Climate and Energy Project. S. Julio Friedmann is deputy assistant secretary for coal at the US Department of Energy and former chief energy technologist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. SPRING 2014 43

efficiency, energy demand is expected to grow nearly 50 percent by 2050, and even greater increases are expected if efficiency improvements are not real- ized (GEA 2012).

Background

Global CO2 emissions today are 35 billion tonnes (Gt) each year. Govern- ment-mandated control technologies have proven successful in reducing FIGURE 1 Cumulative amount of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) required to emissions of atmospheric meet global energy goals, based on 41 pathways evaluated as part of the Global Energy Assessment (reprinted with permission from Riahi et al. 2012). Pathways were categorized under Efficiency pollutants other than CO2 (large improvements in energy efficiency were realized, shown with dashed lines), Mix (moder- (e.g., SOx, NOx, and par- ate gains in efficiency, where increasing demand for energy is met by a mix of efficiency gains and ticulates), but the mass of increased supply; solid lines), and Supply (improvements that rely primarily on increased supply CO2 emitted from a typical to meet demand growth; dotted lines). Placement of the vertical lines in the legend at right cor- power plant is more than responds to the range of values for each (e.g., for Supply, the range is about 700–2,100), and the 100 times greater than horizontal bars across the lines denote the mean for each type of pathway. CCUS for natural gas is also required and is included in the values shown here. Gt CO = billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. those pollutants, driving 2 higher costs and begging the question of what to do the European Emissions Trading System) exceeds the with all that CO2. Options for converting it to use- cost of capture. ful products such as cement or industrial chemicals Economic studies suggest that without CCUS the have been considered but, though possible, are not costs of GHG mitigation would rise significantly economical today (Mazzotti et al. 2005). Furthermore, (Edmonds et al. 2004) and that 15 years’ delay in CCUS even if such conversions could be done efficiently and development would add 17 percent to the cost of mitiga- economically, the sheer mass of CO2 emitted to the tion (EBRD 2011). This is particularly true for overseas atmosphere by industrial activity dwarfs demand for markets—such as China, India, Eastern Europe, and the these products, relegating most CO2 utilization efforts Middle East—where fossil energy use is extensive, ubiq- to niche applications (Wilcox 2013). uitous, and growing. A recent Global Energy Assessment (GEA 2012) examined 41 pathways for meeting worldwide needs CCUS Implementation: Progress and for energy access, energy security, pollution abatement, Challenges and climate change mitigation, and concluded that The primary purpose of CCUS is to reduce and ulti- 100–300 Gt of cumulative CO2 storage will be required mately eliminate GHG emissions. It works in two by 2050 and 300–2,000 Gt by the end of the century stages. First, CO2 is captured from large stationary (Figure 1). Carbon capture, utilization, and storage sources and concentrated to a purity of 95 percent or (CCUS) in underground geological formations has more. Capture and purification can be done in a vari- emerged over the past decade as the most feasible emis- ety of ways; the most familiar is use of an amine-based sion control option (Benson et al. 2012; IPCC 2005; solvent, others are combustion in pure oxygen (oxy- MIT 2007). However, its widespread implementation combustion) and precombustion capture (gasification over the next several decades is likely to be focused pri- to produce H2 followed by the use of physical solvents marily on pumping CO2 into depleted oil reservoirs to such as Selexol) (Rochelle 2009; Thambimuthu et al. increase recovery unless emission control performance 2005; Wilcox 2013). The CO2 is then compressed, standards are imposed on industrial and electricity gen- transported by pipeline, and pumped deep underground eration emissions or the cost of CO2 emissions (e.g., in for indefinite isolation from the atmosphere. Options The 44 BRIDGE

1 recovery (CO2-EOR ), hydrogen production, natural gas storage, and natural gas processing. CO2-EOR is the largest industrial use of CO2, injecting over 50 Mt/yr of it underground—the equivalent of emissions from twelve 500 MW coal-fired power plants. In the long run, other options may emerge, such as production of synthetic fuels through biotic or abiotic pathways (Mik- kelsen et al. 2010). Looking to the future, higher energetic efficiencies can be realized with tight integration of CCUS with power generation, but large-scale integration remains to be achieved because of challenges related to reliability (particularly as the technology is maturing), ability to provide load-following power generation, and mainte- nance of a high capacity factor. A further significant consideration is cost. In part because first-of-a-kind plants are likely to cost signifi- cantly more (Al-Juaied and Whitmore 2009), the cost of CCUS for electricity generation remains higher than most markets will accept without a regulatory mandate.

FIGURE 2 Current options for CO2 storage in deep (i.e., at It can raise the levelized cost of electricity generation least 800 m) underground geological formations: depleted oil by 3–6 cents per kWeh—a 50–100 percent increase and gas reservoirs with or without enhanced hydrocarbon recov- compared to the baseline technology (NETL 2012). ery, onshore and offshore saline formations (saltwater-filled formations), and coal beds (with or without the possibility for Advanced power generation and CCUS technologies are being developed that may reduce the incremental CO2-enhanced coal bed methane recovery). Horizontal lines denote perforations for injecting CO2 into the storage horizons. cost by 20–40 percent (NETL 2012), and revenue from the sale of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery can help off- for this underground storage include depleted oil and set these costs, but only partly. Substantial technology gas reservoirs, saline formations, coal beds, and, per- development and demonstration are needed to bolster haps in the future, basalt formations (Figure 2; Benson confidence and reduce costs. et al. 2005). Large-scale CCUS also raises important questions The prospect of indefinitely storing CO2 underground about possible environmental impacts of CO2 storage. is known to engineers and earth scientists but may at first In addition to effectively retaining CO2, storage must sound far-fetched to many people. The notion that the not cause harmful groundwater and ecosystem impacts ground under their feet is filled with rocks with micro- (Cihan et al. 2013; Zhou et al. 2010); ensure that leak- scopic pores (typically 1–100 mm) that can store fluids age, if any, does not create unsafe conditions for workers under sealing rocks (pore spaces ~ 1–10 nm) for geologi- or the public (Jordan and Benson 2013); and avoid pres- cal time scales of millions of years is difficult to grasp. Yet surization-induced seismic activity that causes property the oil and gas trapped in these small pores under seals damage or compromises the seal of the storage reservoir are the source of today’s fossil fuel–based energy, which (Zoback and Gorelick 2012). More will be said about has evolved from a century of advances in the ability these issues below. to characterize underground formations, drill, extract oil CCUS is often thought of as a coal technology, but and gas, inject fluids to enhance oil recovery, and moni- it can also reduce emissions from many stationary CO2 tor fluids underground. So the idea that CO2 could be sources, such as natural gas–fired power plants, refin- safely stored underground is based on long experience and sustained technological innovation. 1 At high enough pressure and temperature (and for specific crude Ten CCUS projects are in operation (Table 1) and oil compositions), CO2 and oil become miscible and the oil that individual components of CCUS are available and used would otherwise be trapped by capillary forces can be recovered in many other applications, notably CO2-enhanced oil efficiently. SPRING 2014 45

TABLE 1 Current CCUS projects (updated from GCCSI 2011).

Facility Location CO2 Source Injection Rate Storage/Use Year Initiated (Mt CO2/year)

Val Verde Natural Gas United States Natural gas cleanup 1.3 EOR 1972 Plant (Texas)

Enid Fertilizer Plant United States H2 separation from 0.7 EOR 1982 (Oklahoma) natural gas for fertilizer manufacturing

Shute Creek Gas United States Natural gas cleanup 7 EOR 1986 Processing Facility (Wyoming)

Sleipner Saline Aquifer Norway Natural gas cleanup 1 Saline formation 1996 Storage Project

Great Plains Synfuel and Canada Precombustion capture 3 EOR 2000 Weyburn-Midale Project from coal synfuel production

In Salah Gas Project Algeria Natural gas cleanup 1* Gas field 2004

Snøhvit LNG Facility Norway Gas cleanup for 0.7 Saline formation 2008 LNG facility

Century Plant United States Natural gas cleanup 5 with an Saline formation 2010 (Texas) additional 3.5 in construction

Port Arthur SMR Project United States Steam methane reformer 1 EOR 2013 (Texas) for hydrogen production

Lost Cabin Gas Plant United States Natural gas cleanup 1 EOR 2013 (Wyoming)

*Injection suspended in 2011. EOR = enhanced oil recovery; LNG = liquefied natural gas; SMR = steam methane reformer eries, cement and steel plants, and industrial sites. For Beginning in 1996, Statoil, ExxonMobil, BP, PanCa- example, the abundance and low cost of natural gas in nadian (now Cenovus), Shell, and Sonatrach (Alge- the United States are increasing the use of gas-fired ria) initiated CCUS projects associated with natural power plants, which will eventually require CCUS to gas cleanup facilities, synfuels, or hydrogen production achieve needed reductions in CO2 emissions. In addi- units (Table 1). These projects have been monitored by tion, as indicated in Table 1, other large sources (e.g., research teams from academia, government, and industry hydrogen plants, gas-processing stations, ethanol plants, to ensure that CO2 stays underground and to evaluate fertilizer and coal-to-chemical plants) produce byprod- how closely the migration of CO2 conforms to model pre- uct streams of CO2 with high purity, and as such provide dictions. Overall, the projects have been successful, with potential CO2 sources for early, low-cost demonstration. only one documented instance of leakage to the atmo- Two industrial-scale facilities, the Great Plains Synfuels sphere (at the In Salah project, which occurred in an old Plant and the Weyburn-Midale Oilfield have operated exploration well that was successfully sealed after the leak this way since 2001. was detected2; Iding and Ringrose 2010). By about 2015,

International Investment in CCUS 2 In November 2012 BP announced that CO2 injection at In The oil and gas industry has led the way to commercial- Salah had been suspended pending a business decision on wheth- scale CCUS projects, motivated in part by a tax for er to continue the commercial operation of the storage program offshore CO2 emissions of about $50/t CO2 in Norway. at the site. The 46 BRIDGE seven new projects are expected to increase the total Project) as well as pipeline infrastructure. Norway’s CCUS capacity to about 30 Mt/year (GCCSI 2011). Statoil initiated one of the first and largest CCUS Over the past decade there has been a remarkable projects (Sleipner), injecting over 16 Mt of CO2 into international upsurge in both interest and investment— a saline aquifer beneath the North Sea. The govern- government and industry commitments total more than ment has also supported industrial scale-up and testing $26 billion (GCCSI 2011), with an investment rate of (Mongstad), other large projects (Snøhvit, In Salah), a $2.8 billion in 2012 (Hallerman 2013). The United new project in Svalbard, a public-private partnership to States is investing nearly $6 billion in ongoing large invest in low-cost capture technology (Gassnova), and demonstration projects and fundamental and applied many R&D centers. R&D. Led by the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy, this funding supports advanced power Lessons Learned projects (e.g., FutureGen 2.0), polygeneration projects There are a number of major findings from all this (e.g., Texas Clean Energy Project), chemical plants (e.g., investment by government and industry. CO2 has the Archer Daniel Midlands Ethanol Plant and the Port been safely injected and stored underground in CCUS Arthur Steam-Methane Reforming Project), and seven as well as CO2-EOR projects. There is no evidence of Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships.3 groundwater contamination or habitat degradation. The Chinese government has made similar substan- Numerous CO2 storage pilots have shown that many tial investments in demonstration projects and research, options are available for monitoring CO2 movement in such as the GreenGen project, the Shidongkou post- the subsurface; seismic imaging and pressure monitoring combustion demonstration, several oxygen-fired plants, are among the most useful for tracking the location of and new R&D centers. In 2013 China’s National stored CO2 and detecting potential leakage. Theoreti- Development and Reform Commission announced that cal and laboratory studies continue to strengthen the CCUS is “an important task in the 12th 5-year plan,” scientific foundations assessing the integrity of long- with recommendations and roadmaps for pilot demon- term storage (Benson et al. 2012). Demonstration of stration and scale-up (GCCSI 2013b). CO2 capture from power generation has been done at a scale of 100,000 tonnes/year,4 and construction of larger projects is now under way. Over 5,000 km of CO National and regional assessments indicate that 2 storage capacity is large but unevenly distributed. For pipeline have operated example, a recent study by the US Geological Survey concluded that there is about 3,000 Gt of storage capac- safely in the United States ity in the United States, more than half of it in the Gulf for over 30 years. Coastal Plains (USGS 2013). This independent assess- ment aligns well with the low end of the range of a DOE (2012) report that found storage capacity is sufficient to Other countries, in particular those with carbon- meet anticipated national needs. Limited storage options intensive economies, are also making substantial invest- in some regions, such as the Northeast, will necessitate ments. Australia has created the Global CCS Institute long-distance pipeline transport and the attendant chal- and invested over $300 million to date in policy and lenges of building large pipelines. That said, more than project support; and the country’s Gorgon Project will 5,000 km of CO2 pipelines are in use in the United be the world’s largest storage project (6 Mt/year) in a States and have operated safely for over 30 years. saline formation. The Canadian government has funded However, not everything has proceeded as antici- monitoring and research at the Weyburn-Midale Proj- pated. On the economic front, costs for first-of-a-kind ect and invested in large projects (e.g., SaskPower’s Boundary Dam Power Station project and Shell’s Quest 4 American Electric Power and Alstom conducted a demonstra- tion test of capture and storage using chilled ammonia capture 3 Information about these partnerships is available from the technology on a slipstream of 30 MW from the 1,300 MW Moun- National Energy Technology Laboratory, at www.netl.doe.gov/ taineer Power Plant (West Virginia) in 2009–2010. The captured technologies/carbon_seq/infrastructure/rcsp.html. CO2 was stored in a nearby saline aquifer at a depth of 4.1 km. SPRING 2014 47

plants have often exceeded initial estimates, leading Leakage through abandoned wells has been cited as to cancelled projects and concern about maintaining a significant issue in areas of hydrocarbon exploration momentum in CCUS (GCCSI 2013a). On the techni- and production (Benson et al. 2005; Celia and Nord- cal front, a few large projects encountered unexpected botten 2009; Gasda et al. 2004). In the United States complications that have led to redesigns. In Europe, more than 2.6 million oil and gas wells have been drilled local public opposition has led to the cancellation of since 19506; of these, about 1 million are producing oil projects and in some places prohibition of onshore stor- (EIA 2011) and gas.7 For the inactive wells, unless they age. On the regulatory front, the EPA’s new class VI are located and properly sealed before CO2 injection well designation for underground injection continues to begins, they can lead to leakage of brine, hydrocarbons, evolve as implementation issues arise. In some cases, it and CO2. Storage projects will have to demonstrate has been difficult to find a storage formation with high effective management of these risks to ensure protec- enough permeability. tion of groundwater resources and the support of public Learning by doing is to be expected in an undertak- stakeholders, regulators, and investors. ing of such global size and scale, and policymakers and Finally, a collaborative and transparent approach is industrial developers are wrestling with how best to needed in the conduct of large-scale CO2 storage projects take advantage of what is now known. Furthermore, with appropriate monitoring, analysis, and reporting. new issues arise as fundamental and applied research explores the implications of large-scale storage. A fiftyfold scale-up of the current CCUS enterprise CCUS scale-up will require would be needed to reduce emissions by a billion tonnes per year. Careful and sophisticated earth resources engi- careful and sophisticated neering is required to ensure that CO2 storage is safe and earth resources engineering effective. Among the technical concerns about CO2 storage at this large scale is the pressure buildup caused to ensure that CO2 storage is by CO2 injection. For low-permeability formations, small and closed storage reservoirs, or multiple storage safe and effective. projects that use the same reservoir, excessive pressure buildup could occur if not managed appropriately and could lead to induced seismicity or brine migration, with Getting Ready for Large-Scale Deployment of consequent risks to groundwater and/or the integrity of CCUS the seal. The degree to which this poses unacceptable A number of critical issues must be resolved before risk is the subject of debate—although such problems are CCUS is likely to be widely deployed to reduce emis- rare in CO2-EOR projects and in the limited experience sions from the power sector. Some are technical, such with saline formation storage, experienced only at the as reducing the costs for CO2 capture; others are social, In Salah Project where CO2 was stored in a formation economic, political, or regulatory. Critical nontechni- with very low permeability (e.g., Cihan et al. 2013; Gan cal issues include the following: public confidence that and Frolich 2013; Juanes et al. 2012; Verdon et al. 2013; CO2 storage is safe; development of cost-effective regu- Zhou et al. 2010; Zoback and Gorelick 2012). latory regimes; assurance of financial responsibility for Regulations both prohibit fracturing the seal of a for- future environmental damages if they occur; trustworthy mation into which fluids are injected for either storage GHG accounting and verification approaches; fair com- or enhanced oil recovery and limit the injection pres- pensation of power generators for implementing CO2 sure. There are also methods to reduce and manage the emission controls; and private sector investment. Coop- extent of pressure buildup through careful well place- ment, injection rate limits, and brine extraction5 (Birk- 6 holzer et al. 2012; Buscheck et al. 2012; WRI 2008). Data on crude oil and natural gas exploratory and development wells from the US Energy Information Administration; available at www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/PET_CRD_WELLEND_S1_A.htm. 5 Brine extraction with desalination may provide an economically 7 Data on the number of producing gas wells from the US Energy attractive source of water in some regions (Bourcier et al. 2011; Information Administration; available at www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ Breunig et al. 2012). ng_prod_wells_s1_a.htm. The 48 BRIDGE eration among industry, government, and academia will access, reductions in the cost of CCUS, development be needed to address these issues and lower barriers for of workforce capacity, and training of regulators for per- early deployment, and will involve support for demon- mitting, monitoring, and oversight. stration projects, fundamental and applied research, capacity building, regulatory innovation, approaches for Summary and Conclusions financing early commercial projects, and international Control technologies for reducing CO2 emissions from collaboration. industrial sources and fossil fuel–fired power plants are Access to capital for large-scale deployment could an important component of achieving sufficiently large also be a major factor limiting the widespread use of and rapid emission reductions over the coming decades. CCUS. Individual large-scale CCUS projects require Carbon capture with storage in deep geological forma- multibillion-dollar investments; for example, the Kem- tions is the only currently available control technology per County (Mississippi) 582 MW integrated gasifica- likely to be deployable at scale within this time frame, tion combined cycle power plant is expected to cost but it will require the work of engineers, scientists, and $4.5 billion or more.8 Project financing at this scale social scientists to resolve important challenges. is difficult, and even more so when assurance of cost Today, over 20 Mt/yr of CO2 are captured from recovery is uncertain. Clear policy and regulatory anthropogenic sources and injected underground, and regimes will be crucial for obtaining the capital to build there is a pipeline of projects that will raise this amount these multibillion-dollar projects. A carbon tax, perfor- by 50 percent within the next few years. But this is still mance standards such as those recently proposed by the far short of the fiftyfold scale-up needed, and a variety US Environmental Protection Agency,9 and cap and of challenges must be addressed to achieve the necessary trade systems such as the European Union Emissions progress. Costs for capture are too high, particularly in Trading System (ETS) can all provide such certainty. the absence of regulatory drivers for CCUS. Further dialogue about the most effective and eco- Outstanding technical issues related to large-scale nomically efficient means of stimulating investment in storage (e.g., pressure management, wellbore leakage, CCUS is needed. and storage capacity) will require a combination of Another way to both accelerate CCUS deployment R&D and commercial experience before they are fully and reduce total risk and cost is through international resolved. Nontechnical aspects are perhaps even more collaboration. Recently established programs—such as important: access to capital for plant construction, regu- the IEA International Greenhouse Gas R&D Program, latory issues, and public support for CCUS must also be Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), and a top priority for policymakers and industry leaders. Global CCS Institute (GCCSI)—are designed to help Above all, sustained support from governments, inform governments and decision makers, share infor- industry, and academia is critical for continuing progress mation and results, and foster closer ties between gov- in this important CO2 emission reduction technology. ernments and businesses. In addition, the US-China Clean Energy Research Center, a joint initiative of References Presidents Hu and Obama, is intended to foster infor- Al-Juaied M, Whitmore A. 2009. Realistic Costs of Carbon mation sharing, business-to-business protections and Capture. Discussion Paper 2009-08, Energy Technology support, and applied R&D for CCUS. Innovation Research Group. Cambridge, MA: Belfer Cen- These international efforts will improve readiness, ter for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy reduce costs, and increase the likelihood of implemen- School, July. tation for key projects. Developing countries may also Benson SM, Cook P, coordinating lead authors; with lead need financial and technical support for technology authors Anderson J, Bachu S, Nimir HB, Basu B, Bradshaw J, Deguchi G, Gale J, von Goerne G, Heidug W, Holloway S, Kamal R, Keith D, Lloyd P, Rocha P, Senior B, Thomson J, 8 Reported by Reuters in July 2013, “Costs rise for South- Torp T, Wildenborg T, Wilson M, Zarlenga F, Zhou D. 2005. ern Co’s coal gasification plant”; available at www. reuters.com/article/2013/07/01/utilities-southern-kemper- Underground Geological Storage. IPCC Special Report on idUSL2N0F723N20130701. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Chapter 5 (pp. 195– 9 Available at www.epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandards/pdfs/ 276). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cam- 20120327factsheet.pdf. bridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press. SPRING 2014 49

Benson SM, Bennaceur K, Cook P, Davison J, de Coninck earthquakes in the Cogdell oil field, Texas. Proceedings of H, Farhat K, Ramirez A, Simbeck D, Surles T, Verma P, the National Academy of Sciences 110(47):18786–18791.

Wright I. 2012. Carbon capture and storage. In: Global Gasda SE, Bachu S, Celia MA. 2004. The potential for CO2 Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future, Chapter leakage from storage sites in geological media: Analysis of 13 (pp. 993–1068). Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cam- well distribution in mature sedimentary basins. Environ- bridge University Press, and Laxenburg, Austria: Interna- mental Geology 46:707–720. tional Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. GCCSI [Global CCS Institute]. 2011. The Global Status of Birkholzer JT, Cihan A, Zhou Q. 2012. Impact-driven pres- CCS, 2010. Docklands, Australia. Available at www.glo- sure management via targeted brine extraction: Conceptu- balccsinstitute.com/resources/publications/global-status-

al studies of CO2 storage in saline formations. International ccs-2010. Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 7:168–180. GCCSI. 2013a. The Global Status of CCS: Update, January Bourcier WL, Wolery TJ, Wolfe T, Haussmann C, Buscheck 2013. Docklands, Australia. Available at www.globalcc- TA, Aines RD. 2011. A preliminary cost and engineering sinstitute.com/publications/global-status-ccs-update-janu- estimate for desalinating produced formation water associ- ary-2013. ated with carbon dioxide capture and storage. International GCCSI. 2013b. Notice of National Development and Reform Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5:1316–1328. Commission (NDRC) on promoting carbon capture, utili- Breunig HM, Birkholzer JT, Borgia A, Oldenburg CM, Price sation and storage pilot and demonstration. Docklands, PN, McKone TE. 2012. Regional evaluation of brine man- Australia. Available at www.globalccsinstitute.com/publi- agement for geologic carbon sequestration. International cations/notice-national-development-and-reform-commis- Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 14:39–48. sion-ndrc-promoting-carbon-capture. Buscheck TA, Sun Y, Chen M, Hao Y, Wolery TJ, Bourcier GEA [Global Energy Assessment]. 2012. Global Energy WL, Court B, Celia MA, Friedmann SJ, Aines RD. 2012. Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future. Cambridge, UK, Active management for carbon storage: Analysis of opera- and New York: Cambridge University Press, and Laxen- tional strategies to relieve pressure buildup and improve burg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems injectivity. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Con- Analysis. trol 6:230–245. Hallerman T. 2013. CCS investment remained steady in 2012, Celia MA, Nordbotten JM. 2009. Practical modeling Bloomberg says. GHG Reduction Technologies Monitor, approaches for geological storage of carbon dioxide. January 18. Available at http://ghgnews.com/index.cfm/ Ground Water 47:627–638. ccs-investment-remained-steady-in-2012-bloomberg-says/. Cihan A, Birkholzer JT, Zhou Q. 2013. Pressure buildup and Iding M, Ringrose P. 2010. Evaluating the impact of fractures

brine migration during CO2 storage in multilayered aqui- on the performance of the In Salah storage site. Interna- fers. Ground Water 51:252–267. tional Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4:242–248. DOE [US Department of Energy]. 2012. The 2012 United IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. 2005. States Carbon Utilization and Storage Atlas, 4th ed. (Atlas IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and IV). Available at www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon- Storage. Prepared by IPCC Working Group III; Metz B, storage/atlasiv. Davidson O, de Coninck HC, Loos M, Meyer LA, eds. EBRD [European Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University ment]. 2011. The Low Carbon Transition: Special Report Press. on Climate Change. London. Available at www.ebrd.com/ IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Con- downloads/research/transition/trsp.pdf. tribution of IPCC Working Groups I, II, and III to the Edmonds J, Clarke J, Dooley J, Kim SH, Son H, Smith SJ. Fourth Assessment Report; Pachauri RK, Reisinger A, eds.

2004. Stabilization of CO2 in a B2 world: Insights on the Geneva. roles of carbon capture and disposal, hydrogen, and trans- IPCC. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and portation technologies. Energy Economics 26:517–537. Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Special EIA [US Energy Information Administration]. 2011. Annual Report of IPCC Working Groups I and II; Field CB, Barros Energy Review, table 5.2. Washington: US Department of V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea Energy. Available at http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/ MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midg- annual/pdf/sec5_9.pdf. ley PM, eds. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge Gan W, Frohlich C. 2013. Gas injection may have triggered University Press. The 50 BRIDGE

IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Pittsburgh. Available at www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/ Basis. Summary for Policy Makers, Assessment Report 5. pubs/RedCostCCUS.pdf. Geneva. Available at www.climatechange2013.org/report/. Riahi K, Dentener F, Gielen D, Grubler A, Jewell J, Klimont Jordan PD, Benson SM. 2013. Worker safety in a mature car- Z, Krey V, McCollum D, Pachauri S, Rao S, van Ruijven bon capture and storage industry in the United States based B, van Vuuren DP, Wilson C. 2012. Energy Pathways for upon analog industry experience. International Journal of Sustainable Development. In: Global Energy Assessment: Greenhouse Gas Control 14:291–303. Toward a Sustainable Future, Chapter 17 (pp. 1203–1306). Juanes R, Hager BH, Herzog HJ. 2012. No geologic evidence Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University that seismicity causes fault leakage that would render large- Press, and Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for scale carbon capture and storage unsuccessful. Proceedings Applied Systems Analysis.

of the National Academy of Sciences 109(52):E3623. Rochelle GT. 2009. Amine scrubbing for CO2 capture. Sci- Karekezi S, McDade S, Boardman B, Kimani J. 2012. Energy, ence 325:1652–1654. poverty and development. In: Global Energy Assessment: Thambimuthu K, Soltanieh M, Abanades JC, Allam R, Bol- Toward a Sustainable Future, Chapter 2 (pp. 151–190). land O, Davison J, Ferron P, Goede F, Herrera A, Iijima Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University M, Jansen D, Leitis I, Mathieu P, Rubin E, Simbeck D, Press and Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Warmuzinski K, Wilkinson M, Williams R. 2005. Capture

Applied Systems Analysis. of CO2. In: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Cap- Keeling CD, Piper CS, Bacastow RB, Wahlen M, Whorf TP, ture and Storage, Chapter 3 (pp. 105–178). Prepared by Heimann M, Meijer HA. 2001. Exchanges of atmospheric IPCC Working Group III; Metz B, Davidson O, de Conink 13 CO2 and CO2 with the terrestrial biosphere and oceans H, Loos M, Meyer L, eds. Cambridge, UK, and New York: from 1978 to 2000. I. Global aspects. SIO Reference Series, Cambridge University Press. No. 01-06. San Diego: Scripps Institution of Oceanogra- USGS [US Geological Survey]. 2013. National Assessment phy. Updated online http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_ of Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources: Results. co2_and_isotopic/daily_co2/fldav_mlf.csv. Reston, VA. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1386/. Mazzotti M, Abanades JC, Allam R, Lackner KS, Meunier F, Verdon JP, Kendall JM, Stork AL, Chadwick RA, White DJ, Rubin E, Zevenhoven R. 2005. Mineral carbonation and Bissell RC. 2013. Comparison of geomechanical deforma-

industrial uses of carbon dioxide. In: IPCC Special Report tion induced by megatonne-scale CO2 storage at Sleipner, on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Chapter 7 (pp. Weyburn, and In Salah. Proceedings of the National Acad- 321–338). Prepared by IPCC Working Group III; Metz emy of Sciences 110(30):E2762–E2771. B, Davidson O, de Coninck HC, Loos M, Meyer LA, eds. Wilcox J. 2013. Carbon Capture. New York: Springer. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University WRI [World Resources Institute]. 2008. Guidelines for Car- Press. bon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage. Washington. Mikkelsen M, Jorgensen M, Krebs FC. 2010. The teraton Available at www.wri.org/publication/ccs-guidelines. challenge: A review of fixation and transformation of car- Zhou Q, Birkholzer JT, Mehnert E, Lin Y-F, Zhang K. 2010.

bon dioxide. Energy and Environmental Science 3:43–81. Modeling basin- and plume-scale processes of CO2 storage MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. 2007. The for full-scale deployment. Ground Water 48:494–514. Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World. Zoback MD, Gorelick SM. 2012. Earthquake triggering and Cambridge, MA. Available at http://web.mit.edu/coal/. large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Proceedings NETL [National Energy Technology Laboratory]. 2012. of the National Academy of Sciences 109:10164–10168. Reducing the Cost of CCUS for Coal Power Plants. A geologic setting with appropriate engineered barriers offers good prospects for containment in a secure long- term deep geological repository of nuclear waste.

Geologic Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel An Earth Science Perspective

John A. Cherry, William M. Alley, and Beth L. Parker

John A. Cherry William M. Alley Beth L. Parker

Climate change in the form of global warming is a widely accepted threat to humanity on a global scale and attributed at least in part to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Nuclear power is a well-established source of electrical energy that produces minimal GHG emissions (Kharecha and Hansen 2013). Yet expansion of nuclear power worldwide has stalled except in Asia and production is poised to shrink in Europe and North America as old reactors are decommissioned and few new ones built. Public support for

John A. Cherry (NAE) is a distinguished emeritus professor, University of Waterloo, and director of the University Consortium for Field Focused Groundwater Research based at the University of Guelph, Canada. William M. Alley is director of science and technology with the National Ground Water Association and former chief, Office of Groundwater, US Geological Survey. Beth L. Parker is a professor in the School of Engineering at the University of Guelph, director of the G360 Institute for Applied Groundwater Research, and Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Industrial Research Chair in Fractured Rock Contaminant Hydrogeology. The 52 BRIDGE nuclear power is entangled with the unresolved issue Although the quest to create DGRs began nearly 50 of final disposal of the used (spent) fuel. One solution years ago and many billions of dollars have been spent, for used fuel and other high-level radioactive waste none yet exists and all nuclear power–producing coun- is entombment in deep, low-permeability geological tries currently house their used fuel in temporary stor- repositories (DGRs; 300–600 m below ground surface) age facilities near the ground surface. Sweden, Finland, that are separated from the biosphere. The US effort and France are getting close to constructing DGRs, but to find a deep geological repository began in 1957 with Canada and the United States have fallen far behind a report by a National Academy of Sciences commit- with no sites selected for detailed assessment (beyond tee (NRC 1957). An international consensus favoring Yucca Mountain, Nevada); in Canada a number of sites DGRs also began around this time. are in the preliminary (desktop) evaluation stage of The benefits of nuclear power to combat climate assessment.1 change are global. Therefore, there are ethical and eco- While there are many reasons for the failure to devel- nomic arguments for cooperation toward international op a used-fuel DGR (Alley and Alley 2013), this paper repositories using geologies that are exceptionally favor- focuses on a critique of key issues from the geoscience able for long-term radionuclide containment. We brief- perspective: ly review progress in the United States, Canada, and • the exceedingly long time frame and issues concern- other major nuclear power–producing countries. ing the predictive capabilities generated by field- derived, site-specific information most relevant to Countries currently house radionuclide migration over geologic time; • the advantages and disadvantages of different rock their used fuel in temporary types for mining, radionuclide containment, and storage facilities near the retrievability; and • the relative decision weight placed on complex math- ground surface. ematical models versus geoscience-based analogues for predicting radionuclide behavior in deep ground- Deep Geological Repositories water systems. The concept of deep geological repositories for the Our emphasis is on the used-fuel disposal problem in long-term storage of nuclear waste relies on the fol- the United States and Canada (which together account lowing assumptions: (1) rock mass—and the associated for almost half of the global inventory; IAEA 2008), stability of the physical, hydrological, and chemical although much of our argument also applies to other environment—will constitute the primary physical bar- countries seeking similar solutions. rier and part of the chemical and transport barriers for radionuclide isolation from the biosphere; (2) the rock The Promise of Radionuclide Containment over is suitable for mining, and the open cavity will remain Geologic Time stable during the time necessary for emplacement and The nuclear industry2 is unique in setting a manage- retrievability; (3) the rock mass around the cavity can ment goal that extends over future geologic time to iso- withstand long periods of high temperature and dissi- late its wastes from the biosphere. This is an exemplary pate the heat from the waste; and (4) the cost of creat- moral position. ing the DGR is affordable and justifiable. The main evaluation stages in the DGR concept are detailed site characterization, system design and evalu- 1 Disposal in deep (>2 km) boreholes is also being considered in ation, vault creation by mining, loading with spent fuel, the United States but is not addressed here. a period of performance monitoring and assessment of 2 We use the term nuclear industry here to refer collectively to the retrievability, and final closure by infilling and sealing combination of government regulatory agencies, national labora- tories (US Department of Energy and Atomic Energy of Canada accompanied by further performance monitoring. These Limited), and nuclear power producers, acknowledging that the stages may span 100 years or more depending on tech- federal governments control the direction and most of the public nological advances for spent fuel reuse or reprocessing. communications. SPRING 2014 53

In the 1970s the time scale of this promise in Canada and the United States was more than 10,000 years, a duration likely selected because it represents time since the last continental glaciation and thus the longest time scale over which geosphere isolation predictions could be reasonably envisioned. The time scale of the prom- ise has since grown: the nuclear industry in nearly all countries now proposes that isolation should exceed 100,000 years and prefer- ably approach 1,000,000 years or more, equivalent to the time needed to reduce by decay the radioactivity in the used fuel to nonhaz- ardous levels (Figure 1). This promise is based on the expectations that the FIGURE 1 Radioactivity of used fuel relative to natural radioactivity of uranium ore as a unitless ratio. Time is shown in years since the removal of used fuel from a pressurized water reactor. Modified used fuel will be contained from Birkholzer et al. (2012); data from Hedin (1997) and MIT (2003). for some time in metal and clay packing in the DGR and that the site-specific geol- future options (e.g., retrieval, reuse) open (Alley and ogy, hydrology, and geochemistry will ultimately pro- Alley 2014). vide containment over future geologic time. We use the term promise rather than goal because Advantages and Disadvantages of Different of the way the industry presents the DGR concept Rock Types to the public. No formal examination of its scientific The 1957 NRC report considered granite and basalt foundations was conducted when the promise was first but ultimately determined that disposal in salt beds envisioned in the 1960s and, in our view, prediction of or domes was the most promising solution, because of radionuclide transport and fate over geologic time was their presumed dryness and lack of transport pathways, unrealistic based on what science then had to offer. among other factors. Salt was the cornerstone of US More reliable, longer-term predictions are now possible waste disposal policy for two decades, and a salt DGR but their period of high confidence is much shorter than in New Mexico for intermediate military radioactive the promise. This creates an impasse between govern- waste has operated successfully since 1999. But salt ment policies and science. The uncertainty inherent in creep makes this mineral poorly suited for keeping the longer-term (i.e., >10,000 years) predictions should not cavity open for monitoring and retrievability. Moreover, be used to discredit the role of science in today’s deci- prospective salt areas may be jeopardized by unsealed sions. Rather, the main tradeoff under consideration by holes from previous drilling, and geological sequences the nuclear industry is between (1) continuing to store with salt may have resource value such as oil or gas and used fuel near the surface, leaving future generations to be subject to future drilling. deal with the associated risks and DGR costs, and (2) In the 1980s Congress limited the focus to tuff (a form proceeding with monitored DGR storage and leaving of volcanic rock) at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, where The 54 BRIDGE d a

e

b Countries investigating Canada, China, South Africa Germany; USA has military radioactive waste repository in New Mexico United Kingdom Canada has selected this option for low- to intermediate-level waste, which allows potential for used fuel also Mountain, USA (Yucca Nevada) c

anisters).

Countries committed Sweden, Finland Belgium, France, Switzerland Retrievability difficulty Low to medium Extremely high High Low Lowest Importance of barriers High, e.g., copper rather than steel canisters Medium, high Low Lowest High Safety code complexity High, analogues rare Medium, high Low Lowest High retardation movement to valuable resources (e.g., oil, gas, potash) faults combination is less common geologically promise canister corrosion hazards Irregular fracture networks Unknown fracture presence Minimal radionuclide sorption/diffusion Weak Heat induces moisture Hydrogen gas buildup Risk of future drilling due Unstable mining Potential for permeable Hydrogen gas buildup Oil drill holes are common This most desirable Oxidizing conditions Seismic and volcanic Principal disadvantages ------analogues are common shale and those of granite Stable for mining Heat resistant Offers remote locations Absence of flowing water Self-healing High thermal conductivity Common in many regions Self-sealing fractures Diffusion-controlled High sorption capacity Includes the advantages of Arid climate Remote location Stable for mining Zeolites for sorption Lack of mineral deposits Principal advantages ------The characteristics shown for volcanic tuff are specific to the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain, the only candidate site selected in this medium. The Obama administration The characteristics shown for volcanic tuff are specific to the unsaturated zone at Yucca France has a research facility (mined cavity) at prospective used-fuel site; Switzerland in shale and process place to select the DGR elsewhere. areas on layered sedimentary rock. China is intensely investigating some potential sites in the Gobi desert, but the granite has been found to be substantially fractured. Russia not yet done field investigations. Lake Huron, Ontario. This site has all of the attributes appropriate for a used-fuel DGR; public acceptance is being sought to assess other locations in same area DGR. Mountain option in 2009, but debates continue Congress and the courts. abandoned the Yucca Sweden and Finland are now excavating their repositories in granite; containment wells rely on engineering barriers (clay packing inside copper c Germany communities in populated has focused on the salt option since 1960s, but no site been selected. Canada granite at remote locations and some volunteer Since 2004, Canada has investigated a site proposed for low- and intermediate-level waste repository at 500 m depth the Bruce Nuclear Power Development on shore of

TABLE 1 Summary of Options for Radioactive Waste Repositories 1 Summary of Options for Radioactive Waste TABLE Rock type Crystalline rock (granite) Salt (beds or domes) Shale/clay Shale cap over dense, hard rock (volcanic Tuff rock) a b c d e SPRING 2014 55

FIGURE 2 Conceptual model for a deep geological repository (DGR) in low-permeability rock such as shale below an active ground- water flow system where transport controlled by molecular diffusion provides long-term containment of radionuclides over geologic time. Strong evidence of diffusion-controlled migration of naturally occurring chemical constituents in the groundwater, but without influence of groundwater flow, is relatively easy to obtain from deep, low-permeability strata so that prediction of radionuclide migration from a DGR can be based primarily on simple diffusion models. the thick unsaturated zone was initially selected based small, offer the best possibilities for containment pre- on the advantages listed in Table 1. But after much dictions over future geologic time and can withstand study, the future of the Yucca Mountain site is unclear3 heat effects potentially better than salt, but shale exhib- and the US quest for a used-fuel DGR has begun again. its more difficult properties for mine stability. Figure 2 The following five geologies have been identified as shows a conceptual example of a DGR in low-permea- offering favorable characteristics (e.g., Farvolden et al. bility strata where groundwater flow has no influence on 1985): granite, salt, shale/clay, shale cap, and tuff; their radionuclide migration. characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Besides salt, Neuzil (2013) notes that, although other countries granite and shale have been explored most extensively. have selected shale, this option has been absent from the US repository program. He concludes that research Granite and Shale in other countries has yielded a much better under- As indicated in Table 1, there is no ideal geology, standing of the isolation afforded by shales and that but some offer better prospects than others. Granite they may offer potential to host most of the world’s is excellent for mining and accommodating heat but, radioactive waste. because it has uncertainties due to fractures (known or There are also possibilities for making use of more suspected) and weak attenuation mechanisms, it does than one rock type in DGR design. Bredehoeft and not allow credible transport and fate predictions. It has Maini (1981) proposed a repository in granite (for shaft therefore been abandoned by most countries that have stability) situated beneath shale. Building on this, Rus- a politically/socially acceptable alternative. sell and Gale (1982) drew attention to the favorable Shale beds, where fractures are closed or extremely sedimentary geology beneath Canada’s main nuclear power production center, where there is much used 3 The Obama administration discontinued funding in 2011, but fuel in dry surface storage at the Bruce Nuclear Power debates continue in Congress and the courts. Development in Ontario, 200 km west of Toronto and The 56 BRIDGE near Lake Huron. Here, there is the potential for shale possibility. Belgium, lacking crystalline rock options layers for containment and deeper layers for the reposi- within its borders, pursued clay as its only option. Ger- tory vault. Although Canada did not begin to assess this many has had a long-standing focus on salt. After con- option until 2005, it has advanced toward a decision to sideration of a wide range of geological options, China create a DGR for low- and intermediate-level radioac- selected granite as its preferred option in the 1980s tive waste (but not a used-fuel repository) at this site. (Wang 2010). Canada initiated a selection process in 2010 to find In all of these countries the repositories are posi- a willing community for a used-fuel DGR; 21 commu- tioned below the water table and there is thus a risk nities situated on both granite and sedimentary rock, that radionuclides could escape to the biosphere if there including some in the Bruce region, are undergoing the is active groundwater flow. The exception to ground- initial evaluation process. water-zone DGRs is the abandoned Yucca Mountain In our view, any one of multiple geologic settings in option, although this site also does not avoid potentially good circumstances combined with appropriate engi- significant water movement over geologic time scales. neered barriers may offer sufficient containment for the Most major nuclear power–producing countries establishment of adequately secure DGRs. Even with (France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom) have the best engineered barriers, however, DGRs in each selected argillaceous sedimentary rock (e.g., extremely geology type face substantial uncertainty when the time low permeability shale) as their priority, provided it is frame extends too far into the future (e.g., approaches within their borders and politically/socially acceptable. geologic time such as 10,000 years or more). China has found that the granite at its DGR focus area in the Gobi desert has fractures with water flow; this was not expected and may cause reconsideration of other options in China such as shale. Sweden and Fin- DGRs in each geology type land concluded that containment predictions in granite face substantial uncertainty cannot be made over long periods of time with sufficient confidence (Mazurek 2010); but because these coun- when the time frame extends tries have no geologic alternative they are construct- ing granite DGRs that rely on very expensive enhanced to 10,000 years or more. engineered barriers for the primary containment.

Siting and Transport Considerations International Efforts An important consideration is that a granite repository The Canadian effort to find a DGR site began in 1974 for Canada would require both long-distance transpor- when Atomic Energy of Canada selected crystalline tation of waste from southern Ontario and enhanced rock, represented primarily by granite, as its only geo- containment of the transported waste by engineered logic option, a choice that subsequently became govern- barriers to achieve the same isolation prospects as ment policy (Aikin et al. 1977). Although the primary sedimentary rock. These arrangements are expected to reason appears to have been remoteness from popula- result in substantial additional DGR costs. This brings tion, this was not acknowledged as the main selection to the forefront the tradeoffs between (1) the political criterion and no science-based argument was given advantages of granite site remoteness and relative ease as to why granite should offer long-term radionuclide of public acceptance and (2) the long-standing prom- containment. Canada is now committed to granite and ise for strong scientific evidence of containment over shale as equal options at the social acceptability stage of geologic time while communicating with transparency site evaluation, without distinguishing between reliance about uncertainties around the science and cost. on the engineered barriers versus the rock in terms of A further consideration is that used-fuel disposal DGR design concept. efforts are based on the premise that each country that About the time that Canada began its granite-focused produces nuclear power will establish its own DGR. DGR quest, Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom This is reinforced by legislation mandating no used-fuel also selected granite. France identified it as the favored transport across borders, despite much international option, with sedimentary rock (shale) as a secondary cooperation in scientific and engineering aspects of SPRING 2014 57

nuclear power development. For countries with minimal credibility. In short, the PA approach has maximum nuclear power production (e.g., Mexico, Brazil, Czech complexity but minimal transparency. Republic, South Africa), creation of a national reposi- tory does not make economic sense. Moreover, the best The Safety Case geological conditions for a DGR may be near an inter- The safety case relies on conceptual models to explain national border, as would be the case if the Canadian why a repository is thought to be safe (Long and Ewing used-fuel DGR were proposed for the Bruce region near 2004). It should be transparent and include multiple Lake Huron. independent lines of reasoning based on evidence rath- er than relying on a multitude of calculations. The Challenge of Predicting Long-Term A groundwater system allows for the development of Behavior simple transparent models (along with more complex Oreskes (2004, p. 369) argues that “In all but the most and less transparent models) and features natural ana- trivial cases, science does not produce logically indisput- logues for system evaluation. Site-specific chemicals or able proof about the natural world. At best it produces isotopes in the pore water serve as analogues for radionu- a robust consensus based on the process of inquiry that clide behavior and can provide strong lines of indepen- allows for continued scrutiny, re-examination and revi- dent evidence of slow chemical migration over geologic sion.” We agree that claims to predict radionuclide con- time, where migration is diffusion controlled and free of tainment over long times must be supported by strong the influence of active groundwater flow (e.g., Clark et scientific consensus, with ever growing evidence, if they al. 2013). Thus, based on safety case results, countries are to be highly credible to the public. For these reasons, that initially selected granite switched to extremely low the selection of an approach to establish consensus is permeability shale primarily because active radionu- important (Saltelli and Funtowicz 2014). There also clide migration due to groundwater flow in fractures is must be a commitment to long-term monitoring and much less likely in shale (as mentioned above). reevaluation of DGR design and operation in recogni- tion of the inherent uncertainties. To fulfill the promise initiated decades ago, radionu- clide migration to the human environment (i.e., the Claims to predict radionuclide biosphere) must be predicted over geologic time. Several containment over long general approaches are used to predict such migration, of which we highlight two: performance assessment and times must be supported the safety case. by robust consensus in the Performance Assessment scientific community. Performance assessment (PA; or total system PA) is a complex structured mathematical approach with gen- eral features developed from risk assessments of nuclear Mathematical modeling is still needed to interpret power plants. It is based on systematic identification of field data, but the models representing sedimentary all natural and anthropogenic features, events, and pro- rocks such as shales are relatively simple, based on a cesses believed to have potential to contribute signifi- small number of significant processes, and document- cantly to the failure of the repository (Long and Ewing ed migration of nonradionuclides in the geologic past 2004). A single analysis may thus require hundreds of is used as an analogue for radionuclide behavior near component models with thousands of input parameters. the repository over future geologic time. The approach The mathematical models are founded on concep- involves quantitative, field-derived data, is mathemati- tual models, and when these are substantially wrong cally elegant, and can be clearly explained thanks to the in a nonconservative direction all validity of the cal- simplicity and small number of control parameters for culations is lost. For the geosphere, many model input which quantification is needed. parameters cannot be measured reliably and are there- In short, the safety case for a DGR geosphere that can fore represented by uncertainty. However, much uncer- provide robust analogue information allows a substan- tainty around too many parameters results in loss of tial degree of validation of the model concept over past The 58 BRIDGE geologic time as opposed to untested or untestable com- tory prediction required a geoscience approach based plex calculations. Although use of the term validation is on site characterization with multiple lines of evidence controversial among groundwater modellers, data vali- founded on geology, hydrogeology, and geochemistry, dation is a well-established component of the scientific with the interpretations of the geoscience evidence method. Model-derived data (output) can be evaluated providing insights to the future. This requires applica- with respect to precision and accuracy (uncertainty) in tion of the scientific method well established in these a similar manner to field and laboratory-derived data- geoscience disciplines. sets, yielding a quantitative assessment of the numeri- The third mistake was pursuit of DGRs without trans- cal model performance and the conceptual site model parent decision making. Minimal transparency was an it represents. Thus validation can demonstrate under- established (and necessary) part of nuclear science standing of the hydrogeologic system and indicate the and engineering during the Cold War and this created relative favorability of geosphere conditions with allow- a paternalistic approach, but even decades later the ances for uncertainty. industry has yet to embrace the scrutiny of either the However, predictions over millions of years of geolog- scientific community or the public. ic time cannot realistically account for all catastrophic In terms of decision-making processes, the DGR task disruptions (e.g., glaciation, volcanism, earthquakes) has long been the domain of the US Department of or other major influences that are unprecedented and Energy and, until 1998, Atomic Energy of Canada (in beyond reliable quantification. Furthermore, the reposi- 2002 a new agency, the Nuclear Waste Management tory could produce heat or gas generation effects that Organization, was made responsible for the Canadian change the hydrogeologic system and render invalid DGR effort); the core business of both organizations long-term predictions based on analogues. This uncer- in this context is development of nuclear power, not tainty can best be accommodated by PA monitoring and assessment of geoscience systems for waste disposal. A adaptive management strategies and designs that can direct result of the isolation of decision making from accommodate new understanding and new technologies. mainstream science has been delays in recognizing both the limitations of granite and the favorable con- Promises and Processes tainment capabilities common to many types of sedi- In its DGR quest, the nuclear industry strategy was mentary rock. For example, the value of site-specific aimed at overcoming public fear and distrust concern- analogues with migration controlled by diffusion rather ing radioactivity. But three critical mistakes were made than groundwater flow to evaluate near-surface entomb- decades ago. ment of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste The first was to promise the public that radioactivity in low-permeability clayey deposits was well known by would be isolated over future geologic time. This prom- the mid-1980s (e.g., Gillham and Cherry 1983), but did ise lacked credibility then, when DGR geosphere sci- not become part of the used-fuel DGR thinking until ence was in its infancy, and still defies common sense. the late 1990s. A reasonable goal is for a repository to have sufficient containment capability to isolate radionuclides from Concluding Remarks the biosphere for several thousand years, and to achieve It is essential to build a robust consensus in the sci- this capability through engineered barriers and the geo- entific community about selection and assessment of sphere in whatever combination can be shown with repositories. But although such consensus is a prereq- strong scientific evidence to be reliable. uisite to public trust, it has been extremely limited to The second mistake was to frame the prediction date. The public must trust that the process is reason- problem around complex mathematical models founded able and transparent and that the nuclear industry is more on theory than on empirical evidence. Although committed to long-term responsible guardianship of its common in PAs used for nuclear reactor performance wastes. Moreover, the geographic location of a reposi- and safety, this approach is contrary to what is accepted tory must satisfy public opinion and political consid- in the geoscience disciplines, where nature has provided erations in addition to scientific criteria, and cost and hundreds of millions of years of performance data to use science uncertainty issues should be vetted with trans- in the form of analogues. The nuclear industry failed to parency. To achieve the broadest credibility, the time recognize that the main scientific challenge in reposi- frame promised for radionuclide containment must be SPRING 2014 59

shortened and the process intuitively reasonable, open, Gillham RW, Cherry JA. 1983. Predictability of solute and adaptive to monitoring results subject to rigorous transport in diffusion-controlled hydrogeologic regimes. independent peer review. Proceedings of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sym- If it is generally accepted that global climate change posium on Low-Level Waste Disposal: Facility Design, due to fossil fuel use is worth combating and that nucle- Construction, and Operating Practices, September 28–29, ar power is a proven large-scale alternative for baseload Washington. electricity, then there is a moral argument in favor of Hedin A. 1997. Spent Nuclear Fuel: How Dangerous Is It? proceeding with DGRs as a lower-risk alternative to Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB (SKB) TR-97-13. Stock- continued surface storage. And if the human species can holm: Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management. persist for the next several thousand years without the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]. 2008. Estima- used fuel causing harm, our generation and the next few tion of global inventories of radioactive waste and other will have discharged their responsibilities well. radioactive materials, IAEA-TECDOC-1591. Vienna. Kharecha PA, Hansen JE. 2013. Prevented mortality and Acknowledgments greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected We thank Richard Jackson, Mark Logsdon, and Don nuclear power. Environmental Science and Technology Lush for helpful comments on manuscript drafts, Gil- 47:4889–4895. lian Binsted for editorial assistance, and Kristina Small Long JCS, Ewing RC. 2004. Yucca Mountain: Earth-sciences for graphic design. The views expressed in this article issues at a geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste. do not represent the official policy or position of the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 32:363– organizations that the authors represent. 401. Mazurek M. 2010. Far-field process analysis and radionuclide References transport modelling in geological repository systems. In: Aikin AM, Harrison JM, Hare FK. 1977. The Management Geological Repository Systems for Safe Disposal of Spent of Canada’s Nuclear Wastes. Canadian Ministry of Energy, Nuclear Fuels and Radioactive Waste. Ahn J, Apted MJ, Mines and Resources, Report EP 77-6, August 31. eds. Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy 9. Cambridge, Alley WM, Alley R. 2013. Too Hot to Touch: The Problem UK: Woodhead Publishing Ltd. pp. 222–257. of High-Level Nuclear Waste. New York: Cambridge Uni- MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. 2003. The versity Press. Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Alley WM, Alley R. 2014. The growing problem of stranded Cambridge, MA. used nuclear fuel. Environmental Science and Technology, Neuzil CE. 2013. Can shale safely host US nuclear waste? Eos doi: 10.1021/es405114h. 94(30):261–268 Birkholzer J, Houseworth J, Tsang C-F. 2012. Geologic dis- NRC [National Research Council]. 1957. Report on Dispos- posal of high-level radioactive waste: Status, key issues, al of Radioactive Waste on Land. Washington: National and trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources Academy Press. 37:79–106. Oreskes N. 2004. Science and public policy: What’s proof got Bredehoeft JD, Maini T. 1981. Strategy for radioactive waste to do with it? Environmental Science and Policy 7:369– disposal in crystalline rocks. Science 213(4505):293–296. 383. Clark ID, Ai T, Jensen M, Kennell L, Mazurek M, Mohapatra Russell DJ, Gale JE. 1982. Radioactive waste disposal in the R, Raven KG. 2013. Paleozoic-aged brine and authigenic sedimentary rocks of southern Ontario. Geoscience Cana- helium preserved in an Ordovician shale aquiclude. Geol- da 9(4):200–207. ogy 41(9):951–954. Saltelli A, Funtowicz S. 2014. When all models are wrong. Farvolden RN, Pearson R, Davison CC. 1985. Hydrogeology Issues in Science and Technology (Winter):79–85. in radioactive waste disposal. Hydrogeology in Service of Wang J. 2010. High-level radioactive waste disposal in China: Man: Memoirs of the 18th Congress of the International Update 2010. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechni- Association of Hydrogeologists, Cambridge. cal Engineering 2(1):1–11. The 60 BRIDGE NAE News and Notes Death of NAE President Emeritus Charles M. Vest Tribute by C.D. Mote, Jr. December 13, 2013

With heavy heart and great personal science, technology, and innova- and globally, including its practice, anguish, I write to inform you that tion policy; building partnerships education, and future. Charles M. Vest, the former presi- among academia, government, and Chuck’s wise counsel was sought dent of the National Academy of industry; enhancing racial, cultural, by the nation at the highest lev- Engineering, died at his home last and gender diversity; global sus- els from government to industry evening. Chuck waged a courageous tainability; and championing the to universities and the nonprofit battle with his lethal disease with importance of open, global scien- sector, all of which he served self- a dignity and determination that tific communication and the shar- lessly with distinction. He served inspires all of us. From beginning ing of intellectual resources. New US presidents, cabinet secretaries, to end, Chuck was a great man in major institutes in neuroscience and major corporate and nonprofit every regard. We send our deepest and genomic medicine were creat- boards devoted to education, sci- condolences to his beloved family— ed under his tenure and the campus ence, and technology. He was laud- Becky, Kemper and John, and John was transformed. ed for his contributions with many and Christina and their children— In 2007 Chuck was elected presi- distinguished recognitions, includ- through this most difficult time for dent of the National Academy of ing 17 honorary university degrees, them. We extend our hearts and Engineering and vice chair of the the National Medal of Technology hands to assist them in spirit and in National Research Council. He pro- by President Bush, and the Van- service of any kind. moted evergreen programs on the nevar Bush Award by the National Chuck’s professional career Grand Challenges for Engineering, Science Board. spanned three universities and the which spawned Grand Challenge On February 20th the NAE National Academy of Engineer- Summits at universities around the hosted a beautiful tribute to Chuck. ing. A native of West Virginia, United States and a Global Grand In addition to his daughter Kem- he earned his bachelor’s degree in Challenges Symposium, and fos- per and son John, friends and mechanical engineering from West tered better public understanding colleagues from his long and dis- Virginia University before mov- of engineering and its importance tinguished career shared memories, ing to the University of Michigan to the well-being of the nation and anecdotes, and personal reflections to earn his master’s and doctorate world. He also expanded the NAE about Chuck in a heartfelt homage. degrees, also in mechanical engi- Frontiers of Engineering program The three Academy presidents were neering, and initiate his academic by creating bilateral symposia with joined by NAE Chair Charles O. career. On joining the faculty he China and the European Union, Holliday Jr.; Senator John D. Rock- developed parallel academic and and he initiated the Frontiers of efeller IV from Chuck’s home state university leadership careers at Engineering Education symposium of West Virginia; Lord Alec Bro- Michigan, which led ultimately to series. He initiated a major NAE ers (NAE), president emeritus of his appointments as dean of engi- effort to understand the value nex- the Royal Academy of Engineering neering and the top-level position us of manufacturing, design, and and former vice chancellor of Cam- of provost and senior vice president innovation to the prosperity of our bridge University; Lehigh Univer- of the university. In 1990 he began nation. Chuck became the spokes- sity President Alice P. Gast (NAE), a 14-year appointment as president person for engineering by illumi- who was vice president for research of the Massachusetts Institute of nating the forces reshaping the at MIT during Chuck’s tenure; Nor- Technology. At MIT, he focused on landscape of engineering nationally man Augustine (NAE), retired SPRING 2014 61

chair and CEO of Lockheed Martin Chuck’s vigorous and remark- His was a great life, about the most Corporation; and Chuck’s long-time ably productive life was cut much any of us could hope for, and it is a mentor and colleague James Duder- too short. Yet it was full, appreci- privilege to have known him. stadt (NAE), University of Michi- ated deeply, and his impact on our gan president emeritus. nation and people will be lasting.

Class of 2014 Elected

In February NAE elected 67 new and Computer Engineering, Purdue Professor, Texas A&M University, members and 11 foreign associates, University, West Lafayette, Indiana. College Station. For contributions bringing the total US membership For development of algorithms for to phytoremediation of petroleum to 2,250 and the number of foreign digital image half-toning for imag- contamination, and for leadership associates to 214. ing and printing. in engineering education. Academy membership honors Dan E. Arvizu, director and chief Harrison H. Barrett, Regents’ those who have made outstand- executive, National Renewable Professor of Radiology, Regents’ ing contributions to “engineering Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colo- Professor of Optical Sciences, and research, practice, or education, rado. For leadership in the renew- Regents’ Professor of Applied Math- including, where appropriate, sig- able and clean energy sectors, and ematics, University of Arizona, nificant contributions to the engi- for promoting national balanced Tucson. For contributions to the neering literature,” and to the energy policies. physical and statistical foundations “pioneering of new and develop- Daniel E. Atkins III, W.K. Kel- and applications of radiological and ing fields of technology, making logg Professor in Community Infor- nuclear medical imaging. major advancements in traditional mation, School of Information; Howard Bernstein, chief sci- fields of engineering, or developing/ professor of electrical engineering entific officer, Seventh Sense implementing innovative approach- and computer science, College of Biosystems Inc., Cambridge, Massa- es to engineering education.” Engineering, University of Michi- chusetts. For development of com- A list of the newly elected mem- gan, Ann Arbor. For leadership in mercial nanotechnology products bers and foreign associates follows, development of radix algorithms and for therapeutics and diagnostics. with their primary affiliations at the cybertechnical collaborative systems. Peter J. Bethell, principal min- time of election and a brief state- James K. Baker, consultant; and eral processing consultant, Cardno ment of their principal engineering cofounder and former chairman and MM&A,Virginia Beach, Virginia. For accomplishments. chief executive officer, Dragon Sys- contributions to advanced separation Nicholas L. Abbott, John T. tems, Maitland, Florida. For intro- technologies for coal processing. and Magdalen L. Sobota Professor, ducing hidden Markov models to Mark P. Board, corporate direc- Department of Chemical and Bio- speech processing and applications tor of geotechnical engineering, logical Engineering, and director, to commercial speech recognition Hecla Mining Co., Coeur d’Alene, Materials Research and Engineering systems. Idaho. For contributions to the Center, University of Wisconsin, Martin Balser, distinguished tech- design of large-scale mines based Madison. For innovations and appli- nical fellow, Northrop Grumman on application of advanced rock cations in soft-matter surface science. Information Systems, Woodland mechanics principles. Harry R. Allcock, Evan Pugh Hills, California. For innovations Dushan Boroyevich, American Professor of Chemistry, Pennsyl- in technologies from fundamental Electric Power Professor of Elec- vania State University, University physics that significantly advanced trical Engineering, and codirec- Park. For development of polyphos- military communications. tor, Center for Power Electronics phazenes, a new class of biomaterials. M. Katherine Banks, vice chan- Systems, Virginia Polytechnic Insti- Jan P. Allebach, Hewlett-Packard cellor, dean of engineering, and tute and State University, Blacks- Distinguished Professor of Electrical Harold J. Haynes Dean’s Chair burg. For advancements in control, The 62 BRIDGE modeling, and design of electronic Technology, Kowloon. For numeri- automatic control of chemical and power conversion for electric energy cal techniques applied to image microelectronics processes, and for and transportation. processing and scientific computing, professional leadership. Terry Boston, president and chief and for providing engineering lead- Said E. Elghobashi, professor, executive officer, PJM Intercon- ership at the national and interna- Department of Mechanical and nection, Audubon, Pennsylvania. tional levels. Aerospace Engineering, University For leadership in development and Alan W. Cramb, provost, senior of California, Irvine. For contribu- operation of large electric grids and vice president for academic affairs, tions to understanding and model- markets for wholesale electricity. and Charles and Lee Finkl Professor ing of multiphase turbulent flows. Paul F. Boulos, president, chief of Metallurgical and Materials Engi- Iraj Ershaghi, Omar B. Milligan operating officer, and chief techni- neering, Illinois Institute of Tech- Professor, and director, Petroleum cal officer, Innovyze, Broomfield, nology, Chicago. For contributions Engineering Program, University of Colorado. For contributions to the- to development of high-integrity Southern California, Los Angeles. ory and practice of computational continuously cast steels. For contributions to characteriza- hydraulics simulation technology Carlos F. Daganzo, Chancellor tion of complex fractured reservoirs, for water infrastructure. Professor of the Graduate School, and for leadership in university- Stephen P. Boyd, Samsung Pro- and retired Robert Horonjeff Chair industry collaboration. fessor in the School of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engi- Ronald Fagin, IBM Fellow, IBM and professor, Information Systems neering, University of California, Almaden Research Center, San Laboratory, Department of Electrical Berkeley. For engineering contribu- Jose, California. For contributions Engineering, Stanford University, tions to traffic, transportation, and to theory and practice of data man- Stanford, California. For contribu- logistics systems and operations. agement. tions to engineering design and anal- Bijan Davari, IBM Fellow and Gregory L. Fenves, executive ysis via convex optimization. vice president, Next Generation vice president and provost, Univer- Robert D. Braun, David and Computing Systems and Technol- sity of Texas, Austin. For contribu- Andrew Lewis Professor of Space ogy, IBM T.J. Watson Research tions to computational modeling, Technology and codirector, Space Center, Yorktown Heights, New creation of open source software for Systems Design Laboratory, Georgia York. For contributions to scaling of earthquake engineering analysis, Institute of Technology, Atlanta. CMOS technology. and academic leadership. For contributions to space explora- Brenda J. Dietrich, IBM Fellow Katherine W. Ferrara, distin- tion and technologies for entering and vice president, and chief tech- guished professor and founding planetary atmospheres from space. nology officer for Business Analytics chair, Department of Biomedical Robert D. Briskman, cofounder Software, IBM, Somers, New York. Engineering, University of Cali- and technical executive, Sirius XM For contributions to engineering fornia, Davis. For contributions to Radio, North Bethesda, Maryland. algorithms, frameworks, and tools theory and applications of biomedi- For achievements in satellite com- to solve complex business problems. cal ultrasonics. munications, culminating in Sirius J. Gary Eden, Gilmore Family Maria Flytzani-Stephanopoulos, XM Radio. Professor, Department of Electri- Robert and Marcy Haber Endowed Ruben G. Carbonell, Frank cal and Computer Engineering, Professor in Energy Sustainability, Hawkins Kenan Distinguished University of Illinois, Urbana- and professor of chemical engineer- Professor of Chemical and Biomo- Champaign. For development and ing, Tufts University, Medford, lecular Engineering, North Caro- commercialization of micro-plasma Massachusetts. For contributions to lina State University, Raleigh. For technologies and excimer lasers. atomically dispersed heterogeneous research and innovation in mul- Thomas F. Edgar, George T. and metal catalysts for efficient produc- tiphase reactor design, high-pres- Gladys H. Abell Endowed Chair in tion of fuels and chemicals. sure thin-film coating, and novel Engineering, Department of Chemi- Naomi Halas, Stanley C. Moore bioseparation processes. cal Engineering, University of Texas, Professor, Department of Electrical Tony F. Chan, president, Hong Austin. For contributions to mathe- and Computer Engineering, Rice Kong University of Science and matical modeling, optimization, and University, Houston, Texas. For SPRING 2014 63

nanoscale engineering of optical and adjunct professor, Viterbi electronics into power systems and resonances and lineshapes. School of Engineering, University to innovations in power engineering J. Karl Hedrick, James Marshall of Southern California, Los Ange- education. Wells Academic Chair and profes- les. For international leadership in Michael G. Mullen, retired admi- sor of mechanical engineering, Uni- the engineering and development ral, US Navy, and geopolitical con- versity of California, Berkeley. For of environmentally clean urban sulting expert, MGM Consulting, analysis and control methods for seaports. Annapolis, Maryland. For applying nonlinear systems with application Roger B. Krieger, retired engineering methods in developing to practical problems. lab group manager, Powertrain and executing offensive and defen- James L. Hedrick, IBM Research- System Research Laboratory, sive strategies for the US Navy. er, IBM Almaden Research Center, General Motors Research and Damir Novosel, president, Quan- San Jose, California. For innova- Development Center, Birmingham, ta Technology LLC, Raleigh, North tions in functional monomers and Michigan. For contributions to Carolina. For innovations and busi- polymers for the microelectronics engine research, advanced engine ness leadership in the security and industry. technologies in passenger vehi- reliability of electric power grids. Wallace J. Hopp, senior associ- cles, and leadership in engineering Yale N. Patt, professor of elec- ate dean, Stephen M. Ross School education. trical and computer engineering, of Business, University of Michi- Michael G. Luby, vice president Ernest Cockrell Jr. Centennial gan, Ann Arbor. For creating and of technology, Qualcomm Inc., Chair in Engineering, and Univer- applying fundamental engineering Berkeley, California. For contribu- sity Distinguished Teaching Profes- principles governing the underlying tions to coding theory including the sor, University of Texas, Austin. For behavior of manufacturing systems inception of rateless codes. contributions to high-performance and supply chains. R. Keith Michel, president, Webb microprocessor architecture. Chandrashekhar J. Joshi, Dis- Institute, Glen Cove, New York. For Ellen M. Pawlikowski, com- tinguished Professor of Electrical contributions to the design, con- mander, Space and Missile Systems Engineering, and director, Neptune struction, and operation of efficient, Center, and program executive Facility for Advanced Accelerator environment-friendly ships. officer for space, US Air Force, Research, University of California, Charles A. Mistretta, John R. Los Angeles AFB, California. For Los Angeles. For contributions to Cameron Professor of Medical Phys- leadership in the development of development of laser- and beam- ics and Radiology, University of Wis- technologies for national security driven plasma accelerators. consin, Madison. For contributions programs including spacecraft oper- Norman P. Jouppi, distinguished to development and application of ations and the airborne laser. hardware engineer, Google Inc., angiographic methods in X-ray and Alex (Sandy) Pentland, Toshiba Mountain View, California. For magnetic resonance imaging. Professor of Media, Arts, and Scien- contributions to the design of com- Jack P. Moehle, T.Y. and Mar- ces, and director, Human Dynamics puter memory hierarchies. garet Lin Professor of Engineering, Laboratory and Media Lab Entre- David L. Joyce, president and Department of Civil and Environ- preneurship Program, Massachusetts chief executive officer, General mental Engineering, University of Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Electric Aviation, Cincinnati, California, Berkeley. For contribu- For contributions to computer vision Ohio. For contributions in reducing tions to earthquake-resistant design and technologies for measuring emissions and fuel consumption of and analysis of building structures, human social behavior. turbofan engines. and for leadership in engineering George M. Pharr IV, Chancel- Frederick A. Kish Jr., senior vice education. lor’s Professor and McKamey Profes- president, Infinera Corp., Sunny- Ned Mohan, Oscar A. Schott Pro- sor of Engineering, Department of vale, California. For contributions fessor of Power Electronics and Sys- Materials Science and Engineering, to high-brightness light-emitting tems, Department of Electrical and University of Tennessee, Knoxville. diodes. Computer Engineering, University For development of methods for Geraldine Knatz, retired execu- of Minnesota, Minneapolis. For determining mechanical properties tive director, Port of Los Angeles; contributions to the integration of of materials by nanoindentation. The 64 BRIDGE

Craig E. Philip, chief executive environmental and economic ben- New Foreign Associates officer, Ingram Barge Co., Nash- efits to society. Dieter Bimberg, executive director, ville, Tennessee. For contributions David B. Spencer, founder, chair- Center of NanoPhotonics, Techni- in information technology and man, and chief technology officer, cal University Berlin, Germany. management innovation in the wTe Corp., Bedford, Massachusetts. For innovations in nanomaterials, intermodal, rail, and inland water- For invention and entrepreneur- nanophysics, and nanodevices. way industries. ship in materials manufacturing and Virginia S.T. Ciminelli, profes- J. Michael Ramsey, Minnie N. recycling. sor, Department of Metallurgical Goldby Distinguished Professor of Thomas P. Stafford, retired, US and Materials Engineering, Uni- Chemistry, and director, Center Air Force; and consultant, Satellite versidade Federal de Minas Gerais, for Biomedical Microtechnologies, Beach, Florida. For leadership in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. For contri- University of North Carolina, Cha- the development of rendezvous and butions in environmental hydro- pel Hill. For development of micro- docking technologies for the Apollo metallurgy, and for leadership in fluidic technologies for analytical and Apollo/Soyuz programs. national and international techni- applications. Jery R. Stedinger, professor of cal collaborations. Jennifer Rexford, Gordon Y.S. civil and environmental engineer- Norman A. Fleck, professor of Wu Professor in Engineering, ing, Cornell University, Ithaca, mechanics of materials, and direc- Department of Computer Science, New York. For statistical methods tor, Cambridge Centre for Microme- Princeton University, New Jersey. for flood risk assessment and opti- chanics, University of Cambridge, For contributions to the operational mization methods for hydropower United Kingdom. For experimental stability of large computer networks. system management. and theoretical contributions to James J. Riley, PACCAR Pro- Ghebre E. Tzeghai, global direc- mechanical engineering of solids fessor of Engineering, Department tor, Corporate R&D and Innovation, and structures. of Mechanical Engineering, Uni- Procter and Gamble Co., Mason, Alon Gany, professor emeritus, versity of Washington, Seattle. For Ohio. For contributions to world Technion–Israel Institute of Tech- contributions in analysis, modeling, health through the development and nology, Haifa. For advances in the and computations of transitioning commercialization of dental care and development of solid propellants for and turbulent phenomena. personal hygiene products. rockets and scramjets. Robert E. Schapire, David M. Ian A. Waitz, dean of engineer- David Harel, William Sussman Siegel ’83 Professor in Computer ing and Jerome C. Hunsaker Profes- Professor of Mathematics, Weiz- Science, Princeton University, sor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, mann Institute of Science, Rehovot, New Jersey. For contributions to Massachusetts Institute of Tech- Israel. For invention of statecharts machine learning through inven- nology, Cambridge. For analysis of and contributions to the logic of tion and development of boosting environmental effects of aviation programming. algorithms. enabling practical environmental Kurt Mehlhorn, director, Max Bob E. Schutz, professor of aero- regulations. Planck Institute for Informatics, space engineering and engineer- Alan N. Willson Jr., distin- Saarbrücken, Germany. For contri- ing mechanics, Center for Space guished professor and Charles P. butions to algorithm design and the Research, University of Texas, Aus- Reames Chair in Electrical Engi- development of the LEDA software tin. For contribution to the use of neering, University of California, library. satellite laser ranging and global Los Angeles. For contributions to Harry G. Poulos, senior positioning system tracking to study the theory and applications of digi- principal, Coffey Geotechnics, earth system dynamics. tal signal processing. Chatswood, New South Wales, Stuart L. Soled, distinguished Stacey I. Zones, consulting sci- Australia. For contributions to research associate, ExxonMobil entist, Chevron Energy Technol- understanding foundation structure Research and Engineering Co., ogy Co., Richmond, California. and ground support interactions. Annandale, New Jersey. For dis- For contributions to molecular Lubomyr T. Romankiw, IBM covery and commercialization of sieve catalysts used in commercial Fellow, IBM Thomas J. Wat- new materials with significant applications. son Research Center, Yorktown SPRING 2014 65

Heights, New York. For innovation steel casting processes for improved image-guided surgery. of thin-film magnetic head struc- productivity. Xingdong Zhang, professor tures and electrochemical process Moshe Shoham, Tamara & Har- and honorary director, National technologies for microelectronics ry Handelsman Academic Chair, Engineering Research Center for device fabrication. Department of Mechanical Engi- Biomaterials, Sichuan University, Indira V. Samarasekera, presi- neering, and head, Robotics Labo- Chengdu, China. For contribu- dent and vice chancellor, Univer- ratory, Technion–Israel Institute tions to musculoskeletal medical sity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. of Technology, Haifa. For contri- therapies and biomaterial product For mechanistic understanding of butions to robotic technology for development.

A Message from NAE Vice President Maxine L. Savitz

ing my tenure. In 2008 the NAE helped spark In 2013 NAE raised over $8.3 over $3 million in funding for million in new gifts and pledges America’s Energy Future, a compre- to further the goals of the Acad- hensive overview of US energy sup- emy. This is a 77 percent increase ply, demand, and efficiency, with from $4.7 million in 2008. Annual recommendations for our nation unrestricted support doubled from going forward. Over the years, we $800,000 in 2008 to over $1.65 were privileged to secure and launch million in 2013, the overwhelming several matching gift challenges, majority of it from NAE members. including the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Maxine L. Savitz During the same period, the num- Matching Gift Challenges in 2009, ber of NAE donors grew by 25 per- 2010, and 2011; the Asad, Taj, and It has been a great privilege and cent, from 578 in 2008 to 722 this Jamal Madni Challenges in 2012, and pleasure to serve as vice president of past year, and the member giving the Peter Farrell Challenge in 2013. the NAE for the past 8 years. As my participation rate grew from 26 per- Additionally, we initiated the 50th term comes to an end on June 30th, cent in 2008 to 30 percent. Also for Anniversary Campaign, and spear- I would like to take the opportunity the first time, we had 100 percent headed the fundraising effort to to thank our generous and dedicated giving participation from the NAE honor outgoing and since deceased donors and staff, and also highlight Council—a sincere gesture of com- NAE President Charles M. Vest. what we accomplished together dur- mitment by our leadership. Here are a few highlights. The 66 BRIDGE

50th Anniversary a $100,000 challenge to match gifts Loyal Donors This year NAE celebrates its 50th made by members of the classes of Gifts made to the NAE year after anniversary. The NAE embarked 2012 and 2013. Thirty-eight per- year by our members and friends on a four-year fundraising effort to cent of our members responded to demonstrate a steadfast commit- celebrate 50 years of engineering the Peter Farrell Challenge, exceed- ment to our mission and work. As a leadership and service to the nation ing our $100,000 goal by raising over regular long-time donor to the NAE in 2011. $544,000 and inspiring a couple of to support the work I so strongly Through your support, the $100,000 gifts. Thanks to Peter’s believe in, I am genuinely grateful NAE can strengthen its voice on great generosity, the newest NAE to the following people who have national policy, work to increase members were encouraged to support contributed to the NAE for 15 con- the number, quality, and diversity the NAE’s mission and moved to secutive years or more: of engineering graduates, advance help meet our 50th Anniversary goal H. Norman Abramson (’76) quality of life, and enhance nation- of 50 percent giving participation. Clarence R. Allen (’76) al capacity for innovation and Charles M. Vest President’s Charles A. Amann (’89) global competitiveness. Opportunity Fund John C. Angus (’95) As we head into the final year Wm. Howard Arnold (’74) of our campaign, we have made As Chuck’s term as president was Barry W. Boehm (’96) impressive progress toward our “50 drawing to a close, we established Harold Brown (’67) for 50” goals. In 2012, we exceeded the Charles M. Vest Opportunity Fund Jack E. Buffington (’96) the Leadership goal of securing 50 in 2012, to honor his presidency and Esther M. Conwell (’80) new gifts of $50,000 or more. This his tireless efforts in advocating for Lawrence B. Curtis (’88) past year, we exceeded the goal of and promoting engineering. Many Irwin Dorros (’90) securing 50 new Golden Bridge NAE members and friends helped Daniel J. Fink (‘74) Society Members, and Section 2 raise $4.5 million in gifts, pledges, Robert C. Forney (’89) has surpassed the 50 percent giv- and gift intentions in less than 18 Adam Heller (’87) ing participation goal for NAE sec- months. Starting this year the fund George W. Jeffs (’78) tions. Plus many other sections are will seed new initiatives, supple- Anita K. Jones (’94) on target or have seen remarkable ment existing programs, and support Max A. Kohler (’81) improvement. The accompanying exploratory studies, as directed by Louis J. Lanzerotti (’88) graphs show details. future presidents, while at the same Johanna M.H. Levelt Sengers (’92) Help us reach our remaining time honoring Chuck and his work Thomas S. Maddock (’93) 50th Anniversary Campaign goals at NAE. The fund will empower the Robert D. Maurer (’79) of securing 50 new Einstein Society NAE to be a stronger voice for engi- James J. Mikulski (’97) Members and/or 50 new estate or neering and to be more proactive in John Neerhout (’92) planned gifts by the end of 2014. I leading and identifying initiatives to Simon Ramo (’64) encourage you to think about mak- benefit the nation and engineering Jerome Rivard (’86) ing a gift provision to the NAE or profession. Any gift to the Vest Pres- William R. Schowalter (’82) a gift to reach the Einstein Society. ident’s Opportunity Fund counted F. Stan Settles (’91) If you have already included the toward the 50th Anniversary Cam- Morris Tanenbaum (’72) NAE in your estate plans but have paign. We thank all the donors who Hardy W. Trolander* (’92) not notified us or are interested contributed so generously to honor Andrew J. Viterbi (’78) in learning more about the 50th Chuck (see pages 73–74 for a full list Irving T. Waaland (’91) Anniversary goals, please contact of contributors). Johannes (’76) and Julia (’88) Radka Nebesky at 202.334.3417 or In December 2013 we were deeply Weertman at [email protected]. saddened to lose Chuck to pancre- atic cancer. I hope many of you were Robert M. White (’68) Farrell Challenge able to join us at the NAS Building Edgar S. Woolard (’92) Wm. A. Wulf (’93) Last year, Peter Farrell (’12), a new on February 20th to celebrate his member from Section 2, sponsored life and legacy. SPRING 2014 67

Private funds now make up You are the driving force pushing us ment sponsors, and other supporters almost a third of the NAE’s yearly forward. Our members are also vital make all the difference in our ability budget. Simply put, we would not to our fundraising success, both by to positively impact our world and be able to operate without them. making financial contributions and to continue advocating for engi- Your support is essential not only in by serving as advocates for the NAE neering. I am deeply grateful for providing core support but also in and the engineering profession. your generosity, continued involve- expanding the scope and impact of On behalf of the NAE Council ment, and unwavering support of current projects and initiating new and President Dan Mote, I thank the NAE mission. ones. The energetic and enthusias- you for your contributions over the tic participation of our members in years and especially in 2013. Our NAE activities has been and always generous members, friends, partner will be the backbone of the NAE. corporations, foundations, govern- Maxine L. Savitz

2013 Honor Roll of Donors

Annual Giving Societies The National Academy of Engineering gratefully acknowledges the following members and friends who made chari- table contributions to the Academies during 2013. Their collective, private philanthropy enhances the impact of the NAE as a national voice for engineering. The Peter Farrell Challenge matched dollar for dollar, up to $100,000, any gift to the NAE by NAE members or foreign associates elected in the classes of 2012 and 2013.

Catalyst Society Recognizes NAE members and friends who have supported the NAE and/or the Academies and who contributed $10,000 or more in collective support for the Academies in 2013. We acknowledge contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

$500,000 and above Penny and Bill George, Gordon and Betty Moore George Family Raymond S. Stata Foundation

$100,000 to $499,999 Craig and Barbara Barrett George and Ann Fisher Mary and Howard* Kehrl, Friend Gordon Bell George and Daphne Estate of Howard Kehrl John F. McDonnell Ursula Burns◊ and Lloyd Hatsopoulos Philip M. Neches◊ Bean Joan and Irwin Jacobs Richard P. Simmons Olivia and Peter Farrell Ken Xie◊

$50,000 to $99,999 Vladimir and Hertha S. John W. Landis* Robert F. and Lee S. Robert M. and Mavis E. Haensel*, Estate of Clayton Daniel and Sproull White Vladimir Haensel Patricia L. Mote Willis H. Ware*, Estate of David E. Shaw◊ Willis Ware

*Deceased ◊ Peter Farrell Challenge The 68 BRIDGE

$20,000 to $49,999

Rodney A. Brooks Asad M., Gowhartaj, and Martin B. and Beatrice E. Friends Lance and Susan Davis Jamal Madni Sherwin Michiko So* and James O. Ellis◊ Roger L. McCarthy Charles M.* and Rebecca Lawrence Finegold Paul and Judy Gray M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell M. Vest William I. Koch John O. Hallquist Paul S. Peercy Andrew and Erna Viterbi John L. Hennessy Simon Ramo John C. Wall Kent Kresa Henry and Susan Samueli Adrian Zaccaria

$10,000 to $19,999 Seta and Diran Apelian Robert and Cornelia Robin K. and Rose M. Joel S. Spira Norman R. Augustine Eaton McGuire Arnold and Constance Barry W. Boehm Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink Jaya and Venky Stancell Lewis M. Branscomb Arthur M. Geoffrion Narayanamurti Peter and Vivian Teets Sigrid and Vint Cerf Robert W. Gore John Neerhout Jr. George M. Whitesides Jean-Lou A. Chameau Eliyahou Harari◊ Roberto Padovani Anonymous Uma Chowdhry Chad and Ann Holliday Larry and Carol Papay Paul Citron and Margaret Michael W. Hunkapiller Arogyaswami J. Paulraj Friends Carlson Citron John E. Kelly◊ Ronald L. Rivest Jeanne M. Fox*, Estate of Jeffrey Dean Norman N. Li Henry M. Rowan Jeanne M. Fox Nicholas M. Donofrio Frances and George Ligler Maxine L. Savitz Burt and Deedee McMurtry

Rosette Society Recognizes NAE members and friends who have supported the NAE and/or the Academies and who contributed $5,000 to $9,999 in collective support for the Academies in 2013. We acknowledge contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

Andreas and Juana Diane and Samuel W. Robert C. and Marilyn G. Richard A. Meserve Acrivos Bodman Forney Cherry A. Murray Alice M. Agogino Robert L. Byer Nan and Chuck Geschke Cynthia J. and Norman A. Jane K. and William F. Corbett Caudill Paul E. Gray Nadel Ballhaus Jr. Selim A. Chacour Evelyn L. Hu Alfred Z. Spector and Jordan* and Rhoda Josephine Cheng Robert E. Kahn Rhonda G. Kost Baruch Sunlin Chou Paul and Julie Kaminski Richard J. Stegemeier Becky and Tom Bergman David R. Clarke Robert M. and Pauline W. David W. Thompson Bharati and Murty Ruth A. David Koerner Raymond Viskanta Bhavaraju◊ Gordon R. England◊ Mark J. Levin Elias A. Zerhouni◊ Thomas E. Everhart James C. McGroddy

*Deceased ◊ Peter Farrell Challenge SPRING 2014 69

Challenge Society Recognizes NAE members and friends who have supported the NAE and/or the Academies and who contributed $2,500 to $4,999 in collective support for the Academies in 2013. We acknowledge contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

Rodney C. Adkins Janina and Siegfried Robert E. Nickell Richard H. Truly Clyde and Jeanette Baker Hecker Matthew O’Donnell Robert and Robyn Wagoner Chau-Chyun Chen Leroy E. Hood Shela and Kumar Patel Julia and Johannes Joseph M. Colucci Michael R. Johnson Neil E. Paton Weertman Carl de Boor John and Wilma Kassakian John W. and Susan M. Willis S. White Jr. Pablo G. Debenedetti Michael and Diana King Poduska William D. Young James J. Duderstadt Gerald and Doris Laubach Robert H. Rediker Mark D. Zoback Gerard W. Elverum Helmut List John M. Samuels Jr. Eric R. Fossum◊ Richard B. Miles Linda S. Sanford Friends Louis V. Gerstner Jr. James K. Mitchell Henry E. Stone Kristine L. Bueche Eduardo D. Glandt Dale and Marge* Myers Edwin L. Thomas Isabelle M. Katzer Wesley L. Harris Robert M. and Marilyn R. Henrik Topsoe◊ Joe and Glenna Moore Nerem James J. Truchard

Charter Society Recognizes NAE members and friends who have supported the NAE and/or the Academies and who contributed $1,000 to $2,499 in collective support for the Academies in 2013. We acknowledge contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

Ronald J. Adrian James A. Brierley Esther M. Conwell Robert E. Fenton William G. Agnew Andrei Z. Broder Edward J. Cording Leroy M. Fingerson Harl P. Aldrich Jr. William R. Brody Gary L. Cowger Bruce A. Finlayson Clarence R. Allen Alan C. Brown Henry Cox Anthony E. Fiorato John L. Anderson Andrew Brown Jr. Natalie W. Crawford Robert E. Fischell John C. Angus Harold Brown Robert L. Crippen◊ Edith M. Flanigen Frances H. Arnold John H. Bruning Malcolm R. Currie Samuel C. Florman Kenneth E. Arnold Thomas and Miriam Glen T. Daigger Heather and Gordon R. Lyndon Arscott Budinger David E. Daniel Forward James R. Asay George* and Virginia L. Berkley Davis Howard Frank Thomas W. Asmus Bugliarello Raymond F. Decker Douglas W. Fuerstenau David Atlas Jeffrey P. Buzen Thomas B. Deen Huajian Gao◊ Ken Austin Federico Capasso George E. Dieter Elsa M. Garmire and Arthur B. Baggeroer Stuart K. Card Stephen W. Director Robert H. Russell William F. Baker François J. Castaing Dennis E. Discher◊ Donald P. Gaver James E. Barger Don B. Chaffin Ralph L. Disney C. William Gear Leo L. Beranek Edwin A. Chandross Daniel W. Dobberpuhl Arthur Gelb Donald L. Bitzer Robert S. Chau◊ Irwin Dorros Alexander F. Giacco Mark T. Bohr Weng C. Chew◊ Elisabeth M. Drake Paul H. Gilbert Rudolph Bonaparte Shu and Kuang-Chung Susan T. Dumais Vida F. and Arthur L. H. Kent Bowen Chien Lloyd A. Duscha Goldstein Corale L. Brierley Jared L. Cohon◊ Robert R. Everett

*Deceased ◊ Peter Farrell Challenge The 70 BRIDGE

Steve and Nancy T.W. Lambe Claire L. Parkinson Kenneth E. Stinson Goldstein Louis J. Lanzerotti John H. Perepezko Michael R. Stonebraker Mary L. Good David C. Larbalestier Thomas K. Perkins John and Janet Swanson Joseph W. Goodman Richard C. Larson Kurt E. Petersen Richard M. Swanson William Gropp Ronald M. Latanision Julia M. Phillips James R. Swartz Hermann K. Gummel Enrique J. Lavernia◊ William P. Pierskalla Esther S. Takeuchi Juris Hartmanis Ann L. Lee Mark R. Pinto Charlotte and Morris Kenneth E. Haughton James U. Lemke Victor L. Poirier Tanenbaum Jeff Hawkins Ronald K. Leonard Donald E. Procknow Eva Tardos Alan J. Heeger Frederick J. Leonberger William R. Pulleyblank George Tchobanoglous Martin Hellman James C. Liao◊ Henry H. Rachford Jr. James M. Tien Larry L. Hench Burn-Jeng Lin Prabhakar Raghavan Rex W. Tillerson◊ Chris T. Hendrickson Jack E. Little Doraiswami Ramkrishna Richard L. Tomasetti David and Susan Hodges Chao-Han Liu◊ Richard F. and Terri W. John J. Tracy◊ Thom and Grace Hodgson Robert G. Loewy Rashid James A. Trainham III Urs Hölzle◊ Joan M. and Frank W.* Buddy D. Ratner Hardy W. Trolander* Edward E. Hood Jr. Luerssen Raj Reddy A. Galip Ulsoy Mark Horowitz Lester L. Lyles Kenneth and Martha Gordana Vunjak- John R. Howell William J. MacKnight Reifsnider Novakovic◊ J. Stuart Hunter Thomas and Caroline Gintaras V. Reklaitis Darsh T. Wasan Mary Jane Irwin Maddock Thomas J. Richardson Warren and Mary Andrew Jackson and Artur Mager Richard J. and Bonnie B. Washington Lillian Rankel Subhash Mahajan Robbins Michael S. Waterman◊ Wilhelmina and Stephen Henrique S. Malvar◊ Bernard I. Robertson J. Turner Whitted Jaffe David A. Markle C. Paul Robinson Janusz S. Wilczynski Leah H. Jamieson W. Allen Marr Mendel Rosenblum and Ward O. Winer George W. Jeffs John L. Mason Diane Greene Savio and Pattie Woo Barry C. Johnson James F. Mathis Anatol Roshko Edgar S. Woolard Jr. G. Frank Joklik Robert D. Maurer Gerald F. Ross Richard N. Wright Anita K. Jones Kishor C. Mehta William B. Russel Wm. A. Wulf Marshall G. Jones Edward W. Merrill◊ Andrew P. Sage Beverly and Loring Wyllie Eric W. Kaler James J. Mikulski Vinod K. Sahney KeChang Xie◊ Melvin F. Kanninen Richard K. Miller◊ Steven B. Sample Kuang-Di Xu Michael C. Kavanaugh Sanjit K. Mitra Harvey W. Schadler William W-G. Yeh Edward Kavazanjian◊ Arthur L. Money◊ Jan C. Schilling◊ Paul G. Yock Sung Wan Kim Duncan T. Moore John H. Schmertmann Zarem Foundation Judson and Jeanne King Van and Barbara Mow Ronald V. Schmidt Ji Zhou◊ Oliver D. Kingsley Jr. Earll M. Murman William R. Schowalter Anonymous James L. Kirtley Albert Narath Alan Schriesheim Albert S. Kobayashi Paul D. Nielsen Henry G. Schwartz Jr. Friends Charles E. Kolb Jr. ◊ Chrysostomos L. Nikias Lyle H. Schwartz Rose-Marie and Jack R. Demetrious Koutsoftas William D. Nix Nambirajan Seshadri◊ Anderson Lester C.* and Joan M. Ronald P. Nordgren Daniel P. Siewiorek Josephine F. Berg Krogh M. Allen Northrup◊ Donald M. Smyth Merrill Bonder Charles C. Ladd Susan and Franklin M. Gunter Stein Evelyn S. Jones Michael R. Ladisch Orr Jr. Gregory Stephanopoulos Toby Wolf

*Deceased ◊ Peter Farrell Challenge SPRING 2014 71

Other Individual Donors Recognizes NAE members and friends who have supported the NAE and/or the Academies and who contributed up to $999 in collective support for the Academies in 2013. We acknowledge contributions made as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation.

H. Norman Abramson Norman H. Brooks David L. Dill◊ Herbert Gleiter Linda M. Abriola Howard J. Bruschi Frederick H. Dill Richard J. Goldstein Arthur P. Adamson Randal E. Bryant Robert H. Dodds Solomon W. Golomb Mihran S. Agbabian Jack E. Buffington Albert A. Dorman John B. Goodenough Montgomery M. Alger Ned H. Burns David A. Dornfeld◊ David J. Goodman Paul A. Allaire Anne and John Cahn E. Linn Draper Jr. Roy W. Gould Bernard Amadei Joe C. Campbell T. Dixon Dudderar Thomas E. Graedel Charles A. Amann Max W. Carbon◊ Floyd Dunn Leslie Greengard Cristina H. Amon E. Dean Carlson David A. Dzombak Gary S. Grest John G. Anderson Albert Carnesale Peter S. Eagleson Ignacio E. Grossmann Mary P. Anderson John R. Casani Lewis S. Edelheit Barbara J. Grosz Frederick T. Andrews Jr.* John J. Cassidy Helen T. Edwards Karl A. Gschneidner Kristi S. Anseth William Cavanaugh Farouk El-Baz George I. Haddad Frank F. Aplan A. Ray Chamberlain Manuel Elices Jerrier A. Haddad Ali S. Argon Donald D. Chamberlin Bruce R. Ellingwood Donald J. Haderle Professor Arvind Douglas M. Chapin Richard E. Emmert Carol K. Hall Jamal J. Azar Vernon L. Chartier Joel S. Engel William J. Hall Donald W. Bahr Andrew R. Chraplyvy John V. Evans Eugene E. Haller Rodica A. Baranescu Robert P. Clagett Lawrence B. Evans Thomas L. Hampton Grigory I. Barenblatt Edmund M. Clarke James L. Everett III William H. Hansmire Michael I. Baskes◊ John L. Cleasby Robert M. Fano John M. Hanson James B. Bassingthwaighte James J. Collins Joseph Feinstein Henry J. Hatch Ray H. Baughman Robert P. and Ellen M. Millard and Barbara Robert C. Hawkins Howard and Alice Baum Colwell Firebaugh Adam Heller Zdenek P. Bazant Richard A. Conway Peter T. Flawn Robert W. Hellwarth Georges and Marlene Harry E. Cook Merton C. Flemings Joseph M. Hendrie Belfort Robert L. Cook Christodoulos A. Floudas Arthur H. Heuer and Joan Philip A. Bernstein Thomas B. Cook Jr.* James D. Foley Hulburt James F. Blinn Stuart L. Cooper G. David Forney Jr. George J. Hirasaki Jack L. Blumenthal Ross and Stephanie Curtis W. Frank◊ Peter B. Hirsch Alfred Blumstein Corotis Ivan T. Frisch John P. Hirth F. Peter Boer Arthur Coury Eli Fromm Allan S. Hoffman William J. Boettinger John and Norma Crawford Shun Chong Fung Richard Hogg◊ George and Carol Born Lawrence B. Curtis Theodore V. Galambos Stanley H. Horowitz Lillian C. Borrone Paul D. Dapkus Zvi Galil Davorin D. Hrovat Craig T. Bowman◊ Edward E. David Jr. Edwin A. Gee Arthur E. Humphrey Frank Bowman Delbert E. Day Ronald L. Geer Izzat M. Idriss Barbara Boyan◊ F.P. de Mello John H. Gibbons Kenichi Iga John D. Bredehoeft Thomas F. Degnan◊ Don P. Giddens Jeremy Isenberg Peter R. Bridenbaugh Joseph M. DeSimone Jacqueline Gish Linos J. Jacovides Frederick P. Brooks Jr. Robert C. DeVries George J. Gleghorn Paul C. Jennings

*Deceased ◊ Peter Farrell Challenge The 72 BRIDGE

James O. Jirsa Kuo-Nan Liou Joseph H. Newman George W. Scherer Donald L. Johnson Nathan and Barbara Babatunde A. Ogunnaike◊ Richard Scherrer Angel G. Jordan Liskov Robert S. O’Neil Geert W. Schmid- Aravind K. Joshi Andrew J. Lovinger Elaine S. Oran Schoenbein M. Frans Kaashoek Verne L. Lynn John K. Ousterhout Jerald L. Schnoor Charles K. Kao John W. Lyons David H. Pai Walter J. Schrenk Ahsan Kareem J. Ross and Margaret Athanassios Z. Albert and Susan Schultz William E. Kastenberg Macdonald Panagiotopoulos Robert J. Schultz Kristina B. Katsaros Albert Macovski Stavros S. Papadopulos Mischa Schwartz Bernard H. Kear Thomas J. Malone Donald R. Paul Bal Raj Sehgal◊ Leon M. Keer James W. Mar H.W. Paxton Hratch G. Semerjian Chaitan Khosla William F. Marcuson III Judea Pearl Robert J. Serafin Timothy L. Killeen Robert C. Marini P. Hunter Peckham F. Stan Settles Albert I. King Hans Mark Celestino R. Pennoni Don W. Shaw Donald E. Knuth James J. Markowsky Nicholas A. Peppas Thomas B. Sheridan Riki Kobayashi David K. Matlock Roderic I. Pettigrew Ben A. Shneiderman Carl C. Koch◊ Fujio Matsuda Leonard Pinchuk◊ Neil G. Siegel Bernard L. Koff Walter J. McCarthy Jr.* Karl S. Pister Arnold H. Silver Max A. Kohler William J. McCroskey Stephen and Linda Pope Kumares C. Sinha Jindrich Kopecek Ross E. McKinney Michael Prats Jack M. Sipress Bill and Ann Koros Diane M. McKnight◊ Ronald F. Probstein R. Wayne Skaggs Richard W. Korsmeyer Robert M. McMeeking Charles W. Pryor Jr. John Brooks Slaughter Herbert Kroemer Harry W. Mergler Roberta and Edwin Gurindar S. Sohi Fikri J. Kuchuk◊ Angelo Miele Przybylowicz Soroosh Sorooshian Thomas F. Kuech Antonios G. Mikos◊ Robert A. Pucel Dale F. Stein John M. Kulicki James A. Miller Stephen R. Quake◊ Dean E. Stephan Stephanie L. Kwolek Robert D. Miller Kaushik Rajashekara◊ George Stephanopoulos Richard T. Lahey Jr. Keith K. Millheim Vivian and Subbiah Thomas G. Stephens Bruce M. Lake Benjamin F. Montoya Ramalingam Kenneth H. Stokoe II Simon S. Lam Francis C. Moon Eugene M. Rasmusson Howard and Valerie Stone James L. Lammie William B. Morgan Eli Reshotko Richard G. Strauch Leslie B. Lamport A. Stephen Morse James R. Rice Stanley C. Suboleski David A. Landgrebe Joel Moses Bruce E. Rittmann Yasuharu Suematsu Carl G. Langner E.P. Muntz Jerome G. Rivard James M. Symons Robert C. Lanphier III Haydn H. Murray Lloyd M. Robeson Rodney J. Tabaczynski Alan Lawley Thomas M. Murray Stephen M. Robinson Richard A. Tapia Edward D. Lazowska Gerald Nadler Thomas E. Romesser Robert W. Taylor Margaret A. LeMone Devaraysamudram R. Arye Rosen William F. Tinney Johanna M.H. Levelt Nagaraj Howard B. Rosen David and Jane Tirrell Sengers R. Shankar Nair Kenneth M. Rosen Spencer R. Titley Octave Levenspiel Tsuneo Nakahara Donald E. Ross Neil E. Todreas Herbert S. Levinson Hyla S. Napadensky Yoram Rudy Alvin W. Trivelpiece Salomon Levy David Nash B. Don and Becky Russell Stephen D. Umans Paul A. Libby Alan Needleman Peter W. Sauer John M. Undrill Peter W. Likins Stuart O. Nelson Thorndike Saville Jr. Theodore Van Duzer John H. Linehan Martin E. Newell Robert F. Sawyer Moshe Y. Vardi

*Deceased ◊ Peter Farrell Challenge SPRING 2014 73

Walter G. Vincenti Jasper A. Welch Jr. Friends Linda McCarthy Harold J. Vinegar David A. Whelan Nancy Andrews Michele H. Miller Thomas H. Vonder Haar Robert M. and Mavis E. James Barksdale Radka Z. Nebesky Irv Waaland White Caitlyn Carr Andrew Oakley Wallace R. Wade Sharon L. Wood◊ Colby A. Chapman and Marty Perreault Steven J. Wallach David A. Woolhiser Marc A. Manly Richard and Norma Sarns C. Michael Walton Eli Yablonovitch Steve S. Chen Verna W. Spinrad Yulun Wang Roe-Hoan Yoon Clara K. Ellert Judith and Paul Spradlin John T. Watson Yannis C. Yortsos Frances P. Elliott Joy Szekely Watt W. Webb Les Youd Maria Evans Barbara A. Thompson Frederick D. Weber Laurence R. Young Erin Fitzgerald Elizabeth W. Toor Wilford F. Weeks Paul Zia Sharon P. Gross Margot White Robert J. Weimer Steven J. Zinkle◊ Tina Hedrick Sarah Widner and Sheldon Weinbaum Ben T. Zinn Sara Lo Timothy Hess Sheldon Weinig Anonymous Charlotte D. McCall

Charles M. Vest President’s Opportunity Fund In recognition of NAE members and friends who gave generously to the Charles M. Vest President’s Opportunity Fund in 2013 to honor and remember the NAE’s ninth president, Chuck Vest.

H. Norman Abramson John H. Bruning George and Ann Fisher Adam Heller Alice M. Agogino Thomas and Miriam Samuel C. Florman John L. Hennessy Bernard Amadei Budinger James D. Foley Urs Hölzle Rose-Marie and Jack R. Ursula Burns and Lloyd Robert C. and Marilyn G. Mark Horowitz Anderson Bean Forney Mary Jane Irwin Mary P. Anderson Jeffrey P. Buzen Zvi Galil Andrew Jackson and Diran Apelian Albert Carnesale Huajian Gao Lillian Rankel Frances H. Arnold Sigrid and Vint Cerf Elsa M. Garmire and Joan and Irwin Jacobs Wm. Howard Arnold Don B. Chaffin Robert H. Russell Leah H. Jamieson Professor Arvind A. Ray Chamberlain Arthur Gelb Paul C. Jennings Norman R. Augustine Jean-Lou A. Chameau Arthur M. Geoffrion Donald L. Johnson Clyde and Jeanette Baker Paul Citron and Margaret Don P. Giddens Michael R. Johnson Jane K. and William F. Carlson Citron Jacqueline Gish Robert E. Kahn Ballhaus Jr. Henry Cox Steve and Nancy Michael C. Kavanaugh James Barksdale David E. Daniel Goldstein Leon M. Keer Craig and Barbara Barrett Ruth A. David Joseph W. Goodman John E. Kelly Jordan* and Rhoda Thomas F. Degnan Paul E. Gray Judson and Jeanne King Baruch Frederick H. Dill Paul and Judy Gray William I. Koch Gordon Bell Stephen W. Director Barbara J. Grosz Richard W. Korsmeyer Diane and Samuel W. Nicholas M. Donofrio George I. Haddad Fikri J. Kuchuk Bodman David A. Dornfeld Jerrier A. Haddad Charles C. Ladd F. Peter Boer James J. Duderstadt Wesley L. Harris T.W. Lambe Corale L. Brierley Robert R. Everett George and Daphne Louis J. Lanzerotti James A. Brierley Olivia and Peter Farrell Hatsopoulos David C. Larbalestier William R. Brody Bruce A. Finlayson Janina and Siegfried Richard C. Larson Rodney A. Brooks Anthony E. Fiorato Hecker Margaret A. LeMone

*Deceased ◊ Peter Farrell Challenge The 74 BRIDGE

Johanna M.H. Levelt Gordon and Betty Moore Richard J. and Bonnie B. Esther S. Takeuchi Sengers Joe and Glenna Moore Robbins Charlotte and Morris Frances and George Ligler Clayton Daniel and Howard B. Rosen Tanenbaum Peter W. Likins Patricia L. Mote Henry and Susan Samueli Edwin L. Thomas Burn-Jeng Lin Van and Barbara Mow Linda S. Sanford James M. Tien John H. Linehan Earll M. Murman Richard and Norma Sarns David and Jane Tirrell Helmut List Cherry A. Murray Maxine L. Savitz Richard L. Tomasetti Andrew J. Lovinger Thomas M. Murray Bal Raj Sehgal Richard H. Truly Albert Macovski Albert Narath David E. Shaw Moshe Y. Vardi Thomas and Caroline Jaya and Venky Martin B. and Beatrice E. Harold J. Vinegar Maddock Narayanamurti Sherwin Andrew and Erna Viterbi Asad M., Gowhartaj, and Radka Z. Nebesky Ben A. Shneiderman Gordana Vunjak- Jamal Madni Alan Needleman Richard P. Simmons Novakovic Subhash Mahajan Joseph H. Newman John Brooks Slaughter John C. Wall Thomas J. Malone William D. Nix Alfred Z. Spector and Sheldon Weinbaum W. Allen Marr Ronald P. Nordgren Rhonda G. Kost Sarah Widner and John L. Mason Roberto Padovani Judith and Paul Spradlin Timothy Hess Roger L. McCarthy Marty Perreault Robert F. and Lee S. Ward O. Winer John F. McDonnell John W. and Susan M. Sproull Sharon L. Wood Burt and Deedee Poduska Arnold and Constance KeChang Xie McMurtry William R. Pulleyblank Stancell Kuang-Di Xu Edward W. Merrill Simon Ramo Raymond S. Stata Laurence R. Young Richard A. Meserve Jerome G. Rivard Yasuharu Suematsu Ji Zhou Richard K. Miller Ronald L. Rivest Joy Szekely

Tributes In memory of Jordan Baruch – Rhoda Baruch In memory of Robert Berg – Josephine F. Berg In memory of Mary F. Discher – Dennis E. Discher In memory of Howard S. Jones Jr. – Evelyn S. Jones In memory of Gibran Kareem – Ahsan Kareem In memory of Karen Larbalestier – David C. Larbalestier In memory of David W. McCall – Charlotte D. McCall In memory of Robert V. Pound – Harold J. Vinegar In memory of Catherine A. Pucel – Robert A. Pucel In memory of Rudolf Sans – Esther S. Takeuchi In memory of Andrew S. Schultz Jr. – Arthur M. Geoffrion

In honor of David P. Discher – Dennis E. Discher In honor of Fikri J. Kuchuk’s daughters – Fikri J. Kuchuk In honor of Milton Harlow Northrup III – M. Allen Northrup In honor of Robert Plonsey – B. Don and Becky Russell In honor of Haldor Topsoe – Henrik Topsoe

*Deceased SPRING 2014 75

Lifetime Giving Societies The NAE gratefully acknowledges the following members and friends who have made generous charitable lifetime con- tributions. Their collective, private philanthropy enhances the impact of the NAE as a national voice for engineering.

Einstein Society Recognizes NAE members and friends who have made lifetime contributions of $100,000 or more to the Academies as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation. Names in bold are NAE members.

$10 million and above George P. Mitchell* Bernard M. Gordon

$5 million to $10 million Peter O’Donnell Jr.

$1 million to $5 million Richard and Rita Jordan* and Rhoda John F. McDonnell Sara Lee and Axel Schupf Atkinson Baruch Gordon and Betty Moore Norman R. Augustine Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. Robert* and Mayari Craig and Barbara Barrett Joan and Irwin Jacobs Pritzker

$500,000 to $999,999 Rose-Marie and Jack R. Penny and Bill George, Cindy and Jeong Kim Shela and Kumar Patel Anderson George Family Founda- William W. Lang Raymond S. Stata John and Elizabeth tion Ruben F.* and Donna Anonymous Armstrong William T.* and Cath- Mettler James McConnell Clark erine Morrison Golden Dane and Mary Louise Eugene Garfield Thomas V. Jones* Miller

$250,000 to $499,999 Warren L. Batts Mary and Howard* Kehrl Ann and Michael Ramage Henry and Susan Samueli Gordon Bell Janet and Richard M.* Simon Ramo Charles M.* and Rebecca Jerome H.* and Barbara Morrow Anne and Walt Robb M. Vest N. Grossman

*Deceased The 76 BRIDGE

$100,000 to $249,999 William F. Ballhaus Sr.* Michiko So* and John W. Landis* Joseph E. and Anne P. Thomas D.* and Janice Lawrence Finegold Gerald and Doris Laubach Rowe* H. Barrow Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink David M.* and Natalie Maxine L. Savitz Elwyn and Jennifer George and Ann Fisher Lederman Wendy and Eric Schmidt Berlekamp Harold K.* and Betty A. Bonnie Berger and Frank Richard P. Simmons Erich Bloch Forsen Thomson Leighton Robert F. and Lee S. Lewis M. Branscomb William L. and Mary Kay Asad M., Gowhartaj, and Sproull George* and Virginia Friend Jamal Madni Georges C. St. Laurent Jr. Bugliarello William H. and Melinda Roger L. McCarthy Arnold and Constance Ursula Burns and Lloyd F. Gates III Robin K. and Rose M. Stancell Bean Nan and Chuck Geschke McGuire John and Janet Swanson Fletcher* and Peg Byrom Paul and Judy Gray Burt and Deedee Charlotte and Morris John and Assia Cioffi John O. Hallquist McMurtry Tanenbaum Paul Citron and Margaret George and Daphne Joe and Glenna Moore Peter and Vivian Teets Carlson Citron Hatsopoulos Clayton Daniel and Gary and Diane Tooker A. James Clark John L. Hennessy Patricia L. Mote Andrew and Erna Viterbi W. Dale and Jeanne C. Jane Hirsh Philip M. Neches Robert and Joan Compton Chad and Ann Holliday Susan and Franklin M. Wertheim Lance and Susan Davis Anita K. Jones Orr Jr. Robert M. and Mavis E. Robert and Florence Trevor O. Jones Larry and Carol Papay White Deutsch Thomas Kailath Jack S. Parker* Wm. A. Wulf Robert and Cornelia William I. Koch Allen E. and Marilyn Ken Xie Eaton Jill Howell Kramer Puckett Adrian Zaccaria Olivia and Peter Farrell Kent Kresa Henry M. Rowan Alejandro Zaffaroni

Golden Bridge Society Recognizes NAE members and friends who have made lifetime contributions of $20,000 to $99,999 to the Academies as personal gifts or as gifts facilitated by the donor through a donor-advised fund, matching gift program, or family foundation. Names in bold are NAE members.

$50,000 to $99,999 William F. Allen Jr. Thomas E. Everhart William F. Kieschnick Richard F. and Terri W. Jane K. and William F. Robert C. and Marilyn G. Johanna M.H. Levelt Rashid Ballhaus Jr. Forney Sengers Ronald L. Rivest Barry W. Boehm Robert W. Gore Joan M. and Frank W.* George A. Roberts* Kristine L. Bueche Hertha S. Haensel* Luerssen Neil R. Rolde Wiley N. Caldwell Michael W. Hunkapiller Darla and George E. Warren G. Schlinger William Cavanaugh Robert E. Kahn Mueller David E. Shaw Joseph V. Charyk Paul and Julie Kaminski Cynthia J. and Norman John C. Wall Lester and Renee Crown Rita Vaughn and A. Nadel Willis H. Ware* Ruth A. David Theodore C.* Kennedy John Neerhout Jr. Julia R. and Johannes Ronald P. Nordgren Weertman

*Deceased SPRING 2014 77

$20,000 to $49,999

Andreas and Juana James O. Ellis Lester C.* and Joan M. Eberhardt* and Deedee Acrivos Stephen N. Finger Krogh Rechtin Alice M. Agogino Samuel C. Florman Charles C. Ladd Kenneth and Martha Clarence R. Allen Elsa M. Garmire and Yoon-Woo Lee Reifsnider Valerie and William A. Robert H. Russell Norman N. Li Jonathan J. Rubinstein Anders Richard L. and Lois E. Frances and George Jerry Sanders III Seta and Diran Apelian Garwin Ligler Linda S. Sanford Wm. Howard Arnold Arthur M. Geoffrion Thomas J. Malone Roland W. Schmitt Kamla and Bishnu S. Atal Louis V. Gerstner Jr. James F. Mathis Martin B. and Beatrice E. Clyde and Jeanette Baker Martin E. and Lucinda James C. McGroddy Sherwin William F. Banholzer Glicksman Richard A. Meserve Joel S. Spira David K. Barton Mary L. Good James K. Mitchell Richard J. Stegemeier R. Byron Bird Joseph W. Goodman Van and Barbara Mow Henry E. Stone Diane and Samuel W. Paul E. Gray Cherry A. Murray Stanley D. Stookey Bodman Delon Hampton Narayana Murthy and Daniel M. Tellep Rodney A. Brooks Wesley L. Harris Sudha Murty David W. Thompson Harold Brown Robert and Darlene Dale and Marge* Myers Raymond Viskanta Corbett Caudill Hermann Jaya and Venky Robert and Robyn Selim A. Chacour David and Susan Hodges Narayanamurti Wagoner Sunlin Chou Kenneth F. Holtby Robert M. and Marilyn R. Daniel I. Wang Uma Chowdhry Edward E. Hood Jr. Nerem Albert R.C. and Jeannie G. Wayne Clough Edward G.* and Naomi Simon Ostrach Westwood Joseph M. Colucci Jefferson Roberto Padovani Willis S. White Jr. Stephen H. Crandall* Min H. Kao M.E. Paté-Cornell Sheila E. Widnall Malcolm R. Currie John and Wilma Arogyaswami J. Paulraj John J. Wise Ruth M. Davis* and Kassakian Paul S. Peercy Edgar S. Woolard Jr. Benjamin Lohr James R.* and Isabelle Donald E. Petersen A. Thomas Young Mary P. and Gerald P.* Katzer Dennis J. Picard Jim and Carole Young Dinneen Robert M. and Pauline W. John W. and Susan M. Anonymous Nicholas M. Donofrio Koerner Poduska E. Linn Draper Jr. James N. Krebs Joy and George* Mildred S. Dresselhaus Rathmann

*Deceased The 78 BRIDGE

Heritage Society Recognizes members and friends who have included the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engi- neering, Institute of Medicine, or National Research Council in their estate plans or who have made some other type of planned gift to the Academies. Names in bold are NAE members.

Andreas and Juana Malcolm R. Currie William W. Lang Richard J. and Bonnie B. Acrivos Mildred S. Dresselhaus Thomas and Caroline Robbins Gene and Marian Amdahl Gerard W. Elverum Maddock James F. Roth Betsy Ancker-Johnson Tobie and Daniel J.* Fink Artur Mager Arnold and Constance John C. Angus Robert C. and Marilyn G. Gordon and Betty Moore Stancell John and Elizabeth Forney Van and Barbara Mow Dale F. Stein Armstrong Paul H. Gilbert Ronald P. Nordgren John and Janet Swanson Norman R. Augustine Martin E. and Lucinda Constance and William* Esther S. Takeuchi Corale L. Brierley Glicksman Opie Willis H. Ware* James A. Brierley Joseph W. Goodman Bradford W. and Virginia Robert and Joan Kristine L. Bueche Anita K. Jones W. Parkinson Wertheim Ross and Stephanie John W. Landis* Zack T. Pate Wm. A. Wulf Corotis Simon Ramo

Foundations, Corporations, and Other Organizations

Lifetime In recognition of foundations, corporations, and other organizations that have made lifetime contributions of $1 mil- lion or more to the National Academy of Engineering.

AT&T Corporation The Charles Stark Draper Jewish Community Robert Pritzker Family Craig and Barbara Barrett Laboratory Foundation San Diego Foundation Foundation E.I. du Pont de Nemours JSM Charitable Trust Fritz J. and Dolores The Baruch Fund and Company Lockheed Martin H. Russ Prize Fund S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Ford Motor Company Corporation of the Russ College Foundation General Electric Company McDonnell Douglas of Engineering and The Boeing Company General Motors Company Corporation Technology at Ohio Chevron Corporation The Grainger Foundation The Andrew W. Mellon University DaimlerChrysler International Business Foundation Alfred P. Sloan Corporation Machines Corporation O’Donnell Foundation Foundation

*Deceased SPRING 2014 79

Annual In recognition of foundations, corporations, and other organizations that contributed to the National Academy of Engineering in 2013.

A-dec, Inc. Ellis Family Charitable W.M. Keck Foundation Samueli Foundation Avid Solutions Industrial Fund at Schwab Lutron Foundation Henry and Sally Schwartz Process Control Charitable Fund Margaret and Ross Family Foundation Craig and Barbara Barrett Employees Charity Macdonald Charitable Southwest Research Foundation Organization of Fund of Triangle Institute The Baruch Fund Northrop Grumman Community Foundation Ray and Maria Stata Bell Family Foundation ExxonMobil Foundation McGroddy Family Family Charitable Fund Bimcon, Inc. Michiko So Finegold Foundation of November 1983 The Bodman Foundation Memorial Trust Microsoft Corporation Strategic Worldwide, LLC The Boeing Company Forney Family Foundation Mobil Foundation Strauss Hawkins Fund Seth Bonder Foundation GE Foundation Gordon and Betty Moore at the Silicon Valley The Rodney Brooks Arthur and Linda Gelb Foundation Community Foundation Charitable Fund Charitable Foundation Dale and Marge Myers Morris and Charlotte Card Family Foundation General Electric Company Fund at the San Diego Tanenbaum Family Castaing Family Geosynthetic Institute Foundation Foundation Foundation Gerstner Family The Omaha Community United Way of Greater Chevron Corporation Foundation Foundation Los Angeles Cornell University The Geschke Foundation Orcas Island Community Viterbi Family Grant Foundation at the Silicon Valley Foundation Fund of the Jewish Council of Scientific Community Foundation Poduska Family Community Foundation Society Presidents Google, Inc. Foundation Wells Fargo Advisors, Cummins, Inc. Gratis Foundation Qualcomm, Inc. LLC The Thomas and Bettie Hood Family Fund at the Rockwell Collins The White Family Trust Deen Charitable Gift Seattle Foundation Charitable Corporation The Woolard Family Fund Hopper-Dean Foundation Fritz J. and Dolores Foundation The Dow Chemical Indo-US Science and H. Russ Prize Fund Xerox Corporation Company Technology Forum of the Russ College XIE Foundation The Charles Stark Draper International Business of Engineering and Zarem Foundation Laboratory Machines Corporation Technology at Ohio Zerhouni Family E.I. du Pont de Nemours Joan and Irwin Jacobs University Charitable Foundation and Company Fund of the Jewish Henry M. Rowan Family Community Foundation Foundation

We have made every effort to list donors accurately and according to their wishes. If we have made an error, please accept our apologies and contact the Development Office at 202.334.2431 so we can correct our records. The 80 BRIDGE

NAE Newsmakers

Wanda M. Austin, president and Engineering (ATSE) as a Foreign French Legion of Honor, France’s chief executive officer, Aerospace Fellow on November 22, 2013. highest award, for his contribu- Corporation, will be honored as He also received the R.H. Wil- tions to global technology research the ARCS Foundation’s 2014 Eagle helm Award in Chemical Reac- during his time as president of Awardee in a ceremony in Washing- tion Engineering of the American Bell Labs, a research organization ton on May 7. The award is present- Institute of Chemical Engineers at owned by French global telecom- ed to individuals who, through their its annual meeting on November 3, munications equipment company personal and professional activities, 2013. He was cited “for sustained Alcatel-Lucent. French Ambassa- have provided significant contribu- and lasting contributions to multi- dor François Delattre delivered the tions to the advancement of STEM phase reaction engineering and for honor in a ceremony at the French achievements. pioneering work on groundbreaking Embassy on January 6. Dr. Kim Two NAE members have been clean-energy technologies.” Dr. Fan founded Yurie Systems, where he honored by the Franklin Institute in has invented a family of advanced pioneered the development of a Philadelphia. Edmund M. Clarke, technologies, called chemical loop- revolutionary asynchronous transfer FORE Systems University Profes- ing technologies, that can efficient- mode (ATM) for wireless applica- sor of Computer Science, Carnegie ly convert carbonaceous material to tions. The ATM switch became a Mellon University, is the recipient electricity, hydrogen, syngas, liquid pivotal key in the modernization of the 2014 Bower Award and fuels, and chemicals while simulta- of telecommunications systems for Prize for Achievement in Science. neously capturing carbon dioxide. today’s digital market. Dr. Clarke will receive the award These technologies are currently Sangtae Kim, visiting professor “for his leading role in the concep- at the commercial demonstration of chemical engineering at the Uni- tion and development of techniques stage. He is also an inventor of versity of Wisconsin-Madison and for automatically verifying the cor- commercially employed electrical distinguished professor, chemical rectness of a broad array of comput- capacitance volume tomography engineering, Purdue University, has er systems, including those found in for 3-dimensional imaging of multi- received the 2013 Ho-Am Engi- transportation, communications, phase flow reactors. neering Prize from South Korea, and medicine.” Mark H. Kryder, Edward A. Feigenbaum, Kum- the highest engineering research University Professor, Electrical and agai Professor Emeritus of Computer award issued by that nation. The Computer Engineering, Carnegie Science, Stanford University, was engineering prize recognizes Kim’s Mellon University, is a co-recipient named the Institute of Electrical global leadership in microhydrody- of the 2014 Benjamin Franklin and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) namics (now known as microfluid- Medal in Electrical Engineering Computer Society’s 2013 Com- ics) research, which deals with fluid “for the development and realiza- puter Pioneer Award recipient. Dr. behavior and control on tiny scales. tion of the system of perpendicu- Feigenbaum received the award “for Dr. Kim has developed new math- lar magnetic recording, which has pioneering work in artificial intel- ematical models for pharmaceutical enabled a dramatic increase in the ligence, including development of informatics and improved micro- storage capacity of computer-read- the basic principles and methods of fluidic self-assembly processes for able media.” The 2014 Awards Cer- knowledge-based systems and their inexpensive radio-frequency identi- emony and Dinner will take place practical applications.” The Pioneer fication tags. April 24 at the Franklin Institute. Award is given for significant contri- Shuji Nakamura, professor, Uni- Liang-Shih Fan, Distinguished butions to early concepts and devel- versity of California, Santa Barbara, University Professor and C. John opments in the electronic computer was named by Lux Magazine as its Easton Professor in Engineering field that have clearly advanced the “Person of the Year.” The Lux at the Ohio State University, was state of the art in computing. Awards, jointly presented by Lux inducted into the Australian Acad- Jeong Kim, president, Bell Labs, Magazine and the Lighting Indus- emy of Technological Sciences and Alcatel-Lucent, has received the try Association, are designed to SPRING 2014 81

reward both creativity and sustain- tronics and furthering practical biodegradable medical implants and ability. In conferring the award, Lux development processes. His research environmentally friendly electronic Magazine referred to Dr. Nakamura led to the creation of 3M multilayer devices.” as “the man who single-handedly optical film with light management Subra Suresh, president, Carn- created the current LED revolution properties that conserve energy; the egie Mellon University, has been [and] whose work is benefitting all thin film is used in smart phones, elected a foreign member of the humanity.” computer displays, e-books, tablets, Chinese Academy of Sciences The 2013 class of inductees into and other consumer electronics (CAS), a rare and highly desirable the Electronic Design Engineer- devices to help improve battery life. distinction in the academic commu- ing Hall of Fame included six NAE Arogyaswami J. Paulraj, profes- nity. Dr. Suresh was selected for his members: Lester Eastman (post- sor emeritus, Stanford University, scientific contributions in materials humously), John L. Given Chair has been awarded the 2014 Mar- science and engineering, including Professor of Engineering, Cornell coni Society Prize. The award was his work connecting nanomechani- University, for his work in compound given for his idea for using multiple cal cell structure to disease states. He semiconductors such as gallium antennas at both the transmitting was also honored for his guidance nitride which led to many innova- and receiving stations, which is at in building a worldwide scientific tions; Shuji Nakamura, professor, the heart of the current high-speed and engineering research dialogue University of California, Santa Bar- WiFi and 4G mobile systems and through the Global Research bara, for his outstanding work in the revolutionized high-speed wireless Council, which he helped to found lighting industry; Bjarne Strous- delivery of multimedia services for while serving as director of the US trup, Distinguished Professor and billions of people. “Dr. Paulraj’s con- National Science Foundation. The holder of the College of Engineering tributions to wireless technology, council will hold its annual meeting Chair in Computer Science, Texas and the resulting benefit to man- in Beijing by 2014. Dr. Suresh is the A&M University–College Station, kind, are indisputable. Every WiFi only current US university presi- who came up with the object-ori- router and 4G phone today uses dent to have been named a foreign ented programming language and MIMO technology pioneered by member of the CAS. continues to be involved in the C++ him,” says Vint Cerf, vice chairman Man Chung-Tang, chairman of standard, the latest being C++11; of the Marconi Society. The Mar- the board, T.Y. Lin International, and three for their development of coni Society, celebrating its 50th has been awarded the 2013 Gold the C Programming Language— year in 2014, was founded by Gioia Medal by the Institution of Struc- Brian Kernighan, professor of com- Marconi Braga. Each year it recog- tural Engineers for “his outstand- puter science, Princeton University, nizes one or more scientists who, like ing contribution to the structural who also developed the Ratfor FOR- radio inventor Guglielmo Marconi, design of major long span bridges TRAM preprocessor; Dennis pursue advances in communications in many parts of the world, exem- Ritchie, member of the technical and information technology for the plifying aesthetics, creativity, and staff, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Tech- social, economic, and cultural devel- sustainability.” The Gold Medal, nologies; and Kenneth Thompson, opment of all humanity. the institution’s most prestigious Google advisor, Google Inc., who John A. Rogers, Swanlund Chair award, is presented to an individual also wrote the first version of UNIX Professor, University of Illinois for exceptional and outstanding using C at the Bell Labs Computing at Urbana-Champaign, has been contributions to the advancement Sciences Research Center. given a 2013 American Ingenuity of structural engineering. Dr. Tang Andy Ouderkirk, corporate sci- Award by Smithsonian Magazine, was honored at the institution’s entist, 3M, has received the 2013 the publishing arm of the Smithso- Gold Medal Address in Shanghai R&D Magazine Innovator of the nian Institution. Professor Rogers on October 31, and also presented Year Award for his demonstrated is the 2013 honoree in the physi- his latest paper on innovation. skills in leadership and innovation. cal sciences for “the invention of The Computer History Museum Dr. Ouderkirk is cited for excellence ultra-thin silicon electronics that (CHM) announced its 2014 Fellow in research for inventing advanced dissolve in the body or the envi- Award honorees. The three honor- optical films used in consumer elec- ronment, ushering in a new era of ees are Lynn Conway, professor of The 82 BRIDGE electrical engineering and com- 2013, at the EE Annual Research “transforming global access to infor- puter science emerita, University of Review, where he also delivered the mation through his leadership and Michigan, for her work in develop- inaugural Distinguished Alumnus technological contributions.” The ing and disseminating new methods Lecture on “Convergence of Emerg- Richard W. Hamming Medal, spon- of integrated circuit design through ing Technologies to Address the sored by Qualcomm Inc., will be her work on the VLSI (very large Challenges of the 21st Century.” In presented to co-recipients Thomas scale integration) process; John addition, he was elected an honor- J. Richardson, vice president of Crawford, retired Intel Fellow, Intel ary member of the interdisciplin- engineering, Qualcomm Inc., and Corporation, chief architect of the ary honor society of Phi Kappa Phi Rüdiger Urbanke for “fundamental Intel x86 processor architecture, for (PKP) by the executive board of the contributions to coding theory, iter- his seminal work on industry-stan- University of Southern California ative information processing, and dard microprocessor architectures; chapter. PKP is the nation’s oldest applications.” Leroy E. Hood, presi- and Irwin Jacobs, founding chair- and most selective all-discipline dent, Institute for Systems Biology, man and CEO emeritus, Qualcomm honor society. Standards for election will receive the Medal for Innova- Incorporated, for his pioneering are extremely high and honorary tions in Healthcare Technology for work in digital mobile telephony, membership is granted only to fac- “pioneering contributions to DNA data, and communications technol- ulty, professional staff, and alumni sequencing technologies that revo- ogy. The three will be inducted into who have achieved outstanding and lutionized life and health sciences.” the Museum’s Hall of Fellows at a extraordinary scholarly distinction. The Robert N. Noyce Medal will formal ceremony on April 26. The The formal induction ceremony be presented to John E. Kelly III, Computer History Museum Fellow was held October 25 at the Doheny senior vice president and direc- Awards honor exceptional men and Library on the USC campus. tor of research, IBM Corporation, women whose ideas have changed On August 23, 2014, the IEEE for “global executive leadership in the world. Honors Ceremony will be held in semiconductor technology R&D.” Asad M. Madni, retired presi- conjunction with the IEEE Sec- The Noyce Medal is sponsored by dent, chief operating officer, and tions Congress at the RAI Conven- the Intel Foundation. Thomas A. CTO of BEI Technologies Inc., tion Center in Amsterdam. Several Lipo, emeritus professor, University and independent consultant, was NAE members will receive awards. of Wisconsin–Madison, will receive awarded the inaugural Electrical B. Jayant Baliga, director, Power the Medal in Power Engineering for Engineering Distinguished Alum- Semiconductor Research Center, “contributions to electrical machine nus Award by the UCLA Henry North Carolina State University, and drive topologies.” The John von Samueli School of Engineering and will receive the 2014 IEEE Medal Neumann Medal, sponsored by IBM Applied Science and the Electrical of Honor, the highest award given Corp., will be presented to Cleve Engineering Department “for his by IEEE, “For the invention, imple- Moler, chairman, chief scientist, and visionary leadership and pioneer- mentation, and commercialization chief mathematician, MathWorks ing contributions to the electrical of power semiconductor devices with Inc., “For fundamental and widely sciences and engineering that have widespread benefits to society.” Eric used contributions to numerical lin- brought great honor to the depart- Schmidt, chairman of the board and ear algebra and scientific and engi- ment and to the school.” The award CEO, Google Inc., has been chosen neering software that transformed was presented on December 11, to receive the Founders Medal for computational science.” SPRING 2014 83

2014 National Meeting

NAE members and guests gath- ered on February 7 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, for the 2014 NAE National Meeting, which was held in honor of retir- ing NAE Vice President Maxine L. Savitz. The meeting was pre- ceded by a members’-only business session (11:00 AM to noon), after which the members were joined for lunch by 250 students from the following local schools: High Tech High (HTH), HTH Chula Vista, Dan Mote with students HTH International, HTH Media Arts, HTH North County, High Tech Middle (HTM), HTM Media Arts, HTM North County, Jordan High School, and Anaheim High School, as well as the University of California, Irvine (UCI) California Alliance for Minority Participation (CAMP) Program. NAE Chair Charles O. Holliday Jr. welcomed the members, guests, and students to the National Meet- ing symposium with brief remarks encouraging the students to con- sider the impact they can have on the world through a career in engi- Edmund Chao with students neering. He introduced the keynote speaker, Dr. Savitz, thanked her for her service to the NAE and noted her influence on US public policy on energy efficiency and her con- tinuing interest in America’s energy future. In her talk, “America’s Ener- gy Landscape,” Dr. Savitz spoke of “then (2006) and now (2014),” the years bracketing her term as NAE vice president, and talked about the key forces shaping America’s needs. President Dan Mote chaired the technical session and began by introducing Corale Brierley, prin- cipal, Brierley Consultancy LLC. Cato Laurencin with students Her talk, “Biomining: Genesis of a The 84 BRIDGE

engineering, as exemplified by her Extreme Environments to Resist own career in biomining, and shared Multiple Natural Hazards.” Donald with the student guests her personal Siegel, assistant professor, Depart- journey from attending a one-room ment of Mechanical Engineering, school house to having her own con- University of Michigan, discussed sulting business with her husband “Energy Storage for Sustainable Jim Brierley, also an NAE member. Transportation.” Peter Meinhold, The program continued with cofounder and chief technology Armstrong Endowment for Young officer, Provivi, Inc., talked about Engineers Gilbreth Lectures on “Microbial Production of Advanced ― issues related to energy, presented Biofuels.” And Lynn Russell, pro- by young engineers who had par- fessor of climate sciences, Scripps ticipated in the NAE’s Frontiers Institution of Oceanography, spoke Gilbreth Lecturer Lynn Russell of Engineering symposia. Daniel on “Mitigating Climate Change Fenz, research specialist, Offshore by Engineering Air Pollution to Technology and an Engineering Function, ExxonMobil Upstream Brighten Clouds.” Career,” addressed the technical Research Company, spoke on “Tech- The day ended with a reception challenges offered by a career in nologies for Offshore Structures in for members and guests.

2013 EU-US Frontiers of Engineering Held in Chantilly, France

Poster session

On November 21–23, the third event with organization and finan- cochair; Yves Caseau, executive vice EU-US Frontiers of Engineering cial support for the EU side provided president of technologies, services, symposium was held at Hotel Dolce by the National Academy of Tech- and innovation for Bouygues Tele- Chantilly in Chantilly, France. The nologies of France (NATF). NAE com, was cochair for the EU side. European Council of Applied Sci- member Sergio Verdu, Eugene Hig- The meeting brought together ences, Technologies, and Engineer- gins Professor of Electrical Engineer- approximately 60 engineers, ages ing (Euro-CASE) cosponsored the ing at Princeton University, was US 30–45, from US and European uni- SPRING 2014 85

versities, companies, and govern- graphene and molybdenum disul- wireless research, which has driven ment labs for a 2½-day meeting to phide. This was followed by pre- advances in wireless communica- discuss leading-edge developments sentations on microfluidic devices tions, is at a point when future gains in four areas: the Future of Transpor- for high-throughput biological will be incremental; thus, the session tation, Nanosensors, Big Data, and and chemical analysis and tools on Wireless Broadband presented Wireless Broadband. Participants that provide single molecule sen- perspectives on how to meet new attended from 12 EU countries: sitivity for clinical diagnostics and demand. Presentations addressed Italy, France, Switzerland, Belgium, drug screening. The session’s final network densification through Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, speaker described work on a pep- neighborhood small cells as one way United Kingdom, Germany, Czech tide microarray sensor that could to meet demand; industrial perspec- Republic, Greece, and Denmark. be mass produced and stockpiled in tives on physical layer stagnation With more than half the world’s advance of a biological threat event and research initiatives; techniques population living in urban areas, or infectious disease pandemic. for handling interference using dis- transportation is a major issue. We now have access to large and tributed cooperation in domains The Future of Transportation ses- complex datasets that are difficult such as resource control, scheduling, sion focused on intracity travel that to process using traditional data beam forming, and power control; is both environmentally sustain- processing applications. The third and a new paradigm for radio spec- able and adaptive, exploring the session presented an overview of trum management and regulation. application of traffic engineering, Big Data technologies used to col- The symposium included a poster mathematical modeling, computer lect, organize, and process these session on the first afternoon, which science, electrical engineering, tele- massive amounts of data as well served as both an icebreaker and an communications, and behavioral as ways that analysis of these data opportunity for participants to share science to urban transportation can optimize business practices and information about their research challenges. Talks covered the man- address longstanding social science and technical work. Chantilly is agement of traffic through traffic questions. The session began with located just outside Paris so on the information, guidance, and control; a talk on infrastructures and inter- second afternoon the participants the application of Nash-Stackelberg faces for data science, followed by a took a break from plenary sessions thinking to traffic management; presentation on the role of machine for a bus tour of Paris followed by a services that provide real-time traf- learning in connecting to data boat ride on the Seine River. fic information using multiple data management, its applications, and The dinner speech on the first sources, including smart phones, for challenges to scalability. The next evening was given by Dr. Jean-Louis traffic monitoring and management; speaker described an experiment Etienne, a physician, explorer, and and ways that the sharing econ- that computed the degrees of sepa- member of NATF who spoke on omy has affected transportation, ration utilizing the entire Facebook the role of technology innova- with examples from public transit, network of active users, resulting tions in polar expeditions. As a cycling, and autonomous vehicles. in an observation of four degrees committed environmentalist, he The Nanosensors session provid- of separation between those users. has made numerous expeditions to ed an overview of state-of-the-art The final talk in the session dealt polar regions to conduct research work on devices that make use of with natural language processing, or and raise public awareness about the unique properties of nanoma- enabling computers to use human their impact on Earth’s climate. He terials and nanoparticles to detect language, and why this is such a dif- described fascinating details of his and measure events such as chemi- ficult problem. travels and some of the equipment cal compounds, viruses, or harmful The confluence of smartphones, he developed, including a dirigible bacteria at the nanoscale. The first cloud computing, and machine-to- for a trans-Arctic expedition to speaker discussed (1) applications machine communication means measure the thickness of sea ice. of nanopores and nanochannels in that the volume of wireless traffic Financial support for the symposium nanofluidics approaches for detect- could increase by three orders of was provided by The Grainger Foun- ing biomolecules and (2) nanosen- magnitude over the next decade. dation, the National Science Founda- sors based on 2D materials such as Some contend that physical-layer tion, NATF, and Fonds de dotation. The 86 BRIDGE

The next EU-US FOE sympo- Stephen C. Macaleer ’63 Professor tion about the symposium series sium will be hosted by Boeing on in Engineering and Applied Science or to nominate an outstanding November 10–12, 2014, in Seattle; at Princeton University, and Yves engineer to participate in future NATF will continue its organiza- Caseau. Frontiers meetings, contact Janet tional role for the EU side. The NAE has been hosting an annual Hunziker at the NAE Program event will be cochaired by NAE US Frontiers of Engineering meet- Office at [email protected]. member Christodoulos Floudas, ing since 1995. For more informa-

Mirzayan Fellows Join Program Office

Before pursuing graduate studies, he Georgia Institute of Technology and worked at Ford Motor Company as a an MS in science, technology, and product design engineer focusing on environmental policy from the Uni- environmental policies. As a Mirza- versity of Minnesota. He completed yan Fellow, he hopes to explore his undergraduate study in civil and policies as they relate to the devel- environmental engineering at the opment, retention, and promotion Korea University in Seoul. His PhD of underrepresented engineers. In dissertation examines the impact of his spare time Aaron enjoys watch- innovative transportation technolo- ing and playing sports; he is a die- gy on the environment (specifically, Aaron Lee Adams hard Detroit Lions fan and a Nissan biodiversity and ecosystem service) Z car enthusiast. While at the NAE under the condition of deep uncer- Aaron Lee Adams received his MS he is working on the NSF-funded tainty. He has been involved in sev- and PhD in mechanical engineering consensus study, The Status, Role, eral RAND projects on emerging as well as an MS in marketing from and Needs of Engineering Technol- technology and Earth system mod- the University of Alabama, Tusca- ogy Education in the United States. eling. Before coming to the United loosa. He did much of his doctoral States he worked as a researcher at research at Brookhaven National both national and regional think Laboratory, focusing on the ther- tanks in Korea, focusing on tech- mal annealing of cadmium zinc tel- nology forecasting and patent data luride crystals for nuclear radiation analysis. He also served as a mili- detectors. While at the University tary officer in Korea’s Engineering of Alabama, he participated in an Corps. Through his participation in Engineering Without Borders proj- the Mirzayan Fellowship, he hopes ect to provide clean water and solar to better understand the role of sci- lighting to rural villages in Iquitos, ence and technology in society. Peru. Since 2010 he has been an assistant professor in the Mechani- Youngbok Ryu cal Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Technology depart- ments at Alabama Agricultural and Youngbok Ryu is a PhD candidate at Mechanical University (AAMU), the Pardee RAND Graduate School where he also earned his BS in in Santa Monica. He has an MS in mechanical engineering technology. technology management from the SPRING 2014 87

New NSF Grant Supports Expansion of NAE’s Online Ethics Center

The NAE Online Ethics Center communities will be better prepared social significance of science and (OEC), which provides resources to recognize and respond to ethical engineering and the role of ethics in for understanding and address- issues and to promote active learn- sustaining these fields as trustworthy ing ethically significant problems ing of the issues of social justice,” social institutions. To cultivate the in engineering and research, has said NAE President C.D. Mote, Jr. engagement of a broad commu- won a $1.5 million grant from the OEC’s improved content and nity of interested individuals and National Science Foundation to structure will engage faculty, stu- organizations, an interdisciplinary expand the center’s efforts beyond dents, and practicing scientists advisory and management structure engineering to incorporate all NSF- and engineers to strengthen their will guide the effort and include supported fields of science. attention to and understanding of members of all three bodies of the “Thanks to the generous support issues of social justice and ethics. National Academies and represen- of the National Science Founda- The website will place these issues tatives from all the research com- tion, the engineering and scientific in a framework that highlights the munities that NSF supports.

Energy Ethics in Science and Engineering Education—Project Outcomes

Substantial changes are occurring al Institute in Energy, Ethics, and The project findings indicate that in global energy production and use Society (NIEES), held at ASU in choices to develop or reorient energy and will continue for decades, with April 2013; and the capstone work- technologies entail ethical and soci- widespread ramifications for the shop, Energy Ethics in Graduate Edu- etal concerns beyond those that can distribution of wealth and power cation and Public Policy: Enhancing be captured in cost-benefit analyses. and for humanity’s social and envi- the Conversation, at the National They involve issues of justice and ronmental future. In this context Academies in September 2013. community life, and so should attend the NAE’s Center for Engineering, Evaluations from students who to questions of public participation Ethics, and Society and the Arizona participated in the educational and engagement, particularly with State University (ASU) Consortium workshops and NIEES indicate that respect to persons and groups who for Science, Policy and Outcomes the project successfully used various are less influential. The design deci- collaborated on a three-year project formats to engage them and to illu- sions of scientists and engineers, and to investigate important ethical con- minate the interrelationships among the selection of alternative energy siderations that should be addressed energy, ethics, and society. The wide pathways, involve social and ethical in the education of engineers and range of project activities provided concerns that need to be accounted scientists whose research and prac- substantive educational opportuni- for in these decisions. tice will involve energy. ties for more than 150 graduate and The findings influenced the edu- The project involved the follow- undergraduate students from numer- cational framework and materials ing activities: a research workshop to ous science and engineering disci- developed in the project. Using case delineate the project focus; an ASU plines at a dozen universities. The studies to illuminate ethical chal- seminar on Energy Ethics, Society, project also provided training in lenges, the materials introduce both and Policy for faculty and graduate energy ethics research for 18 gradu- energy systems as complex socio- students; mentoring of graduate stu- ate students—12 at ASU, 5 at other technological systems and ethical dent research projects; participation US institutions, and 1 from a foreign approaches to the analysis of these in the development of the Arizona institution—significantly enhanc- systems and system transitions. state energy plan; two workshops ing their master’s and PhD theses. Project information, publications, in energy ethics education for ASU In addition, work under this grant and materials are available at www. graduate students; a national energy resulted in 20 journal articles, book nae.edu/Projects/CEES/57196/ ethics video contest; the first Nation- chapters, and thesis publications. EnergyEthics.aspx. The 88 BRIDGE

Educating Engineers to Meet the Grand Challenges

On April 30–May 1, 2014, the together to identify best practices such as learning through service, National Academy of Engineering for preparing students to address the global perspectives, practical appli- will host a workshop on Educat- Grand Challenges. The intended cations, entrepreneurship, and ing Engineers to Meet the Grand result will be a consortium of engi- aspects of policy and human behav- Challenges. Leaders from academia, neering schools committed to shared ior. More information is available at associations, startup communities, practices for providing their stu- www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=102161. learning through service organi- dents/members with an engineering zations, and industry will come education that includes elements

Calendar of Meetings and Events

March 1–31 Election of NAE Officers and April 24 NAE Regional Meeting Councillors West Lafayette, Indiana March 17–19 Brazil-US Frontiers of Science and April 30–May 1 Workshop on Educating Engineers to Engineering Symposium Meet the Grand Challenges Rio de Janeiro May 8–9 NAE Council Meeting March 25 NAE Regional Meeting May 14 NAE Regional Meeting Charlottesville, Virginia Chicago April 1 NAE Regional Meeting May 19–21 Indo-American Frontiers of Davis, California Engineering April 1 Deadline for Nominations for Mysore 2014–2015 NAE Awards June 9–11 Japan-America Frontiers of April 4–6 Second Annual Integrated Network Engineering on Social Sustainability Conference Tokyo Charlotte, North Carolina All meetings are held in National Academies facilities in April 15 NAE Regional Meeting Washington, DC, unless otherwise noted. Princeton, New Jersey

In Memoriam

FREDERICK T. ANDREWS, 86, Technologies Corporation, died on outstanding contributions to the retired vice president, technology December 29, 2013. Mr. Coar was understanding of nuclear weapons systems, Telcordia Technologies, elected to the NAE in 1984 for out- effects and to the design of weapons Inc., died on September 15, 2013. standing contributions to and man- to penetrate nuclear defenses. Mr. Andrews was elected to the agement of aircraft and aerospace NAE in 1988 for contributions and propulsion systems used in military STEPHEN H. CRANDALL, leadership in the establishment of and civil applications. 92, Ford Professor of Engineering world telecommunication standards (emeritus), Department of Mechan- and in the development of digital THOMAS B. COOK JR., 87, ical Engineering, Massachusetts transmission and switching systems. retired executive vice president, Institute of Technology, died on Sandia National Laboratories, died October 29, 2013. Dr. Crandall was RICHARD COAR, 92, retired on December 27, 2013. Dr. Cook elected to the NAE in 1977 for lead- executive vice president, United was elected to the NAE in 1981 for ership in the theory, education, and SPRING 2014 89

practice of engineering mechan- ber 9, 2013. Dr. Oliner was elected tributions to the application of the- ics, especially in random vibration to the NAE in 1991 for contribu- oretical methods to nuclear shield analysis. tions to the theory of guided elec- and reactor design. tromagnetic waves and antennas. THOMAS V. JONES, 93, former HARDY W. TROLANDER, 92, chairman and CEO, Northrop Cor- CARLOS S. OSPINA, 93, senior retired chairman and founder, Yel- poration, died on January 7, 2014. consultant, INGETEC S.A., died low Springs Instrument Company, Mr. Jones was elected to the NAE in on October 19, 2013. Dr. Ospina died on October 11, 2013. Mr. Tro- 1986 for leadership in the introduc- was elected a foreign associate of the lander was elected to the NAE in tion of reliability and maintainabil- NAE in 1977 for contributions to a 1992 for creative development of ity into advanced aircraft design, comprehensive river basin develop- precision sensors for medical and resulting in systems that combine ment, including hydroelectric pow- industrial applications and leader- high performance with unprec- er innovations. ship in worldwide commercializa- edented reliability. tion of these products. ROBERT L. SACKHEIM, 76, HOWARD H. KEHRL, 90, retired retired assistant director, chief engi- CHARLES M. VEST, 72, presi- vice chairman, General Motors neer for propulsion, NASA/MSFC, dent emeritus, National Academy Corporation, died on October 1, and consultant, died on December of Engineering and president emeri- 2013. Mr. Kehrl was elected to the 22, 2013. Mr. Sackheim was elected tus and professor emeritus, Depart- NAE in 1985 in recognition of his to the NAE in 2000 for contribu- ment of Mechanical Engineering, outstanding contributions to the tions to space and missile propulsion Massachusetts Institute of Technol- advancement of automotive science technology and programs. ogy, died on December 12, 2013. and engineering. Dr. Vest was elected to the NAE HARRIS M. SCHURMEIER, 89, in 1993 for technical and educa- JACK KELLER, 85, chief execu- retired associate director, Jet Propul- tional contributions to holographic tive officer, Keller-Bliesner Engi- sion Laboratory, died on Novem- interferometry and leadership as an neering LLC, died on November 10, ber 23, 2013. Mr. Schurmeier was educator. 2013. Dr. Keller was elected to the elected to the NAE in 1983 for NAE in 1987 for contributions to imaginative and careful engineer- WILLIS H. WARE, 93, corporate increased production of agricultural ing leadership that assured success research staff emeritus, the RAND crops through the development and in bold explorations of the solar Corporation, died on November 22, application of advanced irrigation system. 2013. Dr. Ware was elected to the technology. NAE in 1985 for pioneering con- JOHN J. TAYLOR, 91, retired vice tributions to computer technology, ARTHUR A. OLINER, 92, Presi- president, nuclear power, Electric from development of machines and dential Fellow and professor emeri- Power Research Institute, died on systems to operations and engineer- tus of electrophysics, Polytechnic December 9, 2013. Mr. Taylor was ing for national security and civil Institute of NYU, died on Septem- elected to the NAE in 1974 for con- capability. The 90 BRIDGE Publications of Interest

The following reports have been additional book. Add applicable sales integrated STEM education is limit- published recently by the National tax or GST if you live in CA, CT, ed, however, largely because there is Academy of Engineering or the DC, FL, MD, NC, NY, PA, VA, no common theoretical framework National Research Council (NRC). WI, or Canada.) to guide research or practice. The Unless otherwise noted, all publica- report presents such a framework to tions are for sale (prepaid) from the STEM Integration in K–12 Education: help researchers and practitioners National Academies Press (NAP), Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for think strategically about the design 500 Fifth Street NW–Keck 360, Research. This report documents and implementation of integrated Washington, DC 20001. For more diverse efforts to connect two or STEM education initiatives. It also information or to place an order, more of the STEM subjects in offers recommendations for moving contact NAP online at or by phone at (800) 624- grams. Although integrated STEM provides a set of questions to guide 6242. (Note: Prices quoted are subject is poorly defined in both research future research. to change without notice. There is a 10 and practice, the report says this NAE member Linda Abriola, percent discount for online orders when type of connected learning has the dean, School of Engineering, and you sign up for a MyNAP account. potential to enhance student inter- professor of civil and environmental Add $6.50 for shipping and handling est and achievement in the STEM engineering, Tufts University, was a for the first book and $1.50 for each subjects. Evidence for the benefits of member of the committee. SPRING 2014 91

Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on involves identifying the important surprises through appropriate plan- Leading-Edge Engineering from the components of a complex system, ning, to create systems that are resil- 2013 Symposium. This volume pres- analyzing the relationships among ient to an adversary’s unexpected ents 13 papers from the 2013 US them, and creating models of the actions, or to rapidly and effectively Frontiers of Engineering (USFOE) system to explore its behavior and respond when surprised. This report Symposium held in September possible ways of changing that examines operational and techni- 2013. These annual meetings bring behavior. In this way it offers quan- cal issues associated with capability together 100 outstanding engineers titative and qualitative techniques surprise for the US Navy, Marine (ages 30 to 45) to exchange infor- to support the design, analysis, and Corps, and Coast Guard. The report mation about cutting-edge tech- governance of systems for the deliv- selects a few surprises—from disrup- nologies in a range of engineering ery of products or services. This tive technologies to intelligence- fields. The 2013 symposium cov- report is the summary of a workshop inferred capability developments ered four topic areas: Designing to explore the question “When can to operational deployments—and and Analyzing Societal Networks, operational systems engineering, assesses what the Naval Forces are Cognitive Manufacturing, Energy: appropriately applied, be a useful doing (and could do) about them Reducing Our Dependence on Fos- tool for improving the elicitation while being mindful of future bud- sil Fuels, and Flexible Electronics. of need, the design, the implemen- getary declines. The report’s recom- The papers describe research on tation, and the effectiveness of mendations will help to ensure more such aspects as opportunities and peacebuilding interventions?” The responsive, resilient, and adaptive challenges posed by the large-scale workshop convened experts in con- behavior from the senior leadership adoption of social technologies, pro- flict prevention, conflict manage- to the individual sailors, Marines, duction systems that utilize “cogni- ment, postconflict stabilization, and and Coast Guardsmen. tive reasoning” engines, efforts to reconstruction along with experts in NAE members on the study com- reduce dependence on fossil fuels, various fields of operational systems mittee were Charles R. Cushing, and the transformation of conven- engineering to identify nonnumeri- president, C.R. Cushing & Co.; tional fabrication processes to incor- cal systems methods that might be C. Kumar N. Patel, president and porate electronic control and power applicable to peacebuilding. CEO, Pranalytica, Inc.; David A. sources, among others. Appendixes NAE members on the workshop Whelan, vice president, engineer- provide information about the con- steering committee were W. Peter ing, Boeing Defense, Space and tributors, the symposium program, Cherry (cochair), independent Security, the Boeing Company; and and a list of meeting participants. consultant, Ann Arbor, Michi- Peter G. Wilhelm, director, Naval This is the 19th volume in the gan; Bernard Amadei, professor Center for Space Technology, Naval USFOE series. of civil engineering, University of Research Laboratory. Paper, $50.00. NAE member Kristi Anseth, Colorado Boulder; and William B. investigator, Howard Hughes Medi- Rouse, Alexander Crombie Hum- Technological Challenges in Antibiotic cal Institute, and Distinguished Pro- phreys Professor, School of Systems Discovery and Development: A Workshop fessor, Department of Chemical and and Enterprises, Stevens Institute of Summary. The Chemical Sciences Biological Engineering, University Technology. Paper, $34.00. Roundtable convened a workshop of Colorado Boulder, was chair of in September 2013 to explore the the symposium steering committee. Responding to Capability Surprise: A state of antibiotic discovery and Paper, $45.00. Strategy for US Naval Forces. From examine the technology available to a military operational standpoint, facilitate development. Participants Harnessing Operational Systems Engi- surprise is an event or capability from academia, industry, and federal neering to Support Peacebuilding: that could affect the outcome of research agencies discussed techni- Report of a Workshop by the National a mission or campaign for which cal challenges, incentives, and dis- Academy of Engineering and United preparations are not in place. By incentives that the industry faces in States Institute of Peace Roundtable on definition, it is not possible to truly antibiotic development and identi- Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. anticipate surprise; it is only possible fied novel approaches to antibiotic Operational systems engineering to minimize the number of potential discovery. Antibiotic resistance in The 92 BRIDGE particular is emerging as a promi- NAE members on the study Chancellor for Economic Devel- nent public health threat. Each committee were William J. Spen- opment, University of Arkansas at year in the United States alone, at cer (cochair), chairman emeritus, Little Rock, chaired the study com- least 2 million people acquire seri- SEMATECH; C. Judson King, mittee. Paper, $48.00. ous infections that are resistant to director, Center for Studies in one or more antibiotics, and 23,000 Higher Education, provost and Strengthening American Manufacturing: die annually as a result. In addition, senior vice president emeritus, The Role of the Manufacturing Extension antibiotic-resistant infections add University of California, Berkeley; Partnership: Summary of a Symposium. considerable costs to the already John H. Linehan, professor of bio- The Manufacturing Extension Part- overburdened US healthcare sys- medical engineering, Northwestern nership (MEP), a program of the US tem. This report explores challenges University; Percy A. Pierre, profes- Department of Commerce’s National to overcoming antibiotic resistance, sor, Department of Electrical and Institute of Standards and Technol- screening for new antibiotics, and Computer Engineering, Michigan ogy (NIST), is a national network of delivering them to the sites of infec- State University; and Subhash C. affiliated manufacturing extension tion in the body. Singhal, Battelle Fellow Emeritus, centers and field offices that seek to NAE member Donna G. Black- Pacific Northwest National Labora- strengthen American manufactur- mond, professor of chemistry, Scripps tory. Paper, $46.00. ing. MEP centers work with small Research Institute, is a member of and medium manufacturing firms the roundtable. Paper, $32.00. New York’s Nanotechnology Model: in their state or substate region, Building the Innovation Economy: Sum- providing expertise, services, and The Experimental Program to Stimulate mary of a Symposium. This report assistance to foster growth and help Competitive Research. The primary summarizes a 2013 symposium that them improve supply chain position- federal program designed to ensure drew state officials and staff, busi- ing, leverage emerging technologies, that all states are capable of par- ness leaders, and leading national upgrade manufacturing processes, ticipating in the nation’s research figures knowledgeable in early-stage develop workforce training, and enterprise is the Experimental finance, technology, engineering, apply and implement new informa- Program to Stimulate Competitive education, and state and federal tion. This report is the summary of Research (EPSCOR). The Nation- policies to review challenges, plans, a symposium convened to review al Science Foundation, Department and opportunities for innovation- operations and recent MEP initia- of Energy, Department of Agricul- led growth in New York. The tives in the context of global manu- ture, and National Aeronautics participants assessed New York’s facturing trends and opportunities and Space Administration have academic, industrial, and human for high-value manufacturing com- active EPSCOR programs. This resources, identified key policy panies. Business leaders, academic report assesses the effectiveness issues, and discussed how the state experts, and state and federal offi- of EPSCOR and similar federal might leverage regional develop- cials addressed the partnership’s met- programs in improving national ment organizations, state initiatives, rics and impacts and identified areas research capabilities, promoting an and national programs in manufac- for improvement. The meeting drew equitable distribution of research turing and innovation to support attention to the scale and focuses of funding, and integrating efforts its economic development goals. MEP and highlighted its role in sup- with other initiatives to strengthen This report reviews the develop- porting and enabling US manufac- the nation’s research capacity. The ment of the Albany nanotech clus- turers to compete more effectively in report also looks at the effectiveness ter and its usefulness as a model for the global marketplace. of EPSCOR states in using awards innovation-based growth, while also NAE members on the study com- to develop science and engineer- considering the state’s innovation mittee were Mary L. Good, former ing research, education, and infra- ecosystem more broadly. under secretary for technology, US structure. The report recommends NAE member Mary L. Good, for- Department of Commerce, and improvements for each agency to mer under secretary for technology, dean emerita, special advisor to the create a more focused program with US Department of Commerce, and Chancellor for Economic Devel- greater impact. dean emerita, special advisor to the opment, University of Arkansas at SPRING 2014 93

Little Rock; Deborah J. Nightingale, tives and concepts, and provides Engineering and Applied Sciences, professor of practice, Department of recommendations on SCWO sys- was a member of the study commit- Aeronautics and Astronautics and temization testing (including dura- tee. Paper, $48.00. Engineering Systems Division, and bility testing). director, Center for Technology, Pol- NAE members on the study com- Triennial Review of the National Nano- icy and Industrial Development Lean mittee were John R. (Jack) Howell, technology Initiative. The National Advancement Initiative, Massachu- chair, Ernest Cockrell Jr. Memo- Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is setts Institute of Technology; and rial Chair Emeritus, Department of a multiagency, multidisciplinary fed- Paul K. Wright, director, CITRIS Mechanical Engineering, Univer- eral initiative comprising research and the Banatao Institute @ CITRIS sity of Texas at Austin, and T.W. programs and other activities linked Berkeley, director, Berkeley Energy Fraser Russell, Allan P. Colburn by the vision of “a future in which and Climate Institute, and A. Mar- Professor Emeritus, Chemical and the ability to understand and con- tin Berlin Chair in Mechanical Engi- Biomolecular Engineering, Univer- trol matter at the nanoscale leads neering, University of California, sity of Delaware. Paper, $32.00. to a revolution in technology and Berkeley. Paper, $43.00. industry that benefits society.” This India–United States Cooperation on report is the latest NRC review of Assessment of Supercritical Water Oxi- Global Security: Summary of a Work- the NNI, an assessment required by dation System Testing for the Blue Grass shop on Technical Aspects of Civilian the 21st Century Nanotechnology Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Nuclear Materials Security. The US Research and Development Act of The Army’s Assembled Chemical government has made the safeguard- 2003 with the aim of improving the Weapons Alternatives is responsible ing of weapons-grade plutonium and NNI’s value for basic and applied for managing destruction operations highly enriched uranium an inter- research and for the development for the remaining 10 percent of the national policy priority, and in April of nanotechnology applications nation’s chemical agent stockpile, 2010 convened a Nuclear Security that will provide economic, soci- stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot Summit in Washington, DC. Dur- etal, and national security benefits. (Kentucky) and the Pueblo Chemi- ing the summit India announced The authoring committee describes cal Depot (Colorado); facilities to its commitment to establish a the initiative’s structure and orga- destroy the agents and associated Global Center for Nuclear Energy nization, how the NNI fits in the munitions are under construction at Partnership that will be open to larger federal research enterprise, both sites. The Blue Grass Chemi- international participation through and how it can and should be orga- cal Agent Destruction Pilot Plant academic exchanges, training, and nized for management purposes. (BGCAPP) will destroy chemical research and development efforts. Because technology transfer, one of agents and some associated energetic This report summarizes a workshop the four NNI goals, is dependent on materials by a process of chemical held by the US National Academy management and coordination, the neutralization known as hydrolysis, of Sciences and its partner of more committee addressed this topic after resulting in a chemical waste stream than 15 years, India’s National Insti- discussing definitions of success and called hydrolysate. Among the first- tute for Advanced Studies, to iden- metrics for assessing progress toward of-a-kind equipment to be installed tify and examine potential areas and achieving the four goals and of man- at BGCAPP are three supercritical promising opportunities for substan- agement and coordination. water oxidation (SCWO) reactor tive scientific and technical coop- NAE members on the study com- systems. These hydrolysate feeds eration between the two countries mittee were Ilesanmi Adesida, vice present unique non-agent-related on issues related to nuclear material chancellor for academic affairs and challenges to subsequent SCWO security. The report addresses nucle- provost, University of Illinois at processing because of their caustic ar materials management issues such Urbana-Champaign; Paul A. Fleu- nature and issues of salt manage- as nuclear materials accounting, ry, Frederick William Beinecke Pro- ment. This report reviews and evalu- cybersecurity, physical security, and fessor of Engineering and Applied ates the results of tests conducted on nuclear forensics. Physics/professor of physics, Yale this SCWO unit for the BGCAPP, NAE member Cherry A. Murray, University; Elsa Reichmanis, pro- discusses systemization testing objec- dean, Harvard University School of fessor, Department of Chemical and The 94 BRIDGE

Biomolecular Engineering, Geor- well managed user facility and one of and industry have misused proto- gia Institute of Technology; and the leading institutions worldwide in typing as a key tool in the DOD and Charles F. Zukoski, provost, Uni- neutron instrumentation, technol- defense industrial base. This report versity at Buffalo. Paper, $47.00. ogy, and science. The recent com- summarizes a workshop on aspects pletion of a $95 million expansion, such as application of prototyping as Best Available and Safest Technologies performed on time and on budget, a tool for technology/system devel- for Offshore Oil and Gas Operations: has enhanced its instrumentation opment and sustainment (including Options for Implementation. This capabilities and its ability to meet annual funding), recommendations report explores a range of options user demands to conduct cutting- for a renewed prototype program, for improving implementation of edge research. This report assesses and positive and negative effects the US Department of the Interior’s the center’s quality and effective- of a renewed program. The report congressional mandate to require, ness, the adequacy of its resources, outlines a prototyping program that on all new drilling and production the merit of its scientific and techni- encourages innovation in concepts operations and, wherever practica- cal (S&T) programs, the degree to and approaches and presents ways ble, on existing operations, the use which those programs achieve their to assess and reduce risk before com- of the best available and safest tech- objectives and fulfill the center’s mitment to major new programs. nologies that the Secretary deter- mission, and the adequacy of the NAE members on the workshop mines to be economically feasible. facilities, equipment, and human committee were Lester L. Lyles Such improvements are manda- resources as they affect the quality of (chair), independent consultant, tory wherever failure of equipment NCNR’s S&T programs. Vienna, Virginia, and retired Gen- would have a significant effect on NAE member Paul A. Fleury, eral, USAF, and Paul D. Nielsen, safety, health, or the environment, Frederick William Beinecke Pro- director and CEO, Software Engi- except where the DOI Secretary fessor of Engineering and Applied neering Institute, and retired Major determines that the benefits are Physics/professor of physics, Stan- General, USAF. Paper, $30.00. clearly insufficient to justify the ford University, was a member of costs of using such technologies. the study panel. Free PDF. Flexible Electronics for Security, Manu- NAE members on the study facturing, and Growth in the United committee were Donald C. Win- Assessment to Enhance Air Force and States: Summary of a Symposium. ter (chair), former secretary of the Department of Defense Prototyping for Flexible electronics refers to tech- Navy, independent consultant, the New Defense Strategy: A Workshop nologies that enable flexibility both and professor of engineering prac- Summary. Prototyping has been of in the manufacturing process and as tice, University of Michigan; Louis great benefit to the Air Force and a characteristic of the final product; Anthony (Tony) Cox Jr., president, DOD in terms of risk reduction and they are found in flexible flat-panel Cox Associates LLC; Nancy G. concept demonstration before sys- displays, medical image sensors, Leveson, professor of aeronautics tem development, advances in new photovoltaic sheets, and electronic and astronautics, Massachusetts technologies, workforce enhance- paper. According to some industry Institute of Technology; Donald ment and skills continuity between estimates, the global market for flex- Liu, retired executive vice president major acquisitions, dissuasion of ible electronics products is expected and chief technology officer, Ameri- adversaries by demonstrating capa- to grow to $60 billion by the end of can Bureau of Shipping; and Roger bilities, and technological surprise the decade, but most experts believe L. McCarthy, consultant, McCar- through classified technologies. that the United States is not poised thy Engineering. Paper, $36.00. But over the past two decades the to capitalize on this opportunity. definitions and terminology associ- This report summarizes a workshop An Assessment of the National Institute ated with prototyping have been on challenges, plans, and opportu- of Standards and Technology Center for convoluted, budgets for prototyping nities for growing a robust flexible Neutron Research: Fiscal Year 2013. have been used as offsets to remedy electronics industry in the United The National Institute of Standards budget shortfalls, prototyping has States. Business leaders, academic and Technology (NIST) Center for been done with no strategic intent experts, and senior government Neutron Research (NCNR) is a very or context, and both government officials met to review the role of SPRING 2014 95

research consortia around the world at user facilities in different US information about different aspects in advancing flexible electronics regions, and presents recommenda- of the program, and a section dedi- technology; consider their structure, tions for the further development cated to future opportunities. focus, funding, and likely impact; of all-superconducting, hybrid, and NAE member Dennis P. Letten- and determine possible steps for the higher-field pulsed magnets that maier, Robert and Irene Sylvester United States to develop a robust meet ambitious but achievable goals. Professor of Civil and Environmen- industry in this area. NAE members on the study com- tal Engineering, University of Wash- NAE members on the study com- mittee were Thomas F. Budinger, ington, Wilson Ceramic Laboratory, mittee were Stephen R. Forrest, VP professor, Graduate School, Univer- was a member of the study commit- for research and professor, Depart- sity of California, Berkeley, E.O. Law- tee. Paper, $38.00. ments of Electrical Engineering and rence Berkeley National Laboratory, Computer Science, Physics, and and John C. Gore, Hertha Ramsey Novel Processes for Advanced Manufac- Materials Science and Engineering, Cress University Professor and pro- turing: Summary of a Workshop. This University of Michigan, and Mary fessor of radiology and radiological report summarizes a December 2012 L. Good, former under secretary for science, biomedical engineering, workshop to consider novel pro- technology, US Department of Com- molecular physiology and biophysics, cesses in industrial modernization, merce, and dean emerita, special advi- and physics and astronomy, Institute focusing on additive manufactur- sor to the Chancellor for Economic of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt Uni- ing, electromagnetic field manipu- Development, University of Arkansas versity. Paper, $50.00. lation of materials, and design of at Little Rock. Paper, $41.00. materials. Additive manufacturing Landsat and Beyond: Sustaining and involves making three-dimensional High Magnetic Field Science and Its Enhancing the Nation’s Land Imaging objects from a digital description or Application in the United States: Cur- Program. In 1972 NASA launched file; the workshop addressed aspects rent Status and Future Directions. the Earth Resources Technology such as surface finish and access In response to a request from the Satellite, now known as Landsat 1, to manufacturing capabilities and National Science Foundation, the and on February 11, 2013, launched resources. Electromagnetic field NRC appointed a committee to Landsat 8. The United States has manipulation of materials is the use answer the following questions: (1) thus collected 40 continuous years of electric and/or magnetic fields to What is the current state of high field of satellite records of land remote change the mechanical or function- magnet science, engineering, and sensing data from these and similar al properties of a material or for the technology in the United States, and satellites. The data are valuable for purposes of sintering; workshop pre- are there any conspicuous needs to be national interests such as homeland sentations examined research pri- addressed? (2) What are the current security, disaster mitigation, and oritization and other objectives in science drivers and which scientific agriculture, but their availability for this area. Design of materials refers opportunities and challenges can be planning the nation’s future is at risk. to the application of computational anticipated over the next ten years? The US Geological Survey (USGS) and analytic methods to materials (3) What are the principal existing therefore asked that an NRC com- to obtain a desired material charac- and planned high magnetic field mittee review the needs and oppor- teristic; workshop discussions con- facilities outside the United States, tunities related to the development cerned materials genomics in this what roles have US high field mag- of a national space-based operational area and more. net development efforts played in land imaging capability. The com- NAE members on the workshop developing those facilities, and what mittee was specifically tasked to iden- committee were Robert E. Schafrik potentials exist for further interna- tify stakeholders and their data needs (chair), executive, Aviation Engi- tional collaboration in this area? and to provide recommendations to neering Division, General Electric This report considers continued sup- facilitate the transition from NASA’s Aviation, and Gregory B. Olson, port for a centralized high field facil- research-based series of satellites Walter P. Murphy Professor, Depart- ity the highest priority, recommends to a sustained USGS land imag- ment of Materials Science and Engi- the funding and siting of several new ing program. This report presents neering, Northwestern University. high field nuclear resonance magnets the committee’s recommendations, Paper, $40.00. The 96 BRIDGE

Performance Metrics for the Global an analysis framework to enable astrophysics, solar and space phys- Nuclear Detection Architecture (Abbre- assessment of those metrics. ics (also called heliophysics), plan- viated Version). The Global Nuclear NAE members on the study com- etary science, and Earth remote Detection Architecture (GNDA), mittee were Arden L. Bement Jr. sensing and related activities— a complex system of systems to (chair), Emeritus David A. Ross than is possible in the agencywide detect and deter attempts to Distinguished Professor of Nuclear strategic plan. This report reviews unlawfully transport radiological Engineering, and director, Global the responsiveness of SMD’s sci- or nuclear material, is a world- Policy Research and Global Affairs ence plan to guidance on key wide network of sensors, telecom- Officer, Purdue University, and science issues and opportunities munications, and personnel with Edward H. Kaplan, William N. provided in recent NRC decadal information exchanges, programs, and Marie A. Beach Professor of reports, specifically considering and protocols to detect, analyze, Management Sciences, professor of interdisciplinary aspects and over- and report on nuclear and radio- public health, and professor of engi- all scientific balance, identifica- logical materials that are not under neering, Yale School of Manage- tion and exposition of important regulatory control. The Depart- ment. Paper, $38.00. opportunities for partnerships as ment of Homeland Security’s well as education and public out- Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Review of the Draft 2014 Science reach, and integration of technol- (DNDO) coordinates the develop- Mission Directorate Science Plan. ogy development. ment of the GNDA with its federal NASA’s Science Mission Director- NAE members on the study partners. This report considers how ate (SMD) is engaged in the final committee were James P. Bagian, to develop performance measures stages of a comprehensive, agen- director, Center for Healthcare to evaluate GNDA’s effectiveness cywide effort to develop a new Engineering and Patient Safety, and and progress toward meeting its strategic plan at a time when its professor, College of Engineering goals, and identifies two critical budget is under considerable stress. and Medical School, University of components to evaluate its effec- SMD’s science plan provides more Michigan, and Lee-Lueng Fu, JPL tiveness: a new strategic plan detail on its four traditional sci- fellow, Jet Propulsion Laboratory. with outcome-based metrics and ence disciplines—astronomy and Paper, $32.00.

Your National Academy of Engineering ring is now available for purchase!

The NAE ring features the official NAE seal on its top. The bridge also appears on the left shank, with room above it for up to 12 letters/numbers/Greek letters of custom engraving.

A globe is featured on the right shank, with room for up to 3 lines of custom engraving across the globe (see below for character limitations). Above the globe is space for up to 5 characters.

This lovely ring is available in both white and yellow gold in the karat qualities listed at right, as well as our other precious metal alloys, Silver Elite and Solaris Elite.

PERSONALIZE YOUR RING

Left (up to 12 characters above bridge): ______Sample NAE ring: Left shank, top, right shank WithRight, engraving above globe options (up to 5 characters): ______

Right, across globe (up to three lines of engraving, as indicated): Rings are available in the karat golds listed below:

Line 1 (up to 14 characters) ______18k white or yellow gold $1699 Line 2 (up to 12 characters) ______

Line 3 (up to 10 characters) ______14k white or yellow gold $1149

Inside engraving: (up to 18 characters) 10k white or yellow gold $799 ______

Ring size: ______Metal quality (see right) ______Name: Solaris Elite $619 (yellow alloy of yellow gold and sterling silver)

Silver Elite $559 Name: (white alloy of sterling silver and palladium)

Address:

City, state, zip:

Phone: Ring price $ Email address: Shipping & handling $ 12.00

order (with check) to: Mail Tax (your local sales tax) $

Susan Pike Jostens All items must be paid in full Total $ at time of order. 4111 Kingsbury Place Make checks payable to Jostens. Credit card # Riverside, CA 92503 Allow 6–8 weeks for delivery.

Prices subject to change without notice. Email order: Expiration date [email protected] Signature Call to order: Susan Pike 714-553-7067 The Periodicals BRIDGE Postage Paid (USPS 551-240)

National Academy of Engineering 2101 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20418