In the past century, engineering logged some of its most important accomplishments — widespread electricity and clean water, automobiles and airplanes, radio and television, spacecraft and lasers, medical imaging, computers, and the Internet are just a few of the engineering feats that have revolutionized the way people live and work. But as the world’s population grows, emerging threats such as pandemic diseases, terrorism, and climate change are demanding new tools from engineering. And new realms of research and discovery are offering technological possibilities previous generations couldn’t even imagine.
To identify areas of opportunity for enhancing quality of life around the world, the National Academy of Engineering convened a committee of some of today’s greatest minds in engineering, science, and medicine. The committee’s report, Grand Challenges for Engineering, identifies 14 challenges that fall into four themes — sustainability, health, reducing vulnerability, and joy of living.
The committee was chaired by former U.S. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and included such prominent names as Larry Page, co-founder of Google; Calestous Juma, an internationally recognized expert on applying engineering for sustainability; Jane Lubchenco, renowned marine biologist and recently appointed head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Mario Molina, a Nobel prize-winning chemist. The committee sorted through about 1,600 suggestions from engineers, scientists, medical experts, policymakers, and members of the public from around the world. Among the 14 challenges selected are making solar energy economical, generating energy from fusion, providing worldwide access to clean water, engineering better medicines, and securing cyberspace.
NAE is offering people the opportunity to vote for the challenge they deem most important and to provide comments on the project Web site at <www.engineeringchallenges.org>.
The project was funded by the National Science Foundation.
Are Hydrogen-Powered Cars Road Ready?
Cars, SUVs, and pickups consume more than 40 percent of the fuel used in the United States and are responsible for about a third of all carbon dioxide emitted globally. Developing alternatives to gasoline-powered vehicles is critical if the nation truly wants to kick its oil addiction and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the research directed to achieving this has focused on clean-burning hydrogen fuel cells. In 2003, President George W. Bush announced a $1.2 billion initiative to develop hydrogen-production technologies and fuel-cell vehicles. And a public-private partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy, Detroit’s Big Three automakers, and five major energy companies is developing technologies that will allow U.S. automakers to decide by 2015 whether hydrogen-powered vehicles could be manufactured on a large scale. Two 2008 reports from the National Research Council examine the future of hydrogen-powered vehicles in the U.S., evaluate current research efforts, and identify areas for improvement.
Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies: A Focus on Hydrogen says that while hydrogen-powered vehicles could greatly reduce U.S. oil dependence and carbon dioxide emissions, it will take many years before hydrogen vehicles will significantly penetrate the U.S. automotive fleet. Vehicle costs are high, and the nation lacks the infrastructure to produce and widely distribute hydrogen to consumers.
The committee that wrote the report estimated that the maximum practicable number of hydrogen vehicles that could be on the road by 2020 would be 2 million, a number that could grow rapidly to nearly 60 million in 2035, and to 200 million by 2050. Although technological developments have been progressing rapidly, the cost of hydrogen vehicles will still have to be heavily subsidized until they are competitive with conventional vehicles. Even with continued improvements in technology and production, fuel-cell vehicles are likely to remain more expensive than conventional vehicles, although their high efficiency will lower driving costs. Obstacles to the wide use of hydrogen vehicles could be overcome with continued support for research and development and firm commitments from the automotive industry, energy companies, and the federal government, the report says. Government support via strong policy initiatives as well as funding would be needed until at least 2023, when purchase and fuel costs could become less for these vehicles, the report says. The cost to the government would be about $55 billion between 2008 and 2023; private industry would be expected to invest $145 billion over that same period.
The report also examines two other approaches to reducing oil use and greenhouse gas emissions: improved fuel efficiency of conventional vehicles and biofuels. Either could achieve significant results earlier than hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, but their eventual impact would be less. To achieve the greatest possible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels, fuel-efficient conventional vehicles, and hydrogen vehicles should all be pursued simultaneously, the report says. This portfolio approach could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to less than 20 percent of current levels and could nearly eliminate oil demand for these vehicles by 2050.
Another Research Council report, Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, Second Report, says that significant progress has been made in the public-private effort to develop technologies for more fuel-efficient vehicles and to investigate the feasibility of hydrogen-based vehicles. While several obstacles need to be overcome, the potential benefits justify the cost of the research, the report says.
The FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) and Fuel Partnership is seeking safe, cost-effective methods to produce hydrogen from traditional and renewable energy sources, as well as ways to deliver, dispense, and store hydrogen for vehicles. The program sponsors research to reduce the size, weight, and cost of vehicle components to increase fuel efficiency, and it is also exploring technology that will provide more efficient and less-polluting combustion engines in the short term, as well as electric batteries that could be used in hybrid-electric or all-electric vehicles.
The partnership should review its activities strategically and ensure their continuing relevancy in response to shifts in the automotive market, such as the successful introduction of biofuels or plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, the report says. A reassessment of goals in each technical area will provide a better basis for judging future funding levels for each part of the program.
Fuel cells and a supporting hydrogen infrastructure would be the most efficient and least polluting means to power vehicles, the report says. The early systems now being tested require significant improvements in durability and cost to enable mass production and sale of hydrogen vehicles. The partnership should reassess the current allocation of funding to ensure that research and development addresses these critical barriers. The report also notes that progress has been made in meeting FreedomCAR’s battery goals — critical to achieving widespread support for hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and all-electric vehicles. The partnership should conduct an in-depth review of production and market forces behind lithium-ion batteries and intensify its efforts to develop other high-energy batteries. This research will largely determine the viability of batteries in mass-produced vehicles.
Solving the problem of hydrogen storage in vehicles is the most difficult, long-term challenge. The program’s goal of storing enough hydrogen in a vehicle to provide a 300-mile driving range while simultaneously meeting weight, volume, and cost targets continues to be challenging, and meeting that goal will probably rely on storage technology that is yet undiscovered, the report says. The program should continue to conduct basic research in this field to help foster potential breakthroughs.
In addition, studies to address the economic and societal restrictions that will impede the gradual transition from petroleum-based fuel to hydrogen should be extended to cover the period until 2030 or 2035 to account for the emergence of more mature hydrogen fuel systems, and to ensure the most critical factors in production and delivery are understood.
The two studies were funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Partners in Fusion
For decades, researchers have been excited about the possibility of producing a viable source of energy through nuclear fusion. By controlling and magnetically confining plasma to fuse together isotopes of hydrogen, thermal energy is released, a process that has no atmospheric emissions and is fueled by ingredients that are virtually limitless. And unlike traditional nuclear power, which produces waste that is radioactive for thousands of years, fusion energy’s waste products are radioactive for less than 100 years. The United States, Russia, Japan, and several other countries are part of an international effort to develop a nuclear fusion energy reactor. However, U.S. participation in the program, known as ITER, has been unsteady in the past, and funding for the U.S. role was slashed in the 2008 fiscal year budget.
To ensure that the nation can influence and capitalize on ITER research and development, the U.S. Department of Energy should make a strong commitment to the program and seek greater funding stability, says a report from the National Research Council. A Review of the DOE Plan for U.S. Fusion Community Participation in the ITER Program says that fluctuations in the U.S. commitment to ITER will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the ability of the U.S. fusion community to help achieve energy goals and participate in important scientific research.
A vigorous and strategically balanced domestic research program is essential to ensure that U.S. participation in ITER is successful, the report says. DOE’s plans for the program have proved effective in beginning to coordinate U.S. research activities, and U.S. efforts are at least as well-organized and technically mature as those of the other participating countries. However, the report identifies several gaps in the U.S. research plan that DOE should address. They include planning for a demonstration power plant, disseminating research activities to the broader scientific community, and planning for the recruitment and training of young scientists and engineers.
To accomplish these goals and to facilitate further development of the DOE plan, the agency should create a long-term strategic plan for the U.S. burning plasma fusion program, within the context of global fusion energy development activities, the report says. In addition, the U.S. Burning Plasma Organization should continue to encourage broad cooperation and collaboration among all U.S. participants in ITER. And DOE should maintain a vibrant domestic fusion program by strongly supporting basic research and facilities, the report says.
The report identified five metrics to be considered during future development of the DOE plan, including periodic evaluation of the U.S. return on ITER investment as well as assessments by independent expert bodies.
Since the report was released, the FY2008 Continuing Resolution prevented the opportunity to address the report’s main recommendation to restore funding stability. However, appropriations legislation now before Congress seeks to provide an amount close to first-year funding for the United States’ contribution to ITER.
The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Better Backing for Highway Research
The nation’s extensive highway system has played a vital role in shaping the U.S. economy and way of life, but new demands are beginning to burden a system under stress. For example, total highway travel by automobiles, motorcycles, and trucks rose 25 percent between 1996 and 2006, and the amount of traffic on rural interstates more than doubled between 1970 and 2005. At the same time, the highway system faces daunting challenges in improving safety, reducing environmental impacts, lessening congestion, and maintaining and repairing aging roads that already have exceeded their design lives.
Addressing these issues will require new materials, better and faster construction techniques, safer designs, and new financing mechanisms, says The Federal Investment in Highway Research, 2006-2009: Strengths and Weaknesses, a report by the National Research Council. However, the government research that could lead to these innovations has been significantly underfunded in recent years despite a proven record of past successes. The report calls for funding reforms to ensure that federal highway R&D will continue to produce urgently needed innovations for the future.
Although the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), passed in 2005, increased highway research funding, it still is at levels that are much lower than those for industry research, the report says. In addition, constraints of highly detailed program designations and earmarking of some research funds for specific recipients reduced or even eliminated funding for other important research initiatives. The report calls for the Federal Highway Administration’s funding to be restored in the research areas of safety, operations, planning and environment, and policy.
Extensive earmarks awarded to university transportation centers under SAFETEALU contradict the law’s principle of awarding research funds on the basis of competitive review and merit, the report notes. Competition should be open to all universities and not be limited by prior levels of transportation research activity. In addition, the requirement for universities to match 50 percent of federal funds forces the institutions to focus more on applied research than on advanced research. To allow universities to conduct more advanced research, the matching fund requirement should be reduced to 20 percent.
The report says that Congress should consider extending Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP 2), a federally funded research program that promotes innovation in highway renewal, safety, reliability, and planning and design. In addition, the Federal Highway Administration should be given the resources to include stakeholders such as state and local highway administrators and planners in setting the agenda for research projects.
The study was funded by the Federal Highway Administration.
Global Warming and U.S. Transportation
Much of the reporting on climate change has focused on the environmental impacts of fossil fuel emissions, but climate change can have many effects. It will also have a profound effect the U.S. transportation system and infrastructure. Existing roads, bridges, and transport systems were designed and built for local weather conditions and based on predictable temperature and precipitation data. But the climate predictions used by transportation planners and engineers may no longer be reliable in the face of new weather and climate extremes.
Every mode of transportation in the United States will be affected by a warming climate, according to Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation, a report from the National Research Council. To shore up existing infrastructure and prepare for extreme climate conditions, significant changes are needed in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems, the report says.
The greatest impact of climate change will be flooding of roads, railways, transit systems, and airport runways in coastal areas because of rising sea levels and surges brought on by more intense storms, the report says. Some 60,000 miles of coastal highways are exposed to periodic storm flooding, and erosion and loss of wetlands have removed crucial buffer zones that once protected many roads. Infrastructure pushed beyond the range for which it was designed can become stressed and fail, as seen with the loss of the U.S. 90 Biloxi Bay Bridge after Hurricane Katrina.
Researchers predict the next 50 to 100 years will bring more very hot days and heat waves, higher Arctic temperatures, sea-level rise coupled with storm surges and land subsidence, and increases in the number and intensity of strong hurricanes and precipitation events. And it will not only be the coastal areas of the country that are affected. In the Midwest, for example, storms with increased intense precipitation could produce even more severe flooding than the “Great Flood” of 1993 that damaged farmland, towns, and transportation routes along 500 miles of the Mississippi and Missouri river systems. Conversely, drier conditions in the watersheds supplying the St. Lawrence Seaway, Great Lakes, and Upper Midwest river system could reduce vessel shipping capacity and seriously impair freight movement in the region.
Not all climate changes will be negative, the report notes. Marine transportation could benefit from more open seas in the Arctic, creating shorter shipping routes and reducing transportation times and costs. In cold regions, warming temperatures could reduce the costs of snow and ice control, making travel conditions safer for passenger vehicles and freight.
The report calls for a concerted federal role in creating an information clearing-house on transportation and climate change, establishing a research program to re-evaluate design standards, creating an interagency working group on adaptation, and re-examining the National Flood Insurance Program. Even without federal action, local governments can begin immediately to identify critical infrastructure vulnerable to climate change, and transportation planners and climate scientists can collaborate on collecting data for analyzing regional climate-related changes.
The study was funded by the Research Council’s Transportation Research Board; National Cooperative Highway Research Program; U.S. Department of Transportation; Transit Cooperative Research Program; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Clarifying ‘Minimum Harm’ Provision
The post-World War II construction boom revitalized many U.S. urban areas, but, unfortunately, historic buildings and neighborhoods were sometimes destroyed in the process, and potential environmental impacts were largely ignored. To remedy this, the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation Act included Section 4(f), a provision that prohibits transportation projects from building on publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historical sites unless there is no “feasible and prudent” alternative and that “all possible planning to minimize harm” has occurred. While historic preservation and environmental groups have hailed the provision for protecting natural and historic resources, it has also been criticized for causing major and costly delays in construction projects.
In an effort to streamline the process, Congress amended Section 4(f) in 2005, granting the U.S. Department of Transportation authority to approve a project when the impact on a site was deemed minimal — known as de minimis impact — without being required to consider alternatives. The agency was also directed to clarify standards used in determining alternatives to projects that affect property protected under Section 4(f). Moreover, Congress ordered DOT to conduct a study that will analyze controversial revisions of the “feasible and prudent” standard and how the de minimis provision has been applied since 2005. The first phase of DOT’s study examines the de minimis provision.
Evaluating the Implementation of Section 4(f) Streamlining Provisions: A Review of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Phase I Draft Study Plans — June 9, 2008, the first of three planned reports by the National Research Council on DOT’s study, says that the agency’s draft plans for the first phase of its study are too vague about many key details, and on a number of levels, they fall short on providing a sound study design. In fact, the complexities and lack of consistent baseline data available for analyzing how the de minimis provision has been applied may make it impossible to construct a truly scientific study. Nevertheless, the Research Council report offers several strategies for addressing shortcomings.
DOT’s plans are based on analysis of information on approximately 237 de minimis-designated projects, collected through interviews with relevant stakeholders and in-depth site visits. The agency’s study plan should begin with an explanation of how it is interpreting the questions they were mandated to investigate, with clear definitions of key terms and concepts, the report says. It also suggests that the definition of “successful implementation” of the de minimis provision should extend beyond time and cost savings in construction to include overall outcomes for protected resources and for transportation projects. In addition, the report identifies ways in which the DOT study design could be modified to provide a more representative sample of de minimis cases, incorporate a broader set of data, and improve survey and interview questions.
The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
In the past century, engineering logged some of its most important accomplishments — widespread electricity and clean water, automobiles and airplanes, radio and television, spacecraft and lasers, medical imaging, computers, and the Internet are just a few of the engineering feats that have revolutionized the way people live and work. But as the world’s population grows, emerging threats such as pandemic diseases, terrorism, and climate change are demanding new tools from engineering. And new realms of research and discovery are offering technological possibilities previous generations couldn’t even imagine.
Cars, SUVs, and pickups consume more than 40 percent of the fuel used in the United States and are responsible for about a third of all carbon dioxide emitted globally. Developing alternatives to gasoline-powered vehicles is critical if the nation truly wants to kick its oil addiction and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the research directed to achieving this has focused on clean-burning hydrogen fuel cells. In 2003, President George W. Bush announced a $1.2 billion initiative to develop hydrogen-production technologies and fuel-cell vehicles. And a public-private partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy, Detroit’s Big Three automakers, and five major energy companies is developing technologies that will allow U.S. automakers to decide by 2015 whether hydrogen-powered vehicles could be manufactured on a large scale. Two 2008 reports from the National Research Council examine the future of hydrogen-powered vehicles in the U.S., evaluate current research efforts, and identify areas for improvement.
For decades, researchers have been excited about the possibility of producing a viable source of energy through nuclear fusion. By controlling and magnetically confining plasma to fuse together isotopes of hydrogen, thermal energy is released, a process that has no atmospheric emissions and is fueled by ingredients that are virtually limitless. And unlike traditional nuclear power, which produces waste that is radioactive for thousands of years, fusion energy’s waste products are radioactive for less than 100 years. The United States, Russia, Japan, and several other countries are part of an international effort to develop a nuclear fusion energy reactor. However, U.S. participation in the program, known as ITER, has been unsteady in the past, and funding for the U.S. role was slashed in the 2008 fiscal year budget.
The nation’s extensive highway system has played a vital role in shaping the U.S. economy and way of life, but new demands are beginning to burden a system under stress. For example, total highway travel by automobiles, motorcycles, and trucks rose 25 percent between 1996 and 2006, and the amount of traffic on rural interstates more than doubled between 1970 and 2005. At the same time, the highway system faces daunting challenges in improving safety, reducing environmental impacts, lessening congestion, and maintaining and repairing aging roads that already have exceeded their design lives.
Much of the reporting on climate change has focused on the environmental impacts of fossil fuel emissions, but climate change can have many effects. It will also have a profound effect the U.S. transportation system and infrastructure. Existing roads, bridges, and transport systems were designed and built for local weather conditions and based on predictable temperature and precipitation data. But the climate predictions used by transportation planners and engineers may no longer be reliable in the face of new weather and climate extremes.
The post-World War II construction boom revitalized many U.S. urban areas, but, unfortunately, historic buildings and neighborhoods were sometimes destroyed in the process, and potential environmental impacts were largely ignored. To remedy this, the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation Act included Section 4(f), a provision that prohibits transportation projects from building on publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historical sites unless there is no “feasible and prudent” alternative and that “all possible planning to minimize harm” has occurred. While historic preservation and environmental groups have hailed the provision for protecting natural and historic resources, it has also been criticized for causing major and costly delays in construction projects.