This blog began in late May 2013 and is now a year and a half old. In that time I have prepared 74 blog posts expressing my opinions on a wide variety of energy, water-energy, and environmental topics, plus one fabulous cheesecake recipe. Having achieved my original goal of sharing my perspectives on the many energy and related issues I have thought about during a long Washington, DC career, I’ve decided to switch my focus a bit and do fewer blog posts than in the first 18 months (although I will still be blogging occasionally as opportunities and urges arise) and devote the bulk of my writing time to a book on energy policy and politics, as encouraged to do by my wife and several colleagues/friends.

It will be a retrospective based on my 45 years of educating myself and thinking about energy issues. Much has changed in those 45 years and I have had a somewhat unique position from which to observe and influence those changes through the various professional positions I have held.

I admit to a bit of hesitation about taking on the task of writing a book, having watched several colleagues wrestle with such a task, but if not now when? I’m no longer a spring chicken and egocentric enough to believe that my perspectives may be of value to others, especially others who are younger. I anticipate a book of about 10 chapters and 200 pages, with a target date sometime in 2015.

In reflecting on the blog I’ve also concluded that the many blog posts to date, with more to come, could constitute the core of an energy course for students at various academic levels. The posts are designed to be non-technical for an interested lay audience and of moderate (OpEd) length for easy reading. As core elements of a wide-ranging course on energy and related issues the posts can serve as introductions to these various topics which can then be enhanced with additional readings selected by the instructor. Please share this suggestion as appropriate.

Wish me luck!

In less than a week, on September 18th, an estimated 80-90 percent of Scottish voters (including those 16 or older for this vote), will decide whether to separate from their treaty partnership with the rest of Great Britain. This partnership was created by the 1707 Treaty of Union between Scotland and England.

First a few words on why I’m commenting on the Scottish vote. My wife is Scottish, her family is all in Scotland except for a wayward brother who defected to England, and my wife and I are new property owners (a flat) in East Kilbride. Besides, it’s a fascinating subject (how often do you see the chance for a new country to appear on the global scene) and the energy questions are central to separation considerations.

I will also concede up front that I don’t think the decision to separate (a Yes vote) or not separate (a No vote) is an easy one, given the many uncertainties that will ensue, and the lack of what I consider adequate information provided by either the Scottish Government (Yes) and the ‘unionists’ (No). The latter group includes the Cameron government in London.

What is the current energy situation in Scotland? Nuclear power provides about a third of Scottish electricity, renewables about a third, a quarter from coal, 8% from gas and just under 3% from oil and other sources. Scotland continues to produce more energy than it uses, with more than a quarter of electricity generated being exported. And the Scottish government says it is on course for half of electricity use to come from renewable sources by 2015, an interim target ahead of the goal of having renewables generate 100% of the county’s electricity by 2020.

The energy issue for Scotland seems to be two-fold: do they have enough energy to go it alone and are the oil and gas reserves that would remain with an independent Scotland provide enough revenue, via exports to other countries , to pay off Scotland’s share of the UK’s current national debt and finance Scotland’s ambitious national plans. Those plans include the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund, modeled after Norway’s, that will allow sharing of the benefits of Scotland’s current fossil fuel exports with future generations.

There seems to be little doubt that Scotland has the renewable energy resources to meet its ambitious 2020 electricity goal, if not in 2020 then shortly thereafter, if the necessary investments can be made. These resources include the largest wind resources in the European region, both onshore and offshore, hydropower, significant wave energy resources, and other renewable resources that can contribute such as biomass and tidal energy. The real issue seems to be oil reserves off both the eastern and western coasts of Scotland – how big are they and how long will they last?

This is where the debate gets interesting. Scottish oil off the eastern coast, from the North Sea, has been an energy mainstay for many years, but how much of that oil is left to recover is in dispute. London says 16 billion barrels, Edinburgh says 24. The reality is that nobody really knows, and much depends on the application of improved technologies that have increased recovery beyond initial estimates in several of the world’s oil reservoirs. The other wild card is oil to be found off Scotland’s western coast where exploratory wells are few and far between – only 20 to date. Published estimates vary from little to a massive potential find that could make Scotland one of the world’s major oil producers. An intriguing aspect of Scotland’s offshore oil potential is the additional possibility of offshore fracking – some of the underwater shale resources resemble shale plays in the U.S. that have been successfully fracked for both oil and gas.

It is only in recent weeks that the Yes votes seem to to outnumber the No votes, with a significant and determining share of Scottish voters saying they are still undecided. We will find out shortly, but no matter which way the vote goes there will be years of uncertainty ahead for Scotland as they negotiate with England, and with the European Union for membership if the Yes voters prevail.

My own view, which has no bearing on the vote, is that Scotland should go for it. Such an opportunity comes along rarely, and certainly wouldn’t again for many years if the vote is No. The energy resources seem to be there and Scotland is a highly educated and innovative country. It has contributed much to the world in the past and has the potential to contribute much more in the future. Keep in mind that in addition to their contribution of Scottish whiskey, the Scottish Enlightenment provided the basic ideas of the American Revolution, the telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell, a Scot, two major industries were invented by Scots (steel and asphalt/macadam), and in scientific fields the Scots have always played a major role (e.g., see ‘The Mark of the Scots’ by Duncan A. Bruce). Not too shabby!

I’ve been offline for several weeks, longer than I expected, due to time spent on preparing a book for publication, co-authoring a detailed review of fracking, and getting an old, ‘jittery’ computer to settle down. Now working on my next blog post, which I hope to publish shortly – on methane hydrates, another large potential source of natural gas.

Dear readers,

At the suggestion of several friends I am gathering many (47) of my first year blog posts (May 2013-March 2014) for publication as an ebook. The title is proving to be an issue. Would like your help in settling on a name – hope to publish soon.

Some possibilities that have been suggested:

Energy, Water and Environment (too boring?)

Energy, Water and Environment: Beyond the BS (too ‘risqué?)

Energy, Water and Environment: Penetrating the Fog

Others – open to all suggestions

Thank you.

This is a blog post I’ve been meaning to write for a long time. It is focused on organizational culture and addresses what I consider a critical need for organizational success – the need to mentor. My thoughts have been shaped by many years of serving in a large organization, the U.S. Government, but should apply to many other organizations as well. I will let you decide.

Staff development is often identified as an important, and even critical, organizational need. In my view and that of many others a successful staff development effort requires consistent top down encouragement and support. Lots of organizations talk about staff development as a worthy goal, and there is an extensive literature on the subject, but truly successful programs are limited in number because of lack of follow through and true organizational commitment to the goal. Without senior management buy-in and publicly expressed support for such an effort I see little value in an organization moving ahead with the needed planning – memo to the staff, and staff surveys to identify staff interests and potential mentors and mentees. Success is unlikely to happen, given everyone’s assigned responsibilities and management’s focus on ‘firefighting’, unless staff development is made a priority of the organization and rewarded as an activity.

Further thoughts:
– People really are an organization’s most important asset, and it is through people that we can have lasting impact on that organization. You make an enduring difference through the people you choose to develop.
– In addition to supporting continuing education, a critical ingredient of staff development is providing a mentor, someone whose knowledge and experience the mentee respects and someone whose wisdom and know-how can support the professional growth and development of the mentee.
– Corporate mentoring programs have long been recognized as an essential strategy for attracting, developing, and retaining top employees. They send a message to employees that they are valued and the organization wants them to be satisfied and happy.
– Mentoring helps new employees settle into an organization, understand what it means to be a professional in their working environment, facilitates the transfer of expertise to those who need to acquire specific skills, encourages the development of leadership abilities, and helps employees plan, develop and manage their careers.
– Mentoring is also a two-way street that can benefit both the mentee and the mentor.

All of this may sound trite – most of us have heard the words many times before – but the concept is right, and in my experience many organizations do a poor job of ‘preparing the next generation’ by translating the good words into meaningful and effective programs.

Unfortunately, this was my consistent view during my years at DOE and I hope that DOE’s current leadership will take the concept of mentoring and training successors more seriously than in the past. Some other federal departments and agencies did a better job at this during my time in government – e.g., as evidenced by their heavy participation in the open-to-all Excellence In Government Program. Such programs do take time away from other activities but are investments in the future, just as are federal R&D investments in emerging energy technologies.