feature innovation winter 09 10

7/27/2019 Feature Innovation Winter 09 10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/feature-innovation-winter-09-10 1/6

4

e n g i n e e r i n g

n e

w

s

C o v e r &

i n t e r i o r

i l l u s t r a t i o n s

b y

s t e p h e n

C h i e n , b e w a r e

o f D o g

s t u D i o , © 2

0 0 9

The U.S. enjoys a high standard of living due, in part, to its research

universities. In the 1940s, the federal government realized that scientific

progress would garner the nation’s prosperity and security. Backed by

government support, far-flung ideas gave way to fundamental research and

new industries—the semiconductor, computer, software and biomedical—

were born. Millions of jobs were created worldwide, a clear indication that

economic growth is directly linked to technological innovation.



55

ur accomplishments have served the U.S.

well, but we can’t rest on our laurels. The

global marketplace has changed. We are

moving rom an industrial age, based on

natural resources and the production o goods,

to an age that will be defned by creativity in

areas like biotechnology, nanotechnology and

inormation technology. Transitioning is not

easy. In the ux, there are concerns that the

U.S. is graduating ewer engineers than China

or India. Economic conditions constrain

government and industry research investments.

Fossil energy, which has underpinned our

economy or nearly a hundred years, is not

sustainable. The inrastructure that supports

our energy-intensive liestyles, namely, power

grids, roads and bridges, needs overhauling to

the tune o $2.2 trillion. To remain prosperous,

business as usual won’t work. Like we did in

the 1940s, the U.S. must revamp itsel, and

create an economy that’s based on innovation.So where does the research university ft into

this scenario?

“Our job in the College o Engineering

is to position ourselves or the uture so

that we maintain our competitive edge

in education and research,” says Pradeep

K. Khosla, dean o the College. This past

summer, Khosla was appointed to the

Council on Competitiveness’ Technology

Leadership Strategy Initiative. For the next

three years, he will work with elite academic

B y S h e r r y S t o k e S

f e a t u r e

Innovation Leads to

Solutions and Success

researchers and business leaders to identiy

the most promising rontiers o technology

and competitive advantage or the U.S. and or

Carnegie Mellon.

Khosla explains that the symbiotic

relationship between academia, government

and industry is essential in the pursuit o

innovation. While the ederal R&D budget

is not expected to grow at the rate necessary

to meet academia’s requests, the government

will continue to be the largest supporter o

undamental research. Competition or ederal

monies remains tight, however, the College

has grown adept at identiying research areas

that are worthy o large-scale unding, such as

energy and security.

Our ability to identiy projects that

exercise our interdisciplinary strengths is

not lost on industry. We attract domestic and

international corporate partners or several

reasons: frst, companies have cut back on in-house research and working with

universities saves them money. Second, the

College has access to experts in a variety o

felds, allowing us to tackle problems rom

multiple approaches. Through our research

centers, the barriers that limit collaboration

between industry and academia are minimized,

acilitating innovation.

Policy, too, plays an essential role in

bringing about innovation. Regulatory issues

inuence i and how new technologies will

be implemented, industry support o R&D,

technology transer, related tax policies, etc.

The College’s Department o Engineering

and Public Policy has a long and respected

record o guiding decision makers on

important problems in technology policy and

management.

“Within the College, we rely on creativity

and pragmatism to maintain our momentum as

a leading research institution,” says Khosla.

By tapping into our resources, both human

and technological, the College has the power

to develop and implement innovations that

will transorm the world and retain America’s

competitive strengths.

O



6


n e w

s

Achieving a sustainable energy platorm, ree

o ossil uel, won’t happen soon. According

to Andy Gellman, head o Chemical Engi-

neering and the director o the National

Energy Technology Laboratory – Institute or

Advanced Energy Solutions (NETL-IAES), it

could take several hundred years to develop

efcient, renewable energy sources that don’t

damage the earth. With the looming threat o

climate change and a fnite supply o ossil

uel, Gellman believes that now is the time

to begin a transition to systems that integrate

ossil energy with renewable energy. He reers

to these systems as “hybrid ossil renewable

energy systems” or HyFRES or short.

Weaning ourselves o o coal and

oil will be arduous because o technology

barriers, politics, and economics – think o the

trillions o dollars invested into our existing

energy inrastructure. For now, ossil uels,

especially coal, will remain an important part

o our energy portolio, and this is why IAESis advocating or the intelligent use o ossil

energy resources as a stepping-stone in the

development o a sustainable energy system.

HyFRES research alls under this umbrella,

and Gellman says there are strong economic

motives or this approach.

On the whole ossil uel energy is

currently cheaper and more reliable than

energy obtained rom renewable sources.

Naturally, this impedes investment into

alternative energy technologies and sources.

But the cheap cost o ossil energy today does

not include the uture costs o climate change.

We have to consider what would happen i we

made integrated energy systems in which ossil

and renewable components worked together

synergistically (a HyFRES system), creating

energy that is cheaper in the long run than

energy derived rom ossil uels alone. This

technology would “create fnancial incentive

or society to invest in renewable energy,”

says Gellman. Both components o HyFRES

systems would add value. The systems would

use ossil uels more efciently and mitigate

the costs o emerging renewable technologies.

The renewable component, in turn, would

reduce carbon emissions and environmental

harm. In the long run, which could be hundreds

o years, as renewable energy systems become

more robust, reliance on ossil uel would

decrease and then disappear; thus, enabling a

smooth societal transition to true sustainability.HyFRES technologies sound appealing,

but Gellman points out, “We have to learn

how to design integrated ossil and renewable

energy systems. We must then build them and

make them work.” And getting industry to

promote their development is not easy. While

the Department o Energy supports emerging

research, more must be done to advance new

energy systems. Gellman explains that policy

can play an important role in this eort. For

example, carbon taxes could provide strong

incentives or the deployment o carbon-

reducing technologies.

It’s obvious that a comprehensive

approach, one that combines technology,

policy and economic drivers, is necessary

to bring sustainable energy systems to

ruition. Proessor John Kitchin, who leads

the IAES research eorts in the area o

carbon management, shares Gellman’s views.

Historically, Kitchin says, there hasn’t been

incentive to invest in carbon capture, but this

is changing now that industry anticipates

changes in environmental policy. In the

private sector, activity is underway to develop

technologies that will meet probable regulatory

specifcations and allow companies to proft

through uture licensing agreements. This

work comes with a hety price tag and risks.

For example, no one knows when carbon laws

will be passed or what they will look like. “Will

we have to capture 10% in 5 years or 90% in 5

years?” asks Kitchin. Another issue is that no

one knows what technologies will prove to be

the best and how long they will take to develop.

Kitchin says that researchers in the IAES

Carbon Management group are investigating

the range o perormance that is possible with

emerging CO2

capture technologies. “CO2

capture is a separation challenge,” he says. Inaddition to CO

2, the ue gases emitted by power

plants contain a number o gases, including

large volumes o nitrogen. Power plants

produce millions o tons o ue gases daily,

and all this cannot economically be pumped

underground, so CO2

must be separated.

IAES is looking into three types o separation

processes: post-combustion (separating CO2

rom nitrogen), oxy combustion (separating

nitrogen rom oxygen), and pre-combustion

approaches (separating hydrogen and CO2). By

2020, the Carbon Management group wants

to develop systems that achieve 90% CO2 capture with 99% storage permanence, and

at an increase in cost o electricity generation

below 35%. How this will aect consumer

costs is uncertain. While the price o electricity

will increase, more efcient power-consuming

devices will change the way we use electricity

and reduce consumption.

“I you can’t switch to renewables, and

you can’t massively increase the efciency o

your systems, all you are let with is capturing

Andrew Gellman

Head, Chemical Engineering

Wh a t w o u l d h a p p e n i f w e ma d e

i n t e g r a t e d e n e r g y s y s t e m s i n w h i c h

f o ss i l a n d r e n e w a b l e co mp o n e n t s

w o r k e d t o g e t h e r ( a y F S s y s t e m ) ,

c r e a t i n g e n e r g y t h a t i s c h e a p e r t h a ne n e r g y d e r i v e d f r o m f o s s i l f u e l s

a l o n e ? Th i s t e ch n o l o g y w o u l d ” c r e a t e

f i n a n c i a l i n c e n t i v e f o r s o c i e t y t o i n v e s t

i n r e n e w a b l e e n e rg y ,” sa y s Ge l lma n .

the puru o nery: we’re n i or he lon u

6


n e

w

s



and sequestering,” says Kitchin. Kitchin says

“there isn’t a silver bullet solution,” and each

technology contributes dierent possibilities

and challenges. “The market will determine

which technologies we end up using. Whoever

can develop new cost-eective technologieswill win,” he says, adding, “We’ll have to pass

laws that require them, too. Being a realist,

i there was money in CO2

capture today, we

would be doing it.”

On the other hand, i we don’t start

reducing CO2emissions now, the consequences

o climate change are very likely to be

expensive in ways that are difcult to anticipate

in the uture. The price o doing nothing may

be in large changes where ood is grown

or in weather patterns around the world. I

natural resources such as water cross national

borders, there may be diplomatic crises ordisease and amines that are expensive to

resolve. We are acing an expensive change

in the way we live and do business in the

uture. The question is which expensive

option will we live with.

“Much o the technological innovation or

environmental protection is driven by policy

change,” begins David Dzombak, the director

o Carnegie Mellon’s Steinbrenner Institute or

Environmental Education and Research. “For

example, we know that using ossil uels hasmany negative eects on the environment and

human health, yet ossil uels are relatively

inexpensive. I we don’t account or human

health and environmental eects, which or the

most part we don’t, it is hard or technological

innovation to occur. Without a policy decision

to include these external costs in the price

o ossil uels, technological innovation is

stymied.”

“In the environmental domain, policy and

technology go hand-in-hand, and sometimes

policies are developed or the purpose o

orcing technological change,” he says. TheClean Air Act, or example, contains provisions

to stimulate improved uel efciency or

automobiles. In a similar way, the Clean

Water Act has technology-based water-

quality standards or municipal and industrial

wastewater dischargers. These provisions have

led to the widespread deployment, and im-

provement through innovation, o wastewater

treatment technologies. Technology-orcing

policy and regulation has had a big role in the

advancement o environmental protection in

the United States.

“ M u c h o f t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l

i n n o v a t i o n f o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l

p r o t e c t i o n i s d r i v e n b y

po l i c y c hange . ”

“Something we do very well at Carnegie

Mellon is that we look at the interplay between

policy and technology development,” says

Dzombak. Leading the charge is the College’s

Department o Engineering and Public

Policy (EPP), which ocuses on importantproblems in technology and policy, and

energy and environmental issues are high on

their priority list. EPP’s inuence permeates

throughout the university, including most

o the 20 research centers afliated with

the Steinbrenner Institute. In the Center or

Atmospheric Particle Studies (CAPS), or

example, Dzombak says, “we are looking at

the scientifc, technological and regulatory

aspects o monitoring and characterizing fne

air particles. This inormation is critical to

establishment o workable and meaningul

national regulations or fne air particles.”

These particles have been attributed to tens o

thousands o premature deaths in the U.S.

Integrated innovation in environmental

science, technology, and policy is clearly

important or regulating known pollutants,

and such innovation is even more important in

regulating emerging chemicals and materials

with unknown environmental and health eects.

But, how do you regulate the unknown? This

question is being explored by investigators in

the Center or the Environmental Implications

o Nanotechnology (CEINT).

nvronmen innovon:technooy nd pocy go nd-n-nd

David Dzombak

Director, Steinbrenner Institute



8


n e

w

s

“Nanotechnology is evolving very ast,”

says Dzombak. “We don’t want to repeat past

mistakes by inventing materials or specifc

unctions and then fnd out later that they are

harmul to human health and the environment.”

CEINT interdisciplinary research teams areworking to develop experimental and analytical

tools to evaluate potential environmental

eects o nanotechnology products beore they

are put into widespread use. Science, in this

case, is helping to inorm regulation that may

determine how these materials are developed

and used.

A case in point: silver oxide nano-

particles. “Silver can be toxic in dierent

contexts and yet silver oxide nanoparticles are

being used, essentially without regulation, as

an antimicrobial in abrics, including in socks,”

says Dzombak. When socks are laundered,

some o the nanoparticles are released into

the wash water. The wash water is discharged

into a sewer or septic tank, ater which the

ate o the nanoparticles is unknown. “The

mobility properties o these particles make

them o concern in the environment. Studying

these particles and their release could lead to

controls. As policy develops, it will stimulate

technological development or controlling

nanoparticles in products in both the manu-

acturing and use phases o the product’s lie,”

he says.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)

is another area in which regulation inuences

technology development. In the CCS Regu-

latory Project researchers and other stake-

holders are working together to design and

acilitate a U.S. regulatory environment or

the capture, transport and deep geologic

sequestration o carbon dioxide (CO2). “How

carbon is captured and sequestered will depend

on how policy and regulation develop,” states

Dzombak.

He believes that a primary eature

o environmental innovation at Carnegie

Mellon is the deep understanding o the tight

linkage o environmental technology andpolicy development “We all recognize that

environmental policy and technology are

closely related, and even researchers who

work strictly on technology development have

an eye toward what their work means with

respect to regulation and policy. This helps

us choose problems that have the potential or

high impact.”

Security measures that are integrated

throughout our computing systems have

transormed the way we use and disseminate

inormation. Yet, as much as cybersecurity

aects our daily lives, it is “not traditionally

viewed as a market enabler,” says Virgil Gligor,

the co-director o Carnegie Mellon CyLab.

The old-school view is that security is“a consumer o resources,” begins Gligor.

This is ounded on the idea that the return on

investment is difcult to quantiy primarily

because it is based on risk assessment, which

very ew users can perorm well – with

security, you are trying to prevent what may

happen. This traditional view is not entirely

shared by Gligor and others in CyLab, “We

argue that security can have a very positive

economic eect.”

Gligor oers an analogy. Across rom the

Carnegie Mellon campus, in Schenley Park,

is a statue o George Westinghouse. On thestatue is a plaque, crediting Westinghouse or

inventing the air brake and revolutionizing the

railroad industry. Gligor explains that because

o airbrakes, trains were able to run aster,

leading to signifcant gains in commerce. This

example can be generalized to explain the

positive eects o cybersecurity: Secure web

sites gave rise to the prolieration o online

shopping, banking and electronic commerce,

in general.

Cyberecury Cn Mke prof en

“We look or places where security c

deend us, o course, but we also look at h

security can open new avenues o comme

and bring innovations to market,” he sa

CyLab’s engineers examine security rom

broad and comprehensive context. Worldwi

there are institutions that ocus on eit

secure systems design or cyber policy, bCyLab researchers approach both problems

an integrated matter. This is what sets CyL

apart rom the others. “Most academics lo

at the intellectual challenges o designi

new security mechanisms. For us, that’s

satisying. We design security mechanisms t

address larger policy issues and are usabl

says Gligor. With usability in mind, CyL

is exploring how to make home comput

systems more secure.

Password-based logins is under CyLa

scrutiny, rom both a computer scien

and psychology perspective. People orpasswords that contain strings o unrela

letters and numbers, and worse, hack

fgure them out. Current projects examine

development o memorable but tough-to-cra

passwords, password thet via phishing scam

image-based passwords, and cell phones t

deliver text messages containing disposa

passwords. (See page 12 to read about our n

Ph.D. program in usable privacy and securi

“ W e l o o k f o r p l a c e s w h e r

s e c u r i t y c a n d e f e n d u s ,

o f c ou r s e , bu t we a l s o

l o o k a t h o w s e c u r i t y c a n

o p e n n e w a v e n u e s o f

c o m m e r c e a n d b r i n g

i nnova t i on s t o ma r ke t . ”



Another intrusion is malware—worms,

viruses and pesky spyware. “Malware is a act

o lie,” says Gligor. “We want to give people

the opportunity to partition their computing

rom other computing activities that are

inected by malware.” Eradicating malwareis extremely difcult because it results rom

human creativity. For example, when you buy

a bundle o banking sotware, in most cases

it is not designed by a single company. The

vendor will buy components or its product

rom dierent companies. There is no uniorm,

high assurance o quality across the board, and

this acilitates opportunities or introducing

malware. “Real-lie business models make

it difcult to exterminate opportunities

or malware inection,” says Gligor. Best

estimates wage that we are many years away

rom ridding our computers o malware, but

in the meantime “we must enable people to

operate their computers in spite o it.”

An insidious aspect o malware is that

victims oten unwittingly invite attacks

upon themselves. In phishing scams, people

email credit card inormation or passwords

to bogus banks. People can load viruses into

their laptops with inected USB drives. As we

become savvy to one type o attack, dierent

ones appear. “New technology introduces

new vulnerabilities. It also changes the notion

o who our adversaries are. We can’t always

identiy attackers and hold them accountable

or their actions,” says Gligor. To stay ahead

o hackers, Gligor advocates or engineers

and others to think about security when they

are creating mechanisms, sotware, etc. Doing

so will alleviate retroftting, which generally

occurs ater an attack and the damage is done.

This proactive mindset, which is evident

throughout all o CyLab’s research areas,

allows Carnegie Mellon to shape the ace

o cybersecurity. Security means more than

taking a deensive stand: available, secure and

trustworthy computing will pave the way or

innovations we have yet to realize.

“The Data Storage Systems Center (DSSC)

is not just about doing research, it’s about

transorming an industry,” says Jimmy Zhu,

the DSSC director. This critical distinction has

established the center as a world leader in data

storage and earned Zhu an invitation to speak atthe National Science Foundation Engineering

Research Centers Annual Meeting (2008) on

transormational research, a topic that clearly

excites Zhu.

Presently the DSSC has an annual

research budget o $4 million dollars, with $2

million coming rom government sources and

the rest rom industry. Almost every major

disk drive company in the world belongs to the

center’s afliate program. The DSSC generates

this level o support because “industry trusts

us to innovate,” says Zhu. This trust has been

earned thanks to DSSC inventions like the

“B2 Underlayer,” which made possible the

mobile disk drives ound in laptops and iPod

applications.

Zhu explains that innovation entails

cutting-edge research and pioneering

development in memory storage. Focusing

on speed, capacity and portability, current

DSSC research areas include: hard disk drives,

tape drives, probe and holographic storage,

novel non-volatile memory technologies, and

memory-intensive sel-confguring integrated

circuits (MISCICs). Yet, innovation means

more than invention. Technology must be

transerred to industry and implemented.

The DSSC is quite adept at working with

companies, and this eases the transerence o

inormation rom Carnegie Mellon to industry.

“We enable industry to do things that they could

not do without us, and this drives innovation,”says Zhu. Companies ocus on the bottom

line, which curtails them rom investing into

long-term research that may not bear tangibles

or 10 years or more. Government unding

o universities ensures that undamental data

storage research continues as well as work that

promises quick deliverables.

Reecting on the next wave o

innovation in data storage, Zhu believes that

interdisciplinary eorts will play a huge role in

creating uture memory systems. He proposes

that an increased ocus on systems may

transorm the industry again. “There are lots o

preliminary schemes to do much higher density

and aster data storage, but there are no systems

designed to realize this,” says Zhu. Hard drive

technology is maturing. This is orcing us to

imagine what our storage devices will look

like 10 or 15 years rom now and orecasting

the uture isn’t easy. Twenty years ago, it

was difcult or people to imagine a need or

having large amounts o inormation on their

hard drives. Yet, imagination is part o the

innovative processes, and DSSC researchers

are anticipating uture storage needs as they

redefne data storage in the 21st century.

trnormn he D sore indury, an

“ W e e n a b l e i n d u s t r y t o

d o t h i n g s t h a t t h e y c o u l d

n o t d o w i t h o u t u s , a n d

t h i s d r i v e s i n nova t i on . ”

feature innovation winter 09 10

Documents