A Masters of Science
Energy Systems Engineering

George E. Mobus
Institute of Technology
University of Washington, Tacoma

Last revised: 1/26/07

The flow of energy through a system acts to organize the system.
Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (1979)

The Need for Energy Systems Engineers

As we have come to understand better humankind's need for and the effects of the uses of energy it has become clear that the Earth is neither a limitless reservoir of energy sources, nor is it a bottomless pit for dumping waste products and heat [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Now at the outset of the new century and millennium, with the full force of globalization accelerating the rate of these effects, humankind is faced with the need to fundamentally change the way we accomplish work and thus our relationship to energy. We need to reevaluate what work we do, what products we produce, what services we provide. We need to find more efficient ways to accomplish the same ends. And we must find alternative, renewable sources of energy to exploit in doing this work.

In 1996 each American citizen used, on average, approximately 61 barrel equivalents of oil [7, Chapter 1]. That is, adding up all of the various sources of energy, oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables that were consumed and dividing by the population count in 1996 (256mil), and estimating a barrel equivalent at 135.8 million BTUs (British Thermal Units) per barrel, citizens in the US consumed some 8,283.8 million BTUs of energy per capita, or the equivalent of 61 barrels of oil.

This is an astounding amount of energy. According to [7 ], people in the U.S. use roughly twice as much energy per capita than do the citizens of many other developed countries. Sadly, much of this is for lack of adequate conservation. But this is only a part of the global energy story. As pointed out in [2], the world faces unprecedented future demand from an additional 2 billion people (China and India) and increasing consumption worldwide. Just a few weeks ago the world passed the 6.5 billion population mark. Considering that, under any standard of fairness, all of these people should be able to have some minimal lifestyle that approximates that in the developed world. And even assuming this can be achieved at only 1/10th the rate of energy use as noted above, this would still mean a world-wide consumption of approximately 5.3 trillion BTUs per year (about 5,592 trillion joules). The waste heat would be a noticable form of thermal polution in its own right. Clearly, we need to take measures to organize our economic activities around far more efficient uses of energy in the coming decades.

As disconcerting as the usage is, more so is the rate of production (exploration, drilling and pumping oil). In the U.S., oil production peaked in the 1970s [3]. Worldwide oil production is expected to peak within this decade! The peak occurs when half of the calculated proven reserves have been pumped. According to [3] there was something like two trillion barrels of reachable oil in the ground at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Approximately one trillion barrels have been used fueling industry, transportation and as feedstock to many chemical processes. At the current consumption rate that means we should expect the halfway mark to be reached (if it hasn't been already) some time soon. When production peaks the per unit cost of oil starts to increase driving prices for oil derivatives (such as gasoline) up. Costs of production are expected to rise rapidly, after the peak, due to the law of diminishing returns.

While there is probably enough coal to last several centuries at today's consumption rates, this source of energy is highly problematic in terms of pollutants as well as not having the same energy density as oil. Nuclear energy production has been stalled since the '70s and any turn to new nuclear fission plants would require at least a decade for safe construction. Most alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, are still not cost competitive with conventional hydrocarbon fuel-based production, so will, without some kind of subsidization, remain lagging until the cost of fossil fuels rises sufficiently to make them look like attractive alternatives.

One major problem in considering the economics of energy production is that analysis based on monetary unit measurements (e.g. dollar costs of production) are distorted by the fact that monetary units are themselves not fixed units. Dollar values in terms of real goods fluctuate due to the fact that the dollar is no longer pegged to some unchanging unit of measure. Thus, the "real" cost of energy production should not be measured in monetary units but in units of energy itself. That is, it takes energy (work) to obtain energy. This is net energy available to do useful work — what physicists would call free energy (free, that is, to do the work, not free in the economic sense!) We do not have anything like a cost accounting system based on energy measurements. We don't even often know all of the energy using processes that are part of the chain of work that produces energy. For example how much energy goes into the manufacture of tractors? Some economists are tackling this issue. The energy required to make capital goods is called embodied energy and there are attempts to begin measuring it. When applied to the energy production industry itself we may be surprised to find that the net free energy rate has already started to decline. That is, it may now be taking marginally more energy to produce each unit of usable energy simply because the processes of extraction, refinement, and delivery are taking more energy to accomplish (e.g., deep drilling for oil). This "primary" principle is, of course, underlying the issue of peak oil production, but applies to all forms of energy production and should not be discounted in alternative energy systems.

Numerous researchers have pointed out that conservation, through increases in mechanical/electrical efficiency, should be a serious first priority — this is the so-called "low hanging fruit" — it cannot by itself answer the future energy needs. New sources have to be developed. Improving efficiency and R&D into alternative energies will become the most pressing needs of this century.

From these aspects it does not take much to project a need for serious and concerted energy systems engineering in the 21st century. It is not yet clear what level of demand for engineers who specialize in energy systems will be, but it is certain that the need will grow acute before the end of the first quarter of the century has been reached. Moreover, with the rate of development in countries such as China and India on the upswing, it is more than likely that the need for energy systems engineering will be global in scope.

What Is the Systems Approach?

Systems Science

         Systems science is not just another science. It is the science of the organizational principles in all of the other sciences. It is a meta-science. "Science" in this context means the general organization of objective knowledge.

         Systems science is the study of the concepts of systemness as an abstract framework. It is used to understand how all aspects of the physical universe work and interrelate. Systems science views the universe as a set of components that have interrelationships and dynamical behaviors. This organizational perspective is applicable at all scales of time and space, which is the basis of universality in the science. Systems emerge from lower-level systems interacting as components. They evolve over time (or, alternatively their evolution defines time!) and, so long as there is an appropriate flow of energy through the boundary of the system, they organize through feedback and feedforward informational loops.

         While abstract in nature, systems science is comprised of a set of concepts and principles that may be understood qualitatively, adding a high level of rigour in understanding whatever field to which it is applied. Many aspects of systems science comport with intuitive understandings yet provide a well-grounded basis for more comprehensive understandings. At the same time there are well developed mathematical tools for use in systems science that provide powerfull analytical methods for applications.

         Figure 1 shows the main conceptual components of systems science. In this figure we show all of the concepts as highly interrelated with virtually no one subject not having significant interactions with the others. The whole of the science is embedded in the framework of mathematics, computation and modeling to show how these subjects pervade the whole arena. This does not preclude the qualitative aspect, note that at the very core of systems science the framework includes conceptualization (or concept formation) as a part of the tenets of organization. That is, concepts are systems of thought that must include natural language-based representations of all of the other aspects. In other words, systems may be studied with precision of thought with mathematics but everything can be conceptually organized in words.

Figure 1. General Systems Science Concept Map. The major components of systems science form a tightly interrelated set of conceptual frameworks fully embedded in the mathematical languages.

         Systems science has had several early incarnations and has been composed from several independently seeded fields of study. For example, General Systems Theory was a completely mathematical version introduce in the 1950's by Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy, with contributions from many others. Seemingly independent fields such as Cybernetics (Norbert Wiener), Game Theory (numerous), and Communications Theory (Claude Shannon) arose and found immediate relationships with one another. What all of these fields shared as a common subject was information. These concepts were applied in many different fields such as biology, ecology and sociology, to name a few, with varying degrees of success. Unfortunately, there were numerous holes in the "general" theory. For example, the fields of nonlinear dynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics were either in infancy or absent. Today we know that these important aspects of systems need to be an integral part of any systems study.

         As with all fields of knowledge, systems science is not thought to be complete. It may yet be in its own infancy. But it has become exrtremly powerful in providing insights within all of the other sciences. The systems approach within any single subject has begun to provide deep understanding within the natural and social sciences. We expect that as the field matures, in its own right, it will continue to provide deeper understanding within individual fields, but especially in the integration of the other sciences. That it is time to think about systems science as a core of education is a testament to the maturity the field has attained.

The Systems Approach

         The Systems approach is to use systems science in the study of the world. Virtually every modern version of all of the sciences have a systems approach component, if not being largely guided by systems thinking in further pursuits. In some of the sciences, such as biology, the use of the systems approach is beginning to drive much of the rest of the science. For example, systems biology has recently begun to clarify the phylogentic relationships arising in evolution (the phylogenetic tree) through genetic sequencing, mapping and computational methods for searching and comparing sequences. In combination with the most sophisticated theory of evolution and energy flow (far from equilibrium thermodynamics) biology has become the quintessential systems-oriented science. Chemistry, ecology and many others with more or less direct links to biology are following suit.

         Systems science is also being applied to engineering practices. Machines of all kinds are tremendously complex today. Understanding how all the pieces work together requires a systems approach to guide the analysis and design process. This has come to be recognized especially in the field of computer systems engineering, or more broadly, information systems engineering. Information is one of the cornerstones of systems science, and the design and development of complex information systems as part of a hierarchical control system has demonstrated the need for a systems approach to this endeavor.

         Within the social sciences systems science is beginning to be applied in a number of studies such as economics, organizations, political science, history and anthropology. Applications in this arena tend to be less mathematical but no less productive in terms of producing insights into dynamic processes within these fields.

         There are even cases of systems science being applied in the humanities. At least one kinetic sculpturer has used systems "themes" to build structures that have surprising dynamical behaviors.

Application to Energy Management?

         Energy flows in a one-way trip from source to sink. Along the way it either does useful work or ends up as disorganized heat. But in modern energy production, distribution, and usage it flows through multiferous components. Organized energy flow is a significant part of the definition of a system (see Figure 1 above). Thus it is not surprising that the aggregate of components can best be studied from the standpoint of systems science.

         Management decisions involve optimizations and typically involve a complex of requirements and constraints that need to be solved to maximize some objective function. Hence the systems approach involves finding optimal solutions for the whole system, not just some of the parts. Applying the systems approach to the design and development of energy infrastructure will provide substantial benefits to everyone. It seeks to provide the maximum free energy subject to the constraints of energy availability and parasitic losses throughout the flow structure.

Energy Production Sustainability

         Currently it is possible to point to some alternative energy production approaches that seek to maximize the local energy flow, but are suboptimal with respect to a more global view of total net energy gain. Consider a thermal solar energy system installed on a home or small business to heat the living/work space. A bank of collectors convert sunlight into heat absorbed in a working fluid, which is then circulated to a temporary storage reservoir. When heat is needed in the space, the warm fluid from the reservoir is circulated through a heat exchanger (if water) or directly into the space (if air). These systems were installed throughout the US in the early 80's and many Housing and Urban Development (HUD) federal grants were used to put up demonstration projects. The main question had to do with feasibility of solar heating and whether the systems could be cost effective (as compared with electric or natural gas heating for instance). This boiled down to economic questions about the cost of collectors, pipes, installation, etc. Dollar costs were the primary measurement under analysis.

         What was not a question was: "How much energy was used to manufacture the collectors and other components of the system?" It turns out that glass, aluminium, copper and urethane foam (for the collectors only) are all energy intensive materials. Accounting for wastage in final manufacture, it could well be that the amount of energy used to manufacture these collectors was as much or more than they would ever collect and deliver to the point of use over their lifetimes! The reason an economic analysis would fail to show this problem, that net energy gain might actually be negative, was due to the cheapness, generally, of fossil fuel energy. After the OPEC embargo of the late 70's oil and natural gas prices dipped to historically low levels (just ask the oil men in Oklahoma and west Texas how quickly the prices dropped!) This meant the energy cost component of these materials was kept small, even though significant energy was being pumped into the whole system. Had the analysis been done on total BTUs consumed compared to total BTUs collected and usable the conclusions regarding feasibility might have been quite different. Rather the general argument was advanced that the problem of cost was one of scale. Once these units were in mass production the cost would be driven down. While there is no doubt we would have seen some improvement in energy intensity per unit, it is not likely that energy costs were that much of the total cost of production.

         Applying the systems approach to energy systems would help identify the real costs in energy units rather than dollars, which are notoriously elastic when used as a measurement tool. Given that we are approaching the global peak of oil production and the peak of natural gas may be not far behind, we may no longer have a margin of error in terms of getting our energy investments right the first time.

         The real issue in applying the systems approach to energy production and use is that of global sustainability. Fundamentally this is a question of whether or not the energy capture/conversion capital equipment can produce enough free energy to both provide the end consumers AND enough extra to feedback into the manufacturing process, supplying what is needed to replicate itself over the course of its lifespan. Figure 2, below, shows a model energy production system along with its own manufacturing infrastructure. In order to be considered sustainable the energy conversion capital must provide enough, sufficiently high quality, energy to reproduce itself (and also provide for its own maintenance).

Figure 2.The systems approach to modeling energy flow and budgets in a sustainable energy production system. All energy sources and sinks need to be considered.

         The design of all energy systems, including traditional fossil fuel systems, will need to meet the criteria of sustainability. For example, coal-to-oil processes will need to sequester CO2 in order to not contribute to greenhouse gas emission. But sequestration is not done for free. How much energy will be needed to utilize coal in this fashion will need to be considered. The net free energy is what matters from an economic sense.

The Nature of Energy Systems Engineering

The design and engineering of energy production, transportation and usage systems is unlike the traditional engineering approaches to material products. Material products amount to the rearrangement of matter to become useful for human purposes. While there is wastage in manufacturing, there is no net loss of matter in the process. Energy, on the other hand, can only be consumed, it cannot be "banked" in the form of capital goods. When energy, in the form of easily accessible fossil fuels, was cheap and abundant there was little concern in designing cities, machines, and work in general, for this fact. Energy flow through a work process was of minimal concern to designers.

Now that energy costs are to become a significant factor we need to return to the discipline of physics (thermodynamics) to understand energy flow. We need to begin considering the systemic aspects of energy, not just as a local feature of, say, a more efficient appliance, but of the entire energy system from production to point-of-use and all of the infrastructure processes underlying that production. In energy systems, a local optimization can be the cause of a global sub-optimization as has been mentioned above in the case of thermal solar panels.

Energy systems engineering is a cross-disciplinary approach to developing whole energy systems, from production, through use. Unlike a conventional engineering degree, such as mechanical or electrical, an energy systems engineer will be familiar with other conventional engineering disciplines (besides an expertise in one particular engineering discipline) as well as an in-depth knowledge of thermodynamics, economics, and policy development as they apply to energy systems.

Engineers need to be able to see the big picture in order to understand their part in the whole. Developing an appliance, or an energy conversion device must take into account how it operates in the complete stream of energy flow and in terms of the larger energy production infrastructure. It makes no sense to develop a more energy efficient refrigerator if in doing so you require substantially more energy in the manufacture of some components in that new design.

Today, the call for energy systems engineering is just starting to be heard. Several companies such as SAIC (San Diego) have devoted considerable attention to developing capabilities in this arena (see example jobs in energy systems engineering [8]). After the last massive blackouts on the east coast, more interest is being shown in the systems approach to the electric grid management. These are just the beginnings of a move in the direction of applying systems engineering to energy matters.

What are the "ideal" attributes of an energy systems engineer? What disciplinary knowledge is needed to work on energy systems? A partial, example, listing of some of the desired disciplines would be:

  • Mechanical engineering –
    Understanding machines and mechanical energy transfer
  • Electrical and Electronic engineering –
    Understanding electrical systems (power) and electronics (RF and analog circuits
  • Mathematics –
    Advanced maths, e.g., higher calculus, statistics and probability, linear systems, optimization, graph theory
  • Systems Theory –
    Control theory, network theory, chaos theory, emergence, etc.
  • Computer Modeling –
    System dynamics, continuous systems, non-linear systems
  • Computers and Software Engineering –
    Understanding, esp. embedded systems and control
  • Materials Science & Chemistry –
    Understanding properties of materials, esp. thermodynamic and mechanical
  • Thermodynamics –
    Understanding the flow of energy through systems, esp. those far from equilibrium
  • Ecology (and Theoretical Biology) –
    Understanding the models of energy flow in complex systems and energy budgets informs models of energy flows that emulate natural systems
  • Economics (Political economy) –
    Understanding the larger implications of energy systems in the production and distribution of wealth

These are just some of the subject areas that are relevant in energy systems engineering. A degree in this area will provide students with a basic grounding in these subjects, not as subjects in themselves, but rather as part of an integrated view of energy.

Mastering Energy Systems Engineering

An energy systems engineer is envisioned as someone who holds a primary (undergraduate) degree in one of the traditional engineering disciplines but then goes on to learn elements from other disciplines as they pertain to energy systems. So, for example, a mechanical engineer who is versed in machinery design would take courses that emphasize the other disciplines. She would then be expected to complete a project that showed an understanding of how these disciplines integrate with her own. Such a project would, ideally, be part of a group effort, teaming up students from the different primary disciplines.

No one is expected to master multiple engineering disciplines, per se. It is most likely that these individuals will be working in team efforts in the work environment. Rather, the expectation is that a graduate from this program would be able to understand the ways in which all of these different primary areas are integrated in a systems approach. Most of the engineering disciplines cover some form of energetics in their field. It is not, therefore, beyond the abilities of many engineers to become reasonably conversant in, if not masterful of, some subset of another engineering discipline with respect to how that other discipline covers energetics.

What will make this program successful in supporting the cross disciplinary nature is the core curriculum on systems science. All of the engineering disciplines are based on deep systems theoretical principles which can be applied broadly to help anyone so educated to quickly understand the particulars of another discipline, especially when it comes to energetics. Engineers, schooled in systems thinking, are far more agile and adaptive when working with new projects involving multiple disciplines.

There are several newly emerging academic programs that provide examples of Energy Systems Engineering [9].

The Program

Here we provide a brief description of the envisioned degree program at UWT, Institute of Technology.


Masters of Science in Energy Systems Engineering
48 credit hours
Entry Requirements:
  • BS in EE, ME, CE, Physics, Chem. Eng., or related field with strong math background
  • GRE scores (TBD)
  • GPA of 3.0 overall
  • Transcripts of all institutions attended
  • Letter of intent/purpose
  • Three letters of recommendation


This program is highly interdisciplinary and requires multiple talents, even if these are represented within the same individual. The below areas of specialty are just starting suggestions. One way to get a better definition of needed specializations would be to confer with people, for example, at the Rocky Mountain Institute where there has been a concerted research effort in energy systems.

Faculty we would seek might be of the following (suggested non-exclusive) talents/experience:

  • Electrical Engineer
    Specialties: electrical generation, power distribution, electrical storage systems (batteries), motors, etc. The emphasis is on large high power/voltage (analog) systems.
  • Electronics Engineer
    Specialties: digital systems, analog sensor/actuator, embedded control systems.
  • Mechanical Engineer
    Specialties: HVAC, machinery efficiency, transportation, combustion systems, etc.
  • Computer Engineer
    Embedded systems, control theory, signal processing.
  • Materials/Chemical Engineer
    Specialties: Thermal properties of materials, ceramics, fuel cells and batteries
  • Physicist
    Thermodynamics, physical systems modeling

Faculty members from other (non-engineering) disciplines would be sought to round out the systems knowledge and to add perspective to the curriculum. These might include a systems biologist (theoretical biology) for modeling and general systems science, and a systems economist (most probably an ecological economist).


Below is a trial-balloon program. Assumptions being made at the present time are that this program will be run in a cohort fashion, admissions being made in Fall quarter only. The first several quarters would provide the integrative systems science and math background as well as fundamentals of energy systems. This could be followed by a series of seminar/lab courses where students go into depth in every aspect of a sample energy system (currently envisioned as a photovoltaic-based residential system lab). Students would learn how to determine capacity, control, and conservation practices in usage. They would also learn how to couple such a system to the grid and sell back to the central power system.

The program finishes off with a major capstone team-based project in which students develop a practical application of energy systems engineering to a real-world problem. Ideally this would be done in a service learning project in the community (see below). A trial program schedule might look like:

  • Quarter 1
    • TESE 501 - Systems Science for Engineers - 5hrs.
    • TESE 511 - Thermodynamics - 3 hrs.
  • Quarter 2
    • TESE 502 - Advanced Math for Systems Science - 4 hrs.
    • TESE 512 - Fundamentals of Energy Systems - 4 hrs.
  • Quarter 3
    • TESE 503 - Advanced Math for Energy Systems - 4 hrs.
    • TESE 513 - Control Theory and Applied Systems - 4 hrs.
  • Quarter 4
    • TESE 521 - Advanced Systems Engineering - 4 hrs.
    • TESE 531 - Interdisciplinary Seminar/Lab in Energy Systems Engineering I - 3 hrs. seminar, 2 hrs. lab (4 hrs. credit)
  • Quarter 5
    • TESE 532 - Interdisciplinary Seminar/Lab in Energy Systems Engineering II - 3 hrs. seminar, 2 hrs. lab (4 hrs. credit)
    • TESE 702 - Capstone Project in Energy Systems Engineering, Phase 1 - 5 hrs.
  • Quarter 6
    • TESE 56x - Elective in Energy Systems Specialty - 3/4 hrs.
    • TESE 702 - Capstone Project in Energy Systems Engineering, Phase 2 - 5 hrs.


Team-based projects that involve hands-on, experiential learning and perhaps some component of service learning (see below) would be undertaken as a capstone. These projects will be chosen so that students in one of these tracts would be able to acquire real-world experience applying the systems and other theoretical knowledge to design, construction and testing of energy systems.

Interactions with the Community

There are many opportunities in the Tacoma and Pierce County area for the application of real-world projects that can actually be deployed. One example, for the Residential/Transportation tract, would be to work with Habitat for Humanity in the development of energy efficient, low cost housing in this region. The Institute has extremely good relations with many sectors of the Tacoma community and we expect that finding opportunities to orient projects toward that community will be easy.

Interactions with Other Programs at UWT

The Urban Studies Program and the Environmental Sciences Program both have faculty intensely interested in energy systems. We expect much cross-fertilization between these programs and this MSESE program. For example, Urban Studies faculty are quite interested in energy policy issues in the Tacoma environs. The Environmental Sciences faculty can provide much support (including laboratory facilities) for ecological and other biological aspects of energy systems. Both programs have expertise in systems modeling and GIS, which we feel will be highly useful in our program.

Proposed Action Plan

Phase 1

This early phase consists of one quarter or summer support to be used acquiring more detailed information on the need for this kind of program in the South Sound area. I have already been investigating the perceived need by participating in several public seminars and workshops. Several of these were sponsored by US Representative Adam Smith. I have been in discussions with several constituencies in the state, including business, educational and government representatives. All indications are that there is a definite need for engineers schooled in energy systems. Industry needs for specialists in power systems, distribution, commercial and residential conservation, and alternative energy production systems are being recognized.

In phase 1 I propose to collect more substantial data on the needs for energy engineers and the possible demand among potential graduate students in this region. I will also be collecting information on curriculum being developed around the country and make contact with faculty involved in these efforts. I will be collecting information on what kinds of lab facilities would be needed. Any engineering program is expensive in terms of the lab facilities needed. So early estimates of these requirements is essential. The product of phase 1 will be a feasibility report providing a basis for proceeding to phase 2. Along with the feasibility report I will provide a more detailed plan for phase 2. The budget for this phase is covered by the course release - $5,000, and incidentals/overhead.

Phase 2

Assuming that phase 1 reveals a compelling argument for pursuing this degree program phase 2 would involve the actual development of a curriculum model and a plan for capital development (labs and equipment). The product of this phase will be a full degree program proposal. This will include a capital budget, staffing requirements, expected student FTE and a growth plan. The budget for this phase will include another course release, but will also include possible consulting services for curriculum proposal development.

Pro-forma Budget

Some of the assumptions used in describing the above curriculum and facilities can be used to project a speculative, but reasonable cost for start-up of this program. Initially, I envision the need for three full-time faculty members, two full professors and one associate or assistant professor. It is assumed that they will teach three courses per year in the first several years as they are developing the program. In the second year, with a new cohort starting, we would hire two additional faculty, one of whom would be senior-level. I assume starting a cohort of 20-25 students, though that number might be as low as 15.

I will also assume that at least one new lab facility will be built to house equipment for electronic and mechanical engineering work. This will be designed for solar energy systems coursework and research, but will include an array of electronics test equipment, monitoring devices, and computers. Adjunct facilities will include a small machine shop and a rooftop platform for mounting solar panels, with associated wiring to the lab. This program will start out leveraging on the computer engineering facilities already available in Cherry Parkes.

Category Description Estimated Costs
Year 1
Captial  Building/Lab space (retrofit)  $   800,000 
Lab equipment  $   300,000 
Total Start-up    $1,100,000 
Faculty  2 full professors  $   280,000 
1 associate professor  $   110,000 
Staff  Program admin  $     60,000 
Total salaries    $   450,000 
Total first year    1,550,000 
Year 2
Faculty (with 2% increase)  3 full professors  $   429,600 
2 associate professor  $   224,400 
Staff  Program admin  $     61,200 
Total salaries    $   715,200 
Equipment expenses  Lab equipment and materials  $     50,000 
Total second year    $   765,200 
Total start-up for two years    $2,315,200 

This budget does not include incidentals such as advertising, recruiting and additional staff support, which may initially come from the Institute's budget. This budget assumes two cohorts (year 1 and year 2) of approximately 20-25 each. Assuming there is student demand, the program would need to double its lab capacity at the start of the third year. Certainly a more refined pro-forma budget would be developed as part of phase 2 of this project.


  1. Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Viking Press, New York.
  2. Ehrlich, P. & Ehrlich, A. (2004). One with Nineveh: Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future, Island Press, Washinton D.C.
  3. Goodstein, D. (2004). Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil, W. W. Norton & Company, New York.
  4. Meadows, Donella, Randers, J, & Meadows, Dennis (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, VT.
  5. Roberts, P. (2004). The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.
  6. Speth, J. G. (2004). Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
  7. Ristinen, R. A. & Kraushaar, J. J. (1999). Energy and the Environment, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
  8. Employment:
    SAIC Energy: Sytems Engineering
  9. Example Programs:
    Gebze Institute of Technology, Department of Energy Systems Engineering
    Gebze 41400, Kocaeli, Turkey

    University of Ontario, Institute of Technology (Undergraduate Honours)
    Web Site

    Osaka Prefecture University, College of Engineering,
    Dept. of Energy Systems Engineering

    Biological and Agricultural Engineering, UC Davis,
    Web Site

    Loughborough University,Leicestershire, UK
    Electrical and Renewable Energy Systems Engineering
    Web Site
  10. Faculty:
    Dr. Susan Krumdieck, University of Canterbery, Mechanical Engineering.