Postdocs merge perspectives on reaching net zero

Energy systems scientist Jackie Dowling and climate economist Chenfei Qu come from different backgrounds, but both find themselves in the Stanford Energy Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Precourt Institute for Energy, working on interdisciplinary solutions to the challenges facing the clean energy transition. 

In a recent conversation, both postdocs sat down to discuss the same question: Where is the energy transition gaining momentum, and what stands in its way? 

“Diamonds are made under pressure, and right now, the pressure is climate change and AI,” said Jackie, who earned her Ph.D. at Caltech and begins a tenure-track faculty position at the University of Iowa this month.

Their discussion addresses the deployment gap between clean energy discoveries and the reliable, socially accepted systems needed for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to zero. 

“We’re still far from a sufficiently clean electricity system, not because we lack technology, but because of frictions in the real world,” Chenfei said, pointing to factors like unpriced pollution and income losses in fossil-fuel-dependent regions, like her home province in China.

Where momentum is building

In her Ph.D. at Tsinghua University, Chenfei studied China’s emissions trading system, which covers 60% of China’s emissions and almost 20% of global emissions. In her view, China laid the groundwork for carbon pricing in emerging economies that are now beginning to follow suit.

“In emerging economies especially, we are seeing momentum,” Chenfei said. “India, Turkey, Indonesia, and Vietnam are all piloting or expanding carbon pricing. It’s not perfect, but it’s movement. And it shifts the expectations of industry.”

This momentum is especially significant in countries with large manufacturing bases and growing energy demand, Chenfei explained. Raising the cost of carbon in these economies helps drive cleaner production at the source.

Jackie agreed that policy signals matter, and emphasized that not all policy tools operate in the same way, or on the same timeline. While carbon pricing can shape long-term expectations, she argued that many clean energy technologies are still constrained by cost in the near term, particularly in the United States.

“For a lot of these technologies, the problem is still cost,” Jackie said. “We want the cost to be lower.” 

Government interventions, such as subsidies, have driven prices down for buyers of newer energy technologies, like solar and wind power, and batteries. But as federal support becomes uncertain, private sector demand becomes the major driver of deployment. 

“Hyperscalers like Google and Microsoft are interested in 24/7 carbon-free power, and they want it yesterday,” Jackie observed. This demand is accelerating learning curves, particularly for clean firm power options like geothermal, nuclear, and carbon capture, which have remained expensive to develop and deploy despite subsidies. In her Ph.D, Jackie also looked at long-duration energy storage as an enabler of 24/7 carbon-free power systems. It appears corporate urgency is moving the needle on these deep decarbonization technologies, she explained.

Both fellows see the same principle at work: Clear, credible, and sustained signals, whether from policy or corporate commitments, create expectations that drive investment in cleaner technologies.

What stands in the way

Despite progress, the central obstacle to the energy transition is eliminating the “green premium,” Chenfei and Jackie agreed. The term, popularized by Bill Gates, means the extra cost of choosing a clean technology or pathway over the fossil fuel-based incumbent.

“We need to make clean options as cheap, or cheaper, than the dirty way of doing things,” Jackie explained.

At Stanford, her postdoctoral research addressed the challenge of achieving zero-emissions heat for industry and buildings. “For example, there are few options for producing steel with carbon-free, high-temperature heat. You can combust hydrogen, which is quite expensive, or keep using fossil fuels with carbon capture,” she explained. While some firms have electrified steel-making, these methods rely on the availability of cheap electricity to eliminate the green premium.

Chenfei countered that lowering costs alone won’t be enough. Eliminating the green premium also requires driving up the cost of polluting: “Fossil fuels feel free to burn, but they aren’t. Carbon pricing internalizes the externalities, like health and climate impacts, that we are all paying for.”

Jackie nodded. “That price gives scientists and engineers a target,” she said. “You’re setting the goal, and we’re trying to get there.” 

Setting that goal can prove politically fraught, as Chenfei explores in her postdoctoral research. She studies who benefits and who bears the costs of the energy transition, and how those impacts vary by region. Even well-designed policies to fairly price carbon are often delayed or diluted by concerns over short-term economic impacts and loss of competitiveness, she explained. For instance, countries with large industrial sectors are hesitant to impose strict domestic climate policies if countries with competing industries are not doing so.

The challenge, Chenfei said, is designing carbon pricing policies that can withstand those pressures.

What comes next

When asked what gives them hope, the postdocs pointed to the mounting pressure itself. Climate change and surging energy demand are tightening constraints on engineers and policymakers alike. But those same pressures are also accelerating innovation and forcing hard choices.

“The stakes are higher than ever to drive down the green premium,” said Jackie. “But diamonds are made under pressure, and I’m betting on innovation.”

As Jackie begins her faculty career and Chenfei continues her fellowship at Stanford, their conversation underscores that reaching net zero will depend not on one lever, but many, pulled in concert by all kinds of people.