When Does the Future Begin for Renewable Energy?
Duke Brooks asks:
Renewable/green energy without question is the future; the question is: When, exactly, does that future begin?
Here are a few ways I would choose to frame this:
The vast majority of our scientists tell us that climate change is already manifest, evidenced by the startling increase in extreme weather events, the melting of the glaciers, the measurable rises in the sea levels, etc.
The pH of the oceans is falling, potable water is becoming scarcer, food shortages are becoming more frequent and widespread, and there are dozens of other environmental horrors unfolding as I write this note.
The planet has plenty of crude oil left, but it comes at an increasingly terrible cost: financially, ecologically, and militarily.
In the U.S. the leading consulting firms predict that our grid-mix will feature at least 35% coal for the foreseeable future, loading our atmosphere with, not only CO2, but with toxins too numerous to list in this short piece.
I’m reminded of my talk with Jerry Taylor at the Cato Institute, who suggested as follows: In the next decade, there is little danger of catastrophe, though we agree there is a great danger 100 years from now. Our suggestion, therefore, is that we take minimal action now in terms of a tax on carbon, but a big one a century from now when the problem becomes severe.
Apparently this logic makes sense to Mr. Taylor, and a heck of a lot of other people, but it’s totally lost on me. We have identified a threat to the survival of humankind that is expanding in its consequences daily, but we want to postpone its mitigation until we’re all gasping for our last breaths? We realize that we have a problem that we could handle now, albeit at a cost, but we suggest that whatever is left of society 50-or-so years hence should deal with the costs that, by that time, will have grown exponentially?
Sorry, I’m lost.
Same old, same old… long cycle events don’t get the attention of the vast majority of us humans. We’re too used to being able to mitigate a situation in real time – Bear coming after me, must run. And when there is money involved, we always rationalize towards the near term profit vs. the long term success. Cato is about as conservative as it gets, so that one is pretty easy to predict.
I must admit that I get philosophically caught up in the ‘why’ it is so important to mitigate these coming events. It is increasingly difficult for me to personally rationalize why we need to make the world of the future safe for ever more people, and therefore exponentially increasing poverty and warfare. I realize it is an unpopular subject, but we already have too many people for the arable land and the potable water, just to name a couple of the critical subjects.
Just like we have market corrections, so too will we face certain ecological corrections. Aside from an overly large rock hitting us, humanity will soldier on. Most armageddon scenarios are grossly overrated in terms of extinction level events. Its the nature of the life that leftover humanity will have that becomes intensely speculative.
Craig,
In the end, we only have so many resources… As the nuclear fleet retires, it’s not going to be replaced at anywhere near the same rate of retirement… so the next two decades we’ll see all of the investment in renewables and natural gas expansion barely keep up with the loss of nuclear power… coal will continue to be used because there won’t be sufficient alternatives to coal available.
Wind will grow – but right now it’s at 4%. Solar will grow, but right now it’s at ~0.1%. But nuclear power is at 20%. There’s no way the renewables can grow to encompass an additional 20% very quickly… and natural gas will likely contract in the near term, then gradually expand thereafter…
We are only spending so much money, so we can only transition so quickly. That SHOULD mean that we should target spending our money in the most responsible way that we can – seeking the most “bang for the buck”… but no-one seems interested in advocating that.