New Energy Paradigm–It Could Happen
It is true that humankind may be the beneficiary of a radical new approach to energy that will come along and save us from the vast environmental damage that our use of fossil fuels is wreaking upon our planet. Of course, planning on a miracle is not responsible policy; thus the imperative to ramp up efficiency solutions, renewables, smart-grid, advanced nuclear, etc., in an effort to guide us quickly and effectively to a low-carbon energy future.
Having said this, it was on this day in 1900 that the physicist Max Planck (pictured here with Albert Einstein) published his theory of quantum mechanics, which stood the entire scientific community on its ear. This was even before Einstein’s theory of special relativity (1905), meaning that, at the time, there wasn’t an iota of an idea that the universe did not conform entirely to Newtonian mechanics. It’s hard to imagine how shocked people of the day must have been.
Anything can happen here. Let’s hope for it, but not plan on it.
I’m reminded of this snippet from my third book: “Renewable Energy—Following the Money,” in which I summarized my interview with Jerry Taylor, spokesperson for the CATO Institute as follows:
Jerry believes that our civilization is not duty-bound to take preventative measures against climate change because we don’t have adequate visibility into the future. This does not hold water with me. Yes, we could be saved by a great number of things, e.g., a new technology or some unforeseeable event in the cosmos. But society’s depending on the unknown to halt the destruction of our environment is not sane, responsible behavior.
Ever since the Manhattan project followed by the space race to the moon there has been an undercurrent of cultural intuition that science can progress on demand. Certainly we have the ability to massively marshal resources and pursue ideas with determination, but outcomes are never assured. Witness cancer. Then there is the converse in which we abstain from certain pathways with almost equal determination – advanced fission reactors as an example. Given the sheer numerical size of the problem I find it hard to imagine we won’t, at some point, reexamine the various possibilities we have thus far factored out of the equation.
Good points.
I am especially concerned about our failure to do research for advanced fission reactors which could potentially eliminate most of the problems associated with our pressurized water uranium reactors. At the very least we need a “plan B” to put into effect if renewables are unable to do what people hope that they will do. Fortunately China IS doing research on the liquid fluoride thorium reactor which may turn out to be of major importance in phasing out fossil fuels. But considering the importance of phasing out fossil fuels, I think that we should be doing research on multiple reactor types until we can determine for sure which one would be the best choice for “plan B”.
Well I find your comments disingenuous Craig as I have mostly seen you play the comfortable role of the skeptic when it comes to out of the box exotic technologies. Its easy to play the role of the arm chair skeptic. Where courageous people venture is to seek out those risking much to bring forward real time solutions that will rock the energy world and offer their support and help. However typically enormous odds are stacked against them as the world is full of arm chair skeptics who choose the safe road as they will not risk their reputation as level headed arm chair skeptics less they risk their tarnishing their reputations and livelihoods.
Its pretty clear to me to me you have taken this role. You have said look if you can provide me with clear evidence and working prototypes I will pay attention. Easy isn’t to say this? There are many important solutions unfolding but they struggle and they need supporters, helpers, not skeptics. Even if you picked 20 of these projects and moved mountains to help…and one was a key winner who made it…I rest my case. I rarely visit your blog because of this attitude you hold. you can do better.
Chas,
A different approach would be to support one technology unequivocally and condemn those who favor exploring a different approach. Unlike the Sierra Club et al, Craig has not done that. Instead, he has, although he emphasizes renewables, not discouraged those of us who feel that nuclear power must be a large part of the solution.
We don’t all have the same rôle to play. I think that it’s better to take the “armchair” approach than to encourage blindly every odd idea that comes along or to censor everyone with whom one disagrees.
I appreciate your candor. Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/12/24/new-energy-ideas/.
It is not likely that the masses will follow the edicts of disingenuous faux leaders who preach global warming hysteria while taking opulent vacations to all parts of the globe. While global warming is occurring for one or more reasons, if mankind is going to alter the course of history in a positive way, we must find a leader who provides an example that we can emulate.
High technology provides a way to communicate globally without leaving an obscene carbon footprint. I will vote for a climate change denier who lives a modest lifestyle and would conserve our natural resources and tax dollars before I could ever vote for hypocrites that believe self sacrifice is for the peons who they keep in line with crumbs that they throw to the duped low information voter.
Indonesia is going the Thorcon MSR route, I really hope this works out.
http://thorconpower.com/library/announcements/indonesiaexploringliquidfuel
And no…
http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/business/indonesia-vows-no-nuclear-power-2050/
This seems to contradict the preceding article.
Good news, but I do have a reservation.
The Chinese are doing basically the same thing. Rather than duplicate the Chinese efforts, it would seem to be more efficient to share with them. I hope that the efforts will bear fruit and result in a power technology that is economical, safe, efficient, and reliable. If so, we in the U.S. may end up buying the technology from them even though we actually started it and successfully built a prototype. They are benefiting from our experience which is fine; we should not have dropped it.
I second Chas Learned’s post. Craig prefers to turn away from viable and disruptive solutions in order to keep his blog in position to continue running defense for the status quo.
Les,
Could you be more specific and state what “viable and disruptive solutions” Craig has turned away from?
“We may need to solve some problems not by removing the cause but by designing the way forward even if the cause remains in place.”
~ Edward de Bono
de Bono correctly points out that the term “problem solving” implies that there is but a single problem to respond to, and that it can be resolved. That doesn’t take into account situations where there is really no problem at all, where a large and/or complex problem exists that cannot be completely resolved no matter what is done (like global warming and climate change) and situations where many problems exist that could all be dealt with at once, (again like global warming and climate change) but progress is being stymied since many still perceive themselves to be benefitting from the old order and won’t even acknowledge that more changes must be undertaken for the good of all.. ~ Les Blevins
Len Hering spoke to attendees at the Energy, Utility & Environment Conference in San Diego, Calif. Source: POWER/Aaron Larson
“I honestly believe the EPA and the utilities are both on the wrong track, clean and simple,” Hering said, suggesting that the transition needs to happen at “five times the pace that these folks are talking about.”
“The truth is, distributed generation is the answer, and the chaos that’s needed in the utility sector is needed today,” adding “If the energy companies can’t figure out how to get there from here, we’re going to figure it out on our own.”
And Hering isn’t the only one pointing out the trend toward distributed generation. “The utilities have had their world turned upside down as a result of the installation of rooftop solar systems by their customers,” said Greg Odegard, principal of GO Global Environmental.
Probably he’s right that fossil fuels should be phased out at “five times the pace that these folks are talking about”. Even if we did, climate change would continue to occur for some time longer because it lags changes in CO2 levels.
Whether distributed generation is the answer is being debated. However, the fastest way to reduce CO2 emissions would be to build, as fast as possible, more pressurized water reactor nuclear plants. That is not a good nuclear technology for permanent use, but it would be the fastest way to replace fossil fuel plants. Then, as better power technologies are developed, the pressurized water reactor nuclear plants could be gradually phased out.
The risks of that mediocre nuclear technology are far less than the risks associated with reducing CO2 emissions too slowly. And, the nuclear waste created could eventually be destroyed by using it as fuel for a better nuclear technology.
If we’re talking about the ‘status quo’ of fossil fuel dominance, Craig has been soundly attacking it – not defending it – consistently and continuously, for many years.
Along the way, he has freely granted miles of print space to a great many people who have agendas that are not neatly aligned with his own.
That said, he doesn’t waste his time with attempts at technology that his substantial knowledge of physics and business strategy doesn’t permit him to honorably support.
Claims to the contrary seem to me to be little more than a fine whine from sour grapes.
Thanks. I wasn’t going to comment, but I’m glad you did. 🙂
It struck me as a strange remark, insofar as I’ve published more than two million words over the past six years, and appeared on hundreds of radio and TV shows, all with one consistent message: the need to eradicate our 20th Century conceptions of energy generation and consumption in favor of renewables, efficiency, storage, smart-grid, utility re-regulation, EVs, etc. I was a bit bemused that an intelligent and sincere reader could get that so completely wrong.
Again, thanks; I wasn’t going to say anything until I saw your most gracious comment.
It was merely the truth, but you’re quite welcome. :):
I sometimes feel that I have spent my life watching people solve problems. There seems to be many ways to approach problems and probably no one method works in every situation, but hope and imagination seems to be a valid part of any plan.
Sometimes we try to conserve our mental effort and only try to solve the mysteries of how to hinder competition. Sometimes we only try to engineer the methods to cobble together what already exists. Sometimes we tackle only the human problems and at other times we approach the technical issues. Mostly I have observed adaptation rather then invention.
Invention seems to first require a broader vision of what is needed or the future. Maybe we could even call it an “imagination.” Having an imagination seems to make us uncomfortable at times. Perhaps it is because we seem to be traveling to a place with little company.
Supposedly John Jay formalized an English Proverb about hope with “To hope for the best and prepare for the worst, is a trite but a good maxim.” http://www.planningskills.com/tips/40.php It is not by accident that the cite is from a blog on “planning skills.” Hope may also require an imagination and both may be a good balancing part of any plan that is otherwise based in facts and experience.
How is it even possible to make a plan without some hope that it will succeed? How is it possible to formulate a plan without some imagination of possible needs and outcomes? The real question should not be how much we will limit our hope or imagination. Rather we should imagine widely and as deeply as you possibly dare and then subject the wealth of possibilities to practical constraints of time and money. If we limit our hope and our imagination out of fear that we can’t pay for them, we may find that we are always impoverished.
“However, the fastest way to reduce CO2 emissions” As I have been saying since 2007, the fastest and least expensive way to reduce CO2 emissions is to improve the efficiency of existing buildings. Worldwide the built environment uses 30% of the energy and produces 30% of the CO2 emissions. In the USA it is 40%. It is why a whole day of the two weeks of meetings in Paris was devoted to the built environment and the importance of improving the efficiency of existing buildings.
I like to think that the future of energy is distributed power with many small local producers helping bring greater balance to a shared system much like the rural electrification program.
Wonderful point about building efficiency. I salute you for your many years of solid work in this all-important industry.
I’ll have a post up soon about your point on distributed generation.
Improving the efficiency of existing buildings would be helpful but it could come nowhere near to solving the problem of CO2 emissions. As poor countries strive to lift their people out of poverty, world power demand will probably increase by about four times. And, about 90% of our power will have to come from non-CO2 emitting sources, including power for heating, cooling, cooking, lighting increased sea water desalination, transportation, manufacturing, etc.
I certainly would not argue against improving building efficiency, but building inefficiency is only a fraction of the problem.
Here is something else that could be done. It would not make a great difference, but it would help.
CHANGE COMPANY DRESS CODES!
Some years ago I was in a bank in the La Jolla area of San Diego. The air conditioning had failed and it was uncomfortably hot, yet the employees were still wearing coats and ties. If company dress codes were changed so that employees could be comfortable at somewhat higher temperatures, then less power would be used for air conditioning. Japan did that, at least for a while, when closing down some of their nuclear plants was causing rolling power outages.
Surely businesses could run just as well if employees were wearing short sleeve shirts instead of coats and ties.
I never said that improving building efficiency solves CO2 emissions, it is just the change we can make with the fastest and greatest impact. The energy we do not use does not pollute at all!
As the rest of the world becomes affluent enough to buy a fridge and install lights and the other amenities we take for granted wouldn’t it be great if we could be a role model on how to efficiently use energy instead of being a roll model for energy waste?
The short answer: Yes!
Can you provide links to some of the work you’ve done in this space?
Some of us have already made an effort to improve building efficiency. I previously owned a house on which I replaced the old single-glazed windows with double-glazed windows, but that was the only change that I could make to improve the efficiency. It would have been impossible to insulate the walls of that house and the heating boiler was already 85% efficient so replacing it could not have been justified.
For my new house, I specified 2″ x 6″ studs for the exterior walls so that they could be better insulated; the code requires only 2″ x 4″. I considered having it constructed with insulated concrete forms which would have been more efficient but the cost would have been excessive and could never have been recovered since the return on the investment would have exceeded the mortgage interest rate. Also, every house that is built is eventually resold and it looked as though buyers would not be willing to pay more for the additional energy efficiency. The house also has radiant floor heat which is somewhat more efficient and would make it possible at a future date to have solar heating. It has tube-type indirect fluorescent lighting throughout which is reasonably efficient.
There is a limit to the extent that existing buildings can be made more energy efficient. Also, if the there is a chance that the building will be sold before the additional cost pays off, there is no incentive to spend the additional money. A possible solution would be to educate buyers so that they would be willing to pay more for energy efficiency, but that could not be quickly done. Attempts to do so have met with considerable resistance.
The push for solar power has, for some reason, practically ignored solar heating. In an attempt to find out why, I attended a meeting which included representatives of a company which installs PV panels. I pointed out that the efficiency of PV panels is usually less than 16% whereas the efficiency of solar collectors to heat water generally greatly exceeds 50% so it seemed to me that it would make more sense to instal solar systems to heat buildings and provide hot water. A PV representative said that the maintenance required for solar systems to heat water is greater because they have moving parts, i.e., pumps, whereas PV systems have no moving parts. I saw his point as invalid because high quality pumps can easily last 20 years and the electronics associated with PV panels also sometimes cause problems, but I chose not to argue the point. It’s interesting that PV installers rarely provide figures to compare the investment in PV systems with alternative investments.
Probably no rational person would argue against improving energy efficiency, but I think that the speed and degree to which it would be practical to implement it has been greatly exaggerated considering the large number of existing buildings. France went from zero nuclear power to 80% nuclear power for electricity in only 17 years. Improving building efficiency would be unlikely to reduce CO2 emissions by nearly as much or as quickly.