Climate Change Solutions: What You Thought You Knew Is Obsolete
Here’s the legendary physicist/climate scientist Joe Romm delivering a talk whose title is the headline of this post, and here are a few quotes from the talk, along with my comments.
“Climate change will have as much impact on you and your family over the next 25 years as the Internet had over the past 25 years.”
Wow. That’s quite a statement, and there’s no reason to believe it isn’t true. Romm goes on to say, “Climate change will become the organizing principle for the 21st Century,” meaning that any individual or group that is even remotely associated with cleantech will be assiduously working on climate change mitigation as the only thing that really matters. This applies to universities, for-profit corporations, NGOs and governmental organizations. This is why, from a business perspective, I maintain that cleantech is destined to be the defining industry of this century, and certainy provides some incredible investment opportunities.
“This is the biggest threat to our American way of life.”
American? To be honest, as much as I admire Romm, it bugs me when I hear this, for a couple of reasons. First, Americans’ way of life is no more important that anyone else’s. Second, this is a global problem that demands solution. We either solve this problem for everyone on this planet, or we’re condemning ourselves and our children to incredible levels of suffering.
Coincidentally, I am helping one of the kids I’m tutoring in English to write an essay on the commencement address that late, great author David Foster Wallace gave to the graduating class of Kenyon College in 2005 that I encourage readers to check out. The theme:
We live our lives as if we are “the star of the show.” The people around us are like actors with bit parts in our show, whose job it is to get us through our days with friendship and support and a minimum of pain and frustration. We go through every waking (and dreaming) moment as if the entire world revolves around us. Other people’s suffering isn’t good, but the idea of our suffering is totally unacceptable. This focus on self is most pernicious because it’s unconscious. It’s the way we are wired; it’s our “default setting.” We take it for granted in our lives, like fish are unaware of the water in which they swim. The only real happiness we can achieve is by becoming aware of this self-centeredness, and begin to understand that the people around us have the same sorts of travails and feelings about those travails as we do ourselves.
It’s quite a thought, and one that applies nicely here. We’re not the only ones who matter.
“No moral society would allow this. In fact, no moral society would take even the slightest chance of this happening.”
I love this; he’s exactly right.
“If I were a betting man, I’d say that we will see a two degree temperature increase, but not three, because we’re not that stupid a species.”
I’d like to believe this, but in truth, there is not a shred of evidence to support this.
“The migration to renewables, efficiency, etc. is happening with the scale of the industrial revolution and the speed of the information revolution.”
Again, this is a really wonderful turn of phrase. Romm is one of my true heroes, and we can only hope he’s right in what he says here.
From the original article:
“American? To be honest, it bugs me when I hear this, for a couple of reasons. First, Americans’ way of life is no more important that anyone else’s. Second, this is a global problem that demands solution. We either solve this problem for everyone on this planet, or we’re condemning ourselves and our children to incredible levels of suffering.”
EXACTLY!!
Some of the proposed solutions would make almost zero difference because they ignore the rest of the world. Another problem is failure to use all the available information and run the numbers. Even the available information is inadequate. Moreover, taking adequate corrective action would require prosperous nations to provide most of the investment that poor nations require to get off of fossil fuels.
To evaluate renewables, it would be necessary to instal sensors in many of the locations where it would be practical to build a wind farm or a solar system. Then, the data would have to be collected over a period of years to determine how much power would be available and for what intervals the power would be inadequate. Using that data, it would be possible to determine the necessary capacity for various configurations of wind farms and solar installations, and determine how much storage would be required. THAT STUDY HAS NEVER BEEN DONE!! Instead, there are assumptions and guesswork on which decisions are being made. That is not rational.
Until proper quantitive studies are made, I will continue to support nuclear power as the only power system which has been proven to be capable of preventing or mitigating a disaster. Statements made by people with impressive letters after their names are not proof.
No one is going to survey the whole world before anyone installs solar or wind. What they do is survey the proposed installation location for example the Wind farm and then use measurements of windspeed and historical data to predict the potential of the site, if this is to low and not economically viable why would they build there?
As for solar based on location the angle of the sun and duration of sunlight per day is easily calculated, as are the potential cloudy days.
This is the reason wind and solar are given low capacity factors as the energy supply is intermittent.
Roy Wagner
I think Frank is referring to large scale, government subsidized power generation on a global scale, rather than individual installations or specialist applications.
The economics of even modest Wind Farms usually depend upon a utility to purchase the generating capacity. That’s when the economics becomes challenging.
As you rightly point out, intermittent power supply can be useful, but it can also create grid problems. When regulatory policies are designed to camouflage the economics, the taxpayer/consumer pays the costs of an inadequate and inefficient system.
Carbon and other emissions are a global problem,( we only have one biosphere), it’s Frank’s contention that any really effective solution must be implemented on the basis of global analysis.
Any global analysis must include demand by industrial nations and industrializing nations. Any technology proposed on a large scale must provide sufficient power to all users on a reasonably economic basis.
‘Market’ economics only work if a competitive environment exists for all participants and extends throughout the supply chain.
Subsidies, regulatory favouritism, etc can provide benefits for new technology, but also distort any economic analysis.
Isn’t it logical that a global problem, needs a global survey, to construct a global solution ?
Maarcopolo,
You accurately stated my position.
I have since posted a quotation by Lord Kelvin. I don’t know why I didn’t think of it sooner since I am familiar with Lord Kelvin’s work. Among numbers other things, he was largely responsible for the success of the first successful trans Atlantic telegraph cable.
Frank Eggers: You need to dig deeper. This data has been available for over a decade and has been refined since then.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html
For solar insolation, there is a similar map:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/
Here (for fun) is a dynamic wind map: http://hint.fm/wind/
I believe you are too hasty in your assessment. Your statement about irrational decisions is just poorly informed, imo.
Ron,
In looking at the data in the first link, I noticed that they list average and mean wind speeds. I don’t doubt that that would indicate how much power is available on AVERAGE, but that approach would not be able to determine the seriousness of periods of too little wind. In other words, it might be possible to instal wind farms which would have an average total output far greater than requirements but still have periods during which the total power output was far less than requirements. Their methodology would not detect that problem regardless of how serious it might be.
The average available power could be FIVE TIMES requirements, but there could still be periods when the available power would be only half of what is required.
I believe that my approach is very rational.
Hi Frank,
As usual, I find myself in complete agreement with your analysis.
Sadly, this week an entire Australian State (South Australia), found itself without electricity due to a cataclysmic weather event. When a massive storm hit the state’s vulnerable power distribution networks resulting in the total shat down of the grid.
The grid which relies upon importing base load power from the neighboring State of Victoria, (coal and gas)shut down to protect the grid from damage caused by imbalance. Wind Power generation ceased as the turbines shut down to avoid damage during the storm.
The damage has been extensive and the State badly inconvenienced. Luckily, there was no loss of life, today most of the State will have power restored in time to watch what’s really important, the televised Australian Rules Football Grand Final !
The State of South Australia has aggressively invested in Wind Power. Although the Wind turbines closed during the storm, none were excessively damaged and commenced functioning again once the storm abated.
The event should have proved to be a valuable opportunity to learn and improve power systems and infrastructure, but instead turned into a pathetic political quarrel between various vested interests, each seeking to manipulate the event for political advantage.
a) Various conservatives sought to blame renewable power for shutting down despite the fact that the principle reason was damage to the distribution network.
c) The centre Left opposition blamed the conservative Federal Government but offered no explanation of why.
d) The more extreme Left and Greens claimed that since this was the worst storm in 58 years, it’s proof of the growing effects of climate change created by Victoria’s production of power from coal and natural gas. ( they offered no explanation for the storm 58 years before).
Nearly all the media coverage was devoted to this totally irrelevant bleating.
In my opinion, the event in South Australia was an entirely natural weather event, unrelated to “climate change, and significant only because it hit a heavily populated area instead of being confined to the vast, sparsely populated South Australian expanse. Like meteorite strikes, these events are random and difficult to predict.
The Wind Power installations proved remarkably resilient, but also reliant on base load power in a emergency.
The real lesson was the vulnerability of the grid and distribution infrastructure.
The more I read of the Japanese (and now Swiss) efforts to develop micro thorium based power plants with very secure distribution infrastructure, the more convinced I am of the value of such technology.
Marcopolo,
It looks as though you have thoroughly and objectively analyzed the situation. Unfortunately, that is unusual.
I wonder how many people realize that power interruptions can cause serious problems. For example, in SA, steel mills owners were concerned that molten steel might harden where it should not and thereby create very serious problems.
On a slightly related note, one source of CO2 emissions is reducing iron oxide to iron by reducing it with carbon. Obviously we want to eliminate that source of CO2 emissions. Aluminum (known also as aluminium) is reduced from its oxide ore by electrolysis. Iron can similarly be reduced by electrolysis but I don’t know whether there is yet an efficient and practical way to do it. In any case, reducing iron with electrolysis would require considerable energy. The minimum amount of energy to do so can easily be calculated by people who know how to do it (I don’t), but the actual amount of energy would be likely to be far greater.
Probably I should do some google searches and see what has been written on this.
Hi marco Polo, Your comments on South Australia power all correct,and shows the problems where wind power is used and relies on coal fired back up when wind is too strong and wind turbines have to shut down. Many power pylons were blown over too. Have variable pitch turbine blades been tried or are they too expensive? I understand 1 or 2 MW Battery storage units are being tried on some networks to smooth power demand. Has S. A. any installed.?
Hi Roger,
I’m afraid I’m not an expert in South Australia’s power industry.
The damage done to infrastructure (much of which was aging) was pretty extensive.
My annoyance was with all sides of politics who sort to make political capital form a natural disaster.
The intermittent nature of Wind and Solar generation does present problems in engineering distribution infrastructure. (grid).
It’s my belief that although some of these problems can be overcome with cumbersome storage facilities etc, it would be more productive to simply start with a more efficient and more compatible generating technology.
I like the promise of micro-thorium generating plants. These plants have the potential to produce vast amounts of low cost power on demand. Another advantage of these plants being located underground close to the heaviest power users, is security of supply during storms etc, while distribution and transmission losses would become greatly reduced.
The Japanese estimate the potential cost of constructing such a generating facilities at less than $350 million each for a 300MW output. The cost of thorium mining processing and transporting is only a fraction of uranium, and there are no re-processing costs.
Thorium reactors are totally safe, (no meltdowns etc) and produce only tiny amounts of waste with a very short toxic life.
The largely automated plants (if well maintained), could be expected to remain in service for over 150 years.
As for guarantee of supply, 5,000 tons of thorium could supply the annual global energy demand ! Australia possesses enough proven deposits to satisfy world demand for zero emission energy for 20,000 years !
In comparison, the world largest solar facility costing more than $11 billion, has an output of maybe 500 MW. Wind turbines cost as much as $3-4 million to install and 2MW.
The life expectancy of Wind and Solar installations is maybe only 20% of a Thorium installation, while the additional costs in transmission,distribution, grid wear and tear, and additional back-up/base load facilities all need to be calculated.
I accept that Wind and Solar could be made more functional, but the question remains, why bother when there are so much better technologies in which to invest ?
Marcopolo,
From what I have read, it appears that no more thorium would need to be mined for many years. Thorium occurs with rare earth elements and currently is discarded because there is currently little use for it.
Thorium has been used to increase the electron emissivity of cathodes in vacuum tubes but even before vacuum tubes were practically phased out, that required very little thorium. It was also used for gas light mantles, but that has largely been phased out too. It is used for optical lens coatings, but obviously that does not require much thorium.
So, there is a lot of thorium sitting around that will never be used unless it is used for nuclear reactors.
Hi Frank,
Yes that very true.
Here is a quotation by Lord Kelvin which I should use more often:
““When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
That expresses very clearly my attitude towards intermittent sources of power. As near as I can tell, there have not been credible quantitive analyses to determine whether it will ever be possible for intermittent sources of power to reduce CO2 emissions to an acceptable level, i.e., near zero.
Early on, Lord Kelvin realized that progress in science and electricity required accurate measuring instruments which he developed. I’m convinced that he advanced the state of science by many years by his realization of the importance of accurate measurement and developing instruments to measure accurately.
If more people who are concerned with CO2 emissions would follow Lord Kelvin’s example of insisting on accurate measurements and acting on them, surely we could reduce CO2 emissions more quickly. Instead, people are basing decisions on guess work instead of accurate quantitive data.
Hi Frank,
Yes indeed more scientifically accurate analysis, and less emotive speculation and unsupported advocacy.
We all suffer due to lack of education regarding the climate change impact on our daily lives and economy. Our governments show concern at UN Conference while reading technical reports prepared by their experts. Their main concern is how to get the finance. Our banks do not play their roles and the Equatorial funding is non existant.
The World Bank efforts is not really achieving any results .
Why.
Ajaye,
I’m not sure what you mean by “Equatorial”, do you mean ‘Equitable’ ,or are you referring to the Equator ?
The World Bank, IMF and similar institution are not ‘Banks’ in normal sense of a Bank. The World Bank has 189 shareholders or members who provide funding.
The World Bank’s mission is to help developing nations with low cost loans, guarantees and access to financial markets. The WB also provides advice, research, technical and scientific advice.
It’s a huge organization, and has been instrumental in assisting billions out of poverty.
Public funding for ‘green’ energy projects has been on an unparalleled scale. Fortunately, while much of the funding has been wasted on unrealistic projects, funding for R&D has resulted in substantial progress.
Governments don’t have access to a “money tree”, all funding must come at the expense of the taxpayer, and the general economy. In the end governments of even the richest countries. must explain to their citizens why they are taking money from other governmental services.
Over the years there has been a cry to “make polluters pay”. This sort of advocacy is usually from the leftist side of politics and becomes very popular until Joe Public realizes that the “polluters” either just pass on the cost to consumers, or move to a country with more a more economically friendly environment.
For governments, it’s a very difficult task to balance the needs of the environment, with the need to keep the economy competitive enough to create a surplus that can be invested in promoting cleaner technology.
Private banks, are not charitable institutions. The Law in most countries requires Bank Directors to safeguard the interest of shareholder, depositors and creditors. Private Banks exist to make money !
Private banks will happily invest in risky ventures and new technology as long as a secure and credit worthy national government will guarantee not only return of capital, but profit.
Unfortunately, not all new clean technology lives up to the expectations and claims of promoters and advocates.
Marcopolo,
I have read uncomplimentary things about the World Bank but am in no position to evaluate them.
According to one book I read, much of the money loaned by the World Bank to developing countries ends up going into the pockets of corrupt politicians. Then, the countries which have borrowed the money end up even more impoverished when they have to make repayments which they cannot afford. Probably that doesn’t happen in all cases, but I don’t doubt that it sometimes happens.
Probably the solution lies in more careful monitoring.
Equatorial funds have been put in place by the world bank to access net to zero carbon projects. About 80 banks were selected to manage the funds.
Unfortunately we are Small island estate and cannot get fundings to develop our project .We are under Notification of Approval by UNFCCC.
We must develop a PDD on green cement and thermal and resilient concrete.
blah – blah – blah month after month after month. “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of those people who are evil but because of the people who don’t do anything about it” ~Albert Einstein
If you’re like me, (which you all obviously are not )you are feeling a strong sense of responsibility to empower a bigger fix for the global warming issue than what we are seeing thus far, a fix on the scale of the Marshal Plan that enabled the rebuilding of Europe after World War Two. Scientists now report that we only have a few years left to transform our society to a renewable energy (zero-carbon) economy if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. So what should our role be in creating this all-important transformation? And who among us can deny that solar and wind energy alone will not suffice to meet this urgent need?