We Can’t Get There From Here

The Earth's ecological systems are to complex for us to completely comprehend. Therefore man's best efforts to control pollution, greenhouse gases, etc are likely to fail. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but the odds are, when we replace a known pollutant, the replacement will be harmful in it's own way. Too much of anything is not good, and we have reached the point where anything we do is too much.

In the 1960's there was talk of the problem of overpopulation. The merits of a two child policy, which would result in a gradual decline in population, were debated. We have reached the point where it is the only sure solution for the energy, pollution, and resource problems we face. Earth has a remarkable ability to clean up after us, but Mother Nature can only change so many of man's diapers, and we have exceeded her ability. A two child policy would result in a gradual reduction in our numbers, until we get back to a number the earth can support.

The idea of population reduction was not very popular with big business, and it won't be now. Their business models are dependant on selling more widgets this year than last, and more still next year. But they can live with it. Big business would still be able to increase their sales by selling new products, just look at how much stuff the average person has today that didn't exist in the 60's - and by selling to emerging economies.

Solving the world's problems is challenging, but we certainly make a serious dent in the US energy budget. Using the figures from the US Statistical Abstract (p. 576), 1200 nuclear plants would provide all the US electrical needs. If we are content with just displacing all fossil usage, 253 new nuclear plant would suffice, just 5 per state. Cheer up!

By making cars that use 80% less energy and by generating 2 to 3 times as much electric power without increasing the amount of fuel needed, we can begin to see a path to success.

We have to rethink the way we build cars and we have to get away from the central power station concept and we can be on the way to winning the battle.

See a plan at http://www.miastrada.com (No products are for sale there, though I have a hopeful future interest in Miastrada.)

Sharon Begley says that to rescue the greenhouse would require us ".. to build 10,000 reactors, or one every other day, starting now." Well, that has a precedent on a similar scale in another world in crisis. Eighteen American shipyards built 2,751 Liberty Ships between 1941 and 1945, according to Wikipedia. That is about two 10,000 ton ships every day. It would seem that the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was written with exactly such a plan in mind. Roger Clifton, Darwin, Australia

Great article Sharon. But, there is no mention of nuclear power on the White House website.

Has it not occurred to any of these people that there is a simple (but apparently not easy) way to reduce our energy requirements: limit, or (gasp!) even reduce by voluntary means, our population, especially the population of high-energy-use countries? Waiting for "transformational" breakthroughs has two fundamental flaws:

1. If we do not succeed in achieving these breakthroughs, then mass starvation and dieoff will result after the effects of Peak Oil filter through our economies.

2. If we do succeed in achieving these breakthroughs, with an "essentially infinite" capacity, then mass starvation and dieoff will result, due to the continued loss of biodiversity as the current anthropogenic "Sixth Great Extinction" really kicks into high gear, as ocean fish stocks are further depleted or eradicated, as "peak soil" becomes a reality, as water shortages are made even worse (read "Blue Gold" for an interesting take on this issue), and generally as our very negative impact on this planet in so many ways comes back to bite us in the butt.

Nothing grows forever, not even a cancer. At some point, we have to come to terms with our near-psychotic addiction to growth, or it will set its own terms for us.

Not to worry. The earth has not warmed one iota over the past ten years. The oceans are no longer warming. The Antarctic sea ice is well above average. The Arctic sea ice is recovering. Even the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere may be decreasing. Perhaps you should prepare more for cooler weather.

Yes, we will probably burn the rest of our accessible fossil fuel reservers by around 2050, with atmospheric CO2 in the 500-550 ppm range. Currently, the statistics do not support aggressive intervention: seal level has been relatively stable since 2006, and is not exceeding trend in any event. Global temperatures (HADCRUT) have declined since 1998; sea ice (north+south) is normal for the 1979-2000 period. Barring a significant upturn in temps, we will probably burn through our fossil fuel reserves.

There is no need for a tech breakthrough for solar today. No, not weak, flimsy thin film. The real deal - mono/poly cells. The cost of making solar-grade wafers is dropping from a 2007 high of nearly $400/kg spot market, to below $25/kg - as it used to be in 2002 before the 6 companies who controlled wafers jacked the price. China is becoming the largest poly/mono wafer producer, They've reduced their plans due to the Bush Collapse, but they will still be producing 20% efficient cells at < $1 W in 2012 - and it should hit <1 W installed in 2014 for grid-connected apps. So that is $.10/kWh in 2013 and $.07/kWh in 2018. Watch. China will be producing more new solar than new coal by 2019. An that is a lot of GW.

Compare that to coal, our current e-staple. We've used up most of the easy/good coal, and increasing must build lignite plants. The expected price of 1 GW plants will go from today's $1.3B to $1.7B in the next decade - plus inflation. The cost of CO2 scrubbing - if it is feasible - will add another 50%. And increasing coal demand from China (who will not turn the corner to need less fossil plants until maybe 2022) will drive coal prices up. So coal looks grim by 2018.

Where we need tech breakthroughs: e-storage. Until we have ultracapcitors made from plentiful silicon (or carbon) nano-tubes, we'll have to make do with increasingly pricy lithium batteries, and we won't be able to depend on them: we have massive storage. So yes we can do 10 TW PV capacity by 2050. And yes we can build new buildings with BIPV, and use DC, and save 50% of the current e-waste (which is 70% of generation.) But we'll still need a fast-on, fast-off, alternative to alternative generators.

So read it and weep. China is on track to kick our dithering asses in doing solar and wind. While we're listing to so-called experts saying "it can't be done". How freaking embarrassing. A factory to produce wafers, cells, and modules is less than $400m in China now, and that will produce 1GW new PV each year. We could automate a lot of that...

There is no doubt technological break through are a big part of better and greener style of life on this planet.
But it seems the implementation and use of those technologies is an even greater obstacle.

Given the technology already available that is unused and unimplemented the barrier to change would appear to be at the grass roots level.

For example it would be a very simple thing to convert literally every building in the country to a DC lighting system.
Anyone who has tract lighting in their home already has it. Halogen lights use 12 volts dc yet are supplied with 120 VAC from that very inefficient "grid.
Each light requires a rather bulky transformer to convert the supplied electricity to 12vdc contributing even more to the inefficiency.
Yet for some unknown reason no one has ever converted the lighting in buildings to a DC system on a broad scale.
It would indeed require some minor manufacturing to make the fixtures more suitable to a home rather than your RV and to convert existing light fixtures such as tract lighting to a 12VDC supply,

Eliminating the bulky transformers and a relatively simple rewiring of the home lighting system to a low voltage supply with a solar charger or even a small wind turbine on the roof. (Available at your local boating supply) is about all that would be required.

The reduction on demand of the grid would be tremendous. This technology has been available for thirty years or more, and the change over of every home in the country could be accomplished in under twelve months

When Edison's assistant proclaimed "Everyone could have their own power source" it was Edison who saw the value of selling the power and we still buy into that idea; perhaps out of shear laziness.
If power were supplied by Co-gen turbines on a local basis similar to those used to power offshore platforms over time the "grid" would be eliminated.
Turbines can be run on a wide range of fuel even moving water and wind.

In 1492 they came from across the ocean, they took the breath of life from millions of natives, they destroyed the land, clear cut the forests, took the minerals, poisoned the water, polluted the air, stopped the rivers from flowing, wiped out the salmon, obliterated the four legged and winged beings, today they seek solutions to their reckless behavior and yet in 2009 while the polar caps melt and the land dies they including their scientists are still to arrogant to accept 10,000 years of native wisdom that could reverse the destruction of the planet.
xoje:???-tilte???

The other engineers beat me to it, but WOW! what bad math. This isn't some little mistakes, there should be a full page correction article.

I"m all for reducing emissions and improving efficiency, but articles like this make people think things are much worse than they are.

Part 2 Yes, it???s extremely late. We need a crash program now, which is not the cheapest or most efficient way to do things. If we hadn???t listened all along to people and institutions like DOE, which are virtually inseparable from the huge corporations and wealthy coal, oil and nuclear-pushing people they are supposed to regulate, we wouldn???t be in this mess. But we did, and we are, and now we and they have to live with it. Let???s stop letting them get in our way and get on with what we need: conservation, decentralized residential and business solar and wind, and larger solar, wind, tidal, cogeneration and other clean energy where and when it???s required. Solar complements wind; rooftop/parking lot solar complement electric cars. Together they will add up to more than each alone, provide backup and storage and reduce the need for each. We start where we are and get bigger exponentially, the way we built warplanes, tanks, guns, ships, trucks and other military machines by the millions in World War 2, and the way we are already exponentially increasing solar and wind in this country and the world.
If it takes an army, so what? We have one???one that would be helping national security far more by building windmills than by invading and occupying countries that are no threat to us, or preparing to fight avoidable wars.
People who don???t know but say ???no??? mystify me. What is it in their personal experience that makes them sure we can???t do something we haven???t even tried yet, when they are quite clearly ignorant of the true facts and haven???t studied the problems and solutions nearly enough to say anything with certainty? Or is their motivation in their paychecks? (Exxon and other corporations have huge and growing lobbying and disinformation programs to stop the development of the alternatives we need.)
What we need is to pull together toward a better energy system and society???with solar, wind, and conservation???cheaper, faster, better energy sources that will increase our democracy and security while bringing us more in line with an ecological, preservable way of life.

I agree with you that it would be crazy to give the nuclear industry anything to build more reactors.
First, how exactly would that help reduce energy use? Nukes, even more than big coal burners, are capital intensive and slow-starting; they suck up huge sums of money that could be used for other sources, while not providing any energy for decades???just about the worst possible solution, if you call it a solution at all and not exactly the problem. They concentrate wealth and power, which reduces our democracy; they are divisive, ecologically destructive from start to finish, and are tremendous security gambles with dangerous fuel and waste, and vulnerable reactors and transmission systems.
There is no conflict between conservation, efficiency and such sources as cogeneration on the one hand, and solar, wind and other true alternatives on the other. If you???re solarizing your house the first thing you do???always???is reduce energy use, saving money up front and requiring a smaller photovoltaics (PV) system. Other forms like passive solar heating and cooling also contribute. Those are the first things we should be doing, as well as revolutionizing the way and how much we move people and stuff around???living at or near work and food, walking, bicycling, rail, solar electric cars. Top priority should also be helping poor people here and abroad get through the crisis with the energy and living systems they need to boost their contribution.
Of course breakthroughs will help. But we can???t make the perfect the enemy of the perfectly adequate. And the best way we can stimulate breakthroughs???which are happening every day??? is to drastically increase our use of existing clean technologies. See http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/17/lithium-batteries-fast-charging-plug-in-hybrid-electric-vehicles/ and www.homepower.com/article/?file=HP130_pg38_Mync for examples of advances just this week. See part 2.

I agree with you that it would be crazy to give the nuclear industry anything to build more reactors.
First, how exactly would that help reduce energy use? Nukes, even more than big coal burners, are capital intensive and slow-starting; they suck up huge sums of money that could be used for other sources, while not providing any energy for decades???just about the worst possible solution, if you call it a solution at all and not exactly the problem. They concentrate wealth and power, which reduces our democracy; they are divisive, ecologically destructive from start to finish, and are tremendous security gambles with dangerous fuel and waste, and vulnerable reactors and transmission systems.
There is no conflict between conservation, efficiency and such sources as cogeneration on the one hand, and solar, wind and other true alternatives on the other. If you???re solarizing your house the first thing you do???always???is reduce energy use, saving money up front and requiring a smaller photovoltaics (PV) system. Other forms like passive solar heating and cooling also contribute. Those are the first things we should be doing, as well as revolutionizing the way and how much we move people and stuff around???living at or near work and food, walking, bicycling, rail, solar electric cars. Top priority should also be helping poor people here and abroad get through the crisis with the energy and living systems they need to boost their contribution.
Of course breakthroughs will help. But we can???t make the perfect the enemy of the perfectly adequate. And the best way we can stimulate breakthroughs???which are happening every day??? is to drastically increase our use of existing clean technologies. See http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/17/lithium-batteries-fast-charging-plug-in-hybrid-electric-vehicles/ and www.homepower.com/article/?file=HP130_pg38_Mync for examples of advances just this week. See part 2.