Why is Society Ignoring the Easiest Path to a Low Carbon Energy Infrastructure by Rejecting Nuclear Power

For decades certain parties have dreamed of the reality of “renewable” energy generation with the sun and/or wind providing the lion’s share, if not all, of the energy for a given society. Unfortunately decades removed from those initial dreams, society is little closer to that reality. Solar and wind proponents would argue that such a statement is foolhardy for the total percentage of energy generation from these sources rises ever higher year after year. However, these same proponents fail to acknowledge, or even realize, that neither solar or wind have had to face any real test supporting their viability as the chief energy generator. Can one say that an individual is really closer to passing a test when his percent correct has increased from 1% to 6%?

The lack of sufficient penetration has tabled effective identification of what type of integration methodologies will be required to evade consistent brown outs due to the intermittency of these technologies. However, it is known that battery technology for storage is still in its infancy, especially on a mass scale, and little discussion is given towards the significant shortfall in numerous rare earths to ensure solar and wind economic viability relative to the scale demanded; for solar economic viability is questionable even with these rare earths. Also there is a lack of general understanding regarding the required levels of redundancy to create the storage reserve. Despite these real unanswered questions where theory is stacked against solar and wind supporters, groups like ARPA-E continue to search for the “next energy breakthrough” commonly to support the expansion of wind and solar while seemingly ignoring the fastest and most stable route to a no/low carbon emission energy future… nuclear power.

No one can dispute the stability, low to no carbon emission and base-load power generation ability of nuclear power. The failures associated with the widespread adoption of fission based nuclear technologies, including the development of breeder reactors, have not be the result of technical flaws, roadblocks produced by the laws of physics, safety profiles or even overall capital and operational costs, but instead has been the result of a direct campaign against nuclear power based only upon paranoia, overreaction, fear and opposing economic interests.

Some may argue against nuclear power by citing certain projects that experienced large delays in construction and cost overruns. This criticism has valid and invalid points. The problem with simply citing a construction delay or cost overrun is that almost no construction project in the history of humanity be it a complex structure like a nuclear power plant or wind farm or a more simplistic structure like a corner grocery store have come in on-time and on-budget. The entire predictive process for the construction is consistently fraught with optimistic estimations and assumptions in effort to win the “bid” for the project either through associated agencies like subcontractors or to win approval for the project as a whole. Therefore, time and cost overruns should be treated as the norm, not the exception for any construction project.

However, optimistic estimations cannot explain all of the cost overruns. Another reason nuclear power appears more expensive than it actually should be is the lack of uniformity/standardization in design. For example when considering breeder reactors several different reactor prototypes have been proposed and even had initial construction periods. Anyone with any design experience knows that the most expensive type of product is the first working prototype (i.e. version 1.0). Due to the lack of coordination and cooperation between nations, instead of six or seven countries working together on one universal reactor design, economic competition has created an environment with numerous high level generation II to generation III breeder reactor version 1.0s, which has further increased costs.

Another rationality for cost increases with regards to nuclear power, especially breeder reactors, is simple short-sighted analysis regarding long-term cost benefit analysis. Basically breeder reactors remain more expensive (i.e. not directly cost-competitive) with more standard thermal reactors because research and development into breeders was quasi-sabotaged for decades by cheap uranium prices and corresponding economic incentives. So instead of acknowledging a time in the future when uranium may not be cheap due to potential shortages or more expensive extraction methods or simply understanding that nuclear power needed to evolve to be more effective in general and preparing for this reality with proper planning, both private corporations and government elected to take advantage of short-term gains that have now created long-term losses.

Basically capital costs associated with breeder reactors have been heavily influenced by the lack of standardization and the lack of a devotion to the continuous evolution of their design and construction. Any economist will sing the praises of assembly line and scale economics at dramatically reducing costs. Nuclear, especially breeders, has not been able to engage in these types of processes because of this “start-stop” mentality due to uranium prices, lack of long-term thinking, which is still plaguing the energy environment with so much short-term focus on solar and wind, and lack of cooperation among companies and governments.

Another issue that has been blown out of proportion is the danger of reprocessed material being siphoned off and/or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons. One of the original reprocessing methodologies, PUREX, certainly warranted concern because it is able to produce concentrations of pure plutonium after completion; however, PUREX is certainly not the only reprocessing method. There are a number of other methods most of which make plutonium isolation and extraction nearly impossible, thus making weaponizing the reprocessed material nearly impossible. Also appropriate safety measures can easily be applied to eliminate the potential seizure of any “weaponized” material. If terrorists acquire nuclear weapons it would be from some secret lab in Iran or from North Korea over a modern nuclear breeder reactor.

The final issue is the most depressing one when it comes to nuclear opposition, the overreaction to a meltdown. Overall there have only been two legitimate meltdowns in history, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. The events on Three Mile Island actually demonstrated what is supposed to happen when safety procedures are properly applied. The “demonization” of nuclear power at the hands of Chernobyl is especially ridiculous when considering both the technology at the time and the circumstances of the meltdown. If similar consideration was given to the airline industry then modern aviation would shutdown because a Wright Brothers’ era plane happened to crash. Of course that would never happen, which demonstrates the serious bias towards nuclear power possessed by certain entities.

Concerning Fukushima Daiichi, a power plant from the 50s built in one of the worst regions of the county it could have been relative to safety, it still required a once in a 1000-year natural disaster event to produce any negative outcome, which was in large part thanks to a lack of basic contingency safety protocols; yet these failures were heavily unjustifiably propagandized as inherent to nuclear technology instead of what they actually were: simple economic laziness/greed.

If nuclear power is the answer to addressing global warming what does that make of the other contenders? Clearly anything that produces significant quantities of CO2 or other greenhouse gases is out due to global warming issues, thus coal, oil and natural gas are non-starters. The idea of natural gas as a “bridge” from coal to a low-CO2 emission source may have been an option two or three decades ago, but is certainly not a cost-effective transition option now, despite the money the U.S. is wasting, relying on natural gas is a fool’s errand.

Geothermal is an option that would have been interesting to study regarding the enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) methodology as a realistic competitor to nuclear, but with the pertinent issue involving the potential progression of tectonic activity (periodic 2-3 Richter scale earthquakes under initial EGS tests, with time would this magnitude increases?) there does not appear to be adequate time to return to the start so to speak if earthquake magnitude progression was indeed a feature of EGS. Pipe dreams like tidal power and microwave/satellite solar are either boondoggles or do not have nearly enough momentum and potential to even be considered viable responses. Fusion, either of the hot or cold variety, seems no significantly closer now than two/three decades ago. Thus, the only valid competitors for nuclear appear to be terrestrial solar and wind power.

The biggest problem with both wind and solar is the intermittency associated with their energy generation. Try as they might to mitigate its importance, wind and solar proponents cannot in good conscious ignore the additional costs, maintenance, storage and redundancies required to compensate for this deficiency, which raise the costs associated with both solar and wind to levels that far exceed nuclear power. Without the need for storage and redundancy capacity to fill that storage then solar and wind are cheaper, which is the story solar and wind proponents sell the public; however, without storage and fill redundancy, it is logical to suggest that solar and wind will do nothing but produce rolling brownouts to blackouts as the principal energy provider. Unfortunately the current penetration structure of wind and solar does not provide any test cases to demonstrate these realities.

Another problem associated with wind and solar is that measuring their production via nameplate capacity commonly results in optimistic to unrealistic analysis. For example a wind farm reporting a nameplate capacity at 200 MW means that it produces 200 MW when functioning at optimal capacity. Unfortunately to actually achieve this maximum generation result, the wind needs to be blowing within the optimum speed range over the entire farm simultaneously, which is a meaningful statistical achievement; can it happen… yes; does it happen frequently, not even close. Furthermore the statistical probability of this occurring over multiple wind farms is even more unlikely. Basically the greater nameplate capacity built into this type of system, either within a single farm or throughout multiple farms, will result in an overall reduction in the expected maximum capacity that can be feasibly attained relative to the actual nameplate capacity.

In short it is unrealistic for a large wind producer to ever reach 100% nameplate at any given time and the more capacity that exists the lower percentage of the maximum that can actually be reached. For example (note these numbers are for explanation purposes not empirically derived, but accurately demonstrate the trend) a wind system with 3000 MW of nameplate will be able to achieve an average maximum generation of 2500 MW (83%) whereas a wind system with 4000 MW of nameplate will be able to achieve an average maximum generation of 3100 MW (77.5%). Of course these are only maximum values that are attained for a few seconds to minutes at a time; actual average wind capacity values for days to months range from 25-35% and have remained within this range for decades and show little sign of changing, despite certain levels of hype, hence the need for storage and redundancy to fill that shortage.

Another concern with both wind and solar generation is that their production potential changes significantly during winter months. The loss of solar during the winter is of no surprise to anyone that actually pays attention to general climate patterns; however, wind is trickier because while the overall average “amount” of wind does not seem to have any significant level of variance between seasons, its daily levels typically vary more during the winter than other months. Basically during winter months there is a higher probability that wind values depart from the mean both in magnitude and direction (i.e. positively or negatively). These larger departures place greater pressure on plant operators to smooth power curves and properly incorporate the energy produced from wind into the mix with other energy mediums. Remove those other more stable energy mediums and integration becomes even more difficult.

A number of solar and wind proponents have put forth the idea that smart grids will act as a panacea of sorts for the issues associated with integration addressing load balancing, peak curtailment and demand response among other potential problems. However, the scale of application associated with smart grids has been much lower than expected over the last decade despite attempts to invest billions of dollars in the process. Part of this significant delay is that some communities are rebelling against the installation of smart meters, central elements to the smart grid, even when costs of maintenance and installation are deferred to the utility company. While most of the reasons for the rejection of smart meters are thought to be questionable, it does not appear that smart meter detractors will be easily convinced off of their current position.

For example a portion of this resistance is the concern about the safety of potential electromagnetic and/or radiation that could emanate from the smart meter. Unfortunately smart meters may have entered that cell phone zone when it comes to radiation in that even if they are safe it may be impossible to convince some people of that fact and you can easily have an environment of “dueling” experts. Also unlike cell phones, smart meters do not have that “necessary for existence in society” reputation that cell phones seem to have.

Another problem for smart meters is a resistance by utility companies themselves to install them unless someone else is paying the bill due to a lack of standards through how the devices are connected to grid and communicate with each other. Basically no utility company wants to commit to a given format/design because that format may not be the one that “wins”, thus that preemptive commitment will result in significant financial losses. The situation is similar to the problem with the expansion of electric cars. Currently the existing infrastructure to support electric cars is basically non-existent outside of certain areas in California because those responsible for building it are waiting for electric car sales to increase to the point that justify building it, but without an infrastructure few individuals have interest in buying an electric car in part due to the worry that the infrastructure will never be built to support the purchase. One side has to take the leap, but neither side is willing to do so.

Even if smart meter installation was as widespread as hoped, smart grid proponents have acknowledged the problems associated with securing the flow of information and energy within the system. Currently there are valid concerns regarding how prone the system is to being hacked, which raises questions regarding the long-term security and safety of a smart grid. This is not to say that smart meters, and in large part a smart grid, do not have a role to play or cannot be safe, but the issues associated with their adoption and safety place a burden on their speedy application and mass testing that significantly damages the viability of a dominant wind and solar energy infrastructure.

Another issue with wind power that is not commonly considered is whether or not the general price of wind power is close to its minimum in that with a vast majority of the high-value wind collection land masses already being utilized, newer wind turbines will have less naturally efficient areas to generate power. Realistically this issue should not produce an environment were traditional wind power will significantly start increasing in price, but instead it would counteract any cost savings from any further technological advancement in wind turbines. The real question regarding future costs associated with wind power is storage level and medium.

Further problems for solar/wind supporters is even some of the “champion countries” of renewables are not seeing the carbon emission reduction numbers theory and general behavior would suggest. While in isolation Denmark’s wind generation numbers look impressive, they are not consistent, to the point where Denmark relies heavily on energy transfers to and from neighboring countries. Basically if these transfers did not exist Denmark would be in a state of constant brownout due to wind intermittency.

Currently this transfer process is stable because of the more consistent generation mediums possessed by other European countries, most notably natural gas and Swedish and Norwegian hydropower. At the current time and in the foreseeable future the ease of transfer to reduce volatility in Denmark’s energy markets would become incredibly difficult, if not impossible, if Europe adopted similar wind percentage generation profiles. Basically while wind proponents like to cite Denmark as the poster child for “what wind can do for you” its close proximity to Swedish and Norwegian hydropower provides a very unique environment that is not technically or economic replicable for other countries.

Also despite investing heavily in wind and solar power over the last decade Germany has not meaningfully reduced the level of coal and natural gas derived energy production. In fact for Germany CO2 emissions in the energy sector, the most critically relevant area for judging the impact of renewables, have increased relative to the past year (2012 vs. 2011, etc.) in 3 (2012, 2013 and 2015) of the last 4 years for when information is available. The reduction of CO2 emissions in 2014 relative to 2013 is also somewhat marred for it is highly probable that these reductions occurred because of lower energy consumption during the winter due to much warmer than average temperatures over that winter. So while the share of renewable sources of energy in Germany continue to expand, the CO2 emissions from its represented sector are not dropping, which speaks poorly towards the ability of renewables like solar and wind to quickly drop energy derived CO2 emissions, which is exactly what needs to occur to combat global warming.

Note that the issue concerning winter temperatures is also a big deal in Germany because of the lack of available renewables during that time period; solar is almost non-existent in Germany during the winter netting a typical average capacity of 10-11% and wind generation is rather erratic.

Some could argue that this result has been heavily influenced by the decision to suspend operation of the German nuclear power plant fleet with the intent of its future decommission. While this decision certainly has resulted in greater coal and natural gas use, the problem is that there was little reduction of energy derived carbon emissions even before the decision to suspend nuclear power use in Germany instead most of the overall reduction stemmed from the measurement point being 1990 right after the integration of heavily industrialized East Germany into West Germany producing an artificially high point of reference.

Finally one of the troubling aspects of the solar and wind proponent argument is a questionable interpretation of time. They properly acknowledge that ceasing carbon emissions must occur quickly, yet do not acknowledge that creating the type of solar/wind energy infrastructure to actually accomplish this reality will take a long time. Part of this apparent contradiction is that supporters are emboldened by the solar and especially wind percentage growth rates over the last decade as justification for the superiority of wind and solar despite these growth rates not representing meaningful penetrations into global energy markets. Basically wind and solar are still at best small supplemental energy producing elements.

Furthermore another problem, as mentioned before, is a number of proponents believe that once society “actually” commits to a solar/wind energy infrastructure future, the problems and issues associated with this system will magically disappear with Master Plan #1 succeeding without qualm or fail. It is akin to attempting to build a railroad track ahead of a speeding train… everything must go perfectly for it to work and anyone who thinks that any of the current infrastructure plans pushed by solar and wind proponents is anywhere remotely viable is, quite frankly, a fool.

At the present time the best idea to combat global warming is for the entire global community to agree on a single design for a nuclear fission breeder reactor and then allocate resources to begin the specialization required for manufacturing the required components and training the necessary construction and operational personnel. The simple fact is that too many questions and inefficiencies exist in any feasible plan to defeat global warming via the utilization of mass solar and wind energy generation; so much so that foregoing nuclear in favor of solar and wind is a recipe for disaster. Overall global cooperation through the initiation of a real and new nuclear renaissance is the most effective, economical and direct way to combat global warming while maintaining a consistent and reliable energy infrastructure in the developed world as well as allowing energy impoverished nations the ability to advance their energy consumption profiles without endangering the environment.

Solar and Wind Need to Step up to the Plate

Over the last few years there has been a steady back and forth between various individuals and groups about the viability of wind and solar power to account for a vast majority of the future energy infrastructure. Despite legitimate concerns with the potential effectiveness and consistency of such a system, wind and solar proponents continue to place their faith in its viability with no scale evidence validating this faith. In addition proponents of these technologies believe that the public must be made more aware of the “adaptability” of solar and wind versus fossil fuel generators. However, why does the solar and wind manufacturing and deployment community allow this uncertainty to linger instead opting for its new plan of engaging in a new more aggressive marketing plan to “sell” the public on the idea of solar and wind? Providing evidence to support one position or the other is quite possible; at least it must be for numerous wind and solar power supporters continue to claim that the limiting factor to “greening” the energy infrastructure is the deployment rate for wind and solar plants over existing technology.

Note that this experiment must exceed the testing irrelevancies of electricity aggregation or renewable energy credits (RECs), which do nothing significant to demonstrate the reliability of wind and solar energy providers. Wind and solar proponents envision an energy infrastructure that incorporates wind and solar into comprising at least 70%+ of the entire electricity providing system (maybe even 70%+ of all energy at some point eventually), thus that number seems to be a good threshold point. However, this dream should only be pursued if these technologies are actually able accomplish this goal; therefore, as stated above the current legitimacy of this system must be tested and its strengths and weaknesses must be adjudicated. So how would such an experiment be conducted?

A simple starting methodology must include, but not be limited to, the following boundary conditions/rules:

- Approach a small city (approximately 10,000-15,000 population) and receive permission to change the electricity provision infrastructure from the current existing mix to 70% solar/wind with a 30% other;

- At no time could the electricity provided to the city from non-solar or wind sources exceed 30% or the test would be considered a failure of the experiment (note this condition includes all electricity derived from storage sources like batteries); note that this condition could be modified based on how many brownouts/blackouts the selected city was willing to accept;

- All participating companies will have a year to prepare for the switch from existing mix to solar/wind dominated mix; a good idea would be for a coalition of solar/wind companies to select a city by July 31, 2013 and then start the experiment on July 31, 2014.

- An independent auditor will track electricity use and costs associated with that use and any addition construction related to that electricity infrastructure;

- The above point must consider net electricity use not gross electricity production. For example suppose 1000 MW are produced, but only 500 MW are used due to a lack of storage, the produced count must be 500 MW not 1000 MW in percentage calculations in order to not overstate the used production rate of renewable sources; i.e. utilized reserves is what matters not name plate capacity.

- Note that the city does not have to remain static once the test has begun, it can still add or subtract electricity infrastructure features; however, these changes must be incorporated into the evaluation metric for the efficiency and validity of the renewable sources tested;

If the simplicity and viability of the above methodology is to be believed then what is stopping one (or more through a coalition) of the various solar and wind companies from administering it? Realistically there seem to be only two reasons. First, wind and solar proponents are not accurate in their assessment that these energy technologies are advanced enough to effectively substitute for fossil fuel technologies and wind and solar companies know it, but don’t want to admit it. Second, solar and wind companies are not sure whether or not such an experiment will be successful and are afraid that if it is implemented and fails the negative publicity surrounding such a failure will produce a significant handicap to their future growth.

This potential “fear of failure” attitude is interesting because most intelligent people realize that failure is an integral part of technological growth, so why pass up an opportunity to explore the strengths and weaknesses of what numerous people hope is the future energy infrastructure in a real experimental environment over the worthless rooftop-like piecemeal “experiments” that are currently conducted? One possibility is that these companies believe that a failure in the above type of experiment will be regarded by society not as a learning experience, but as an inherent flaw in the technology itself, thus a higher probability of possible abandonment and lose of millions. This is a fear that solar and wind companies need to get over if they want to better serve society both now and in the future because if the technology does have flaws that are not corrected for before their application then society loses more than just money.

Despite the above concerns the apparent trepidation by solar and wind energy companies when it comes to this type of experiment is disconcerting. If they were confident in the maturity of the technology and its ability to provide consistent electricity to a populous then such an experiment should have already been conducted. Success would produce a valuable and powerful point of evidence that would support the rapid expansion and deployment of solar and wind energy technology and further demonstrate what strengths would benefit society from such a system and what weaknesses exist, which could be improved upon over time.

Two final notes, first some may point out that the city of Lancaster, California has recently spearheaded a large growth of solar power, but understand that it is no where near the capacity necessary to power the city and is probable too large a city for this initial test (population 157,000+).

Second, some may argue that Portugal’s 2013 1st quarter success of 70% power generation from renewables demonstrates its validity as the future energy infrastructure. However, when looking at the details of the renewable breakdown this success becomes less and less impressive and repeatable in the short-term. For example while Portugal is an above average producer of energy from non fossil fuel sources, favorable weather is more of a reason for the higher renewable percentage than anything else. A large spike in existing hydroelectric efficiency (312% increase) drove most of the change with no significant new project builds. In fact Portugal solar photovoltaic penetration only made up approximately 0.7% of energy use (in 2012), which is in direct contrast to most plans put forth by solar enthusiasts regarding massive solar deployment and is counter to the challenge presented in this blog. Therefore, Portugal’s success proves nothing about the validity of a solar/wind energy infrastructure, just the usefulness of hydroelectric power.

Overall if the benefit of success is a significant increase in growth rate of the industry, why has no one in the solar/wind industry attempted such an experiment? This lack of experimentation reminds one of the blind faith that some have in electrical vehicles acting as mobile storage batteries to augment solar and wind power, yet no one has ever demonstrated the viability of such a strategy in a community of 5,000 people let alone a country of 300+ million. If the solar and wind industry want their technology to be taken seriously as a substitute for existing fossil fuels by all parties then they have to demonstrate the ability to do the heavy lifting with minimal assistance from other energy providers. Otherwise why waste time playing with expensive toys in lieu of proven fossil fuel substitutes like nuclear and geothermal?

The Need for Serious Analysis of Wind and Solar in the Future

Carbon mitigation is essential to limit any detrimental significant damage to the environment and by extension human civilization. However, carbon mitigation requires intelligent planning and forethought not a simple scratch-the-surface methodology buttressed by good intentions and hope. Sadly most of the individuals that place significant hope in a vast deployment of solar and wind power behave in this very manner when it comes to the incorporation and maintenance of such an idea. The hard questions are either outright ignored with a sporadic scolding of those asking along with labeling as ‘anti-renewable’ or ‘anti-Earth’ or these questions are addressed through the use of inappropriately isolated or small examples, which only brush the outside of the core inquiry. What follows is a group of questions that everyone who supports the massive deployment of solar and wind power in the eventual representation of over 80+% of energy consumption should be able to answer in nauseating detail and specifics in order to justify the legitimacy of their beliefs that such widespread deployment is the appropriate strategy.

As France is the model country for nuclear power, many solar proponents are looking towards Germany as the model country for solar power [of course the solar strategy embarked on by Germany has always been confusing due to the below average capacity ratings (5-20%)]. In addition, due to political pressure, Germany as also begun to rapidly decommission existing nuclear power plants before eliminating coal power plants. While combining the loss of the trace emission nuclear plants with the below average capacity of solar power make little sense in a centralized power structure, solar proponents that support Germany have quickly sought to explain this behavior with the contention that Germany is exploring decentralization of their electricity grid, which requires the elimination of baseload in favor of load following plants to augment the energy from renewables.

The problem with decentralization is that no one has actually explained why it is superior to a centralized system consisting of nuclear and/or enhanced geothermal system baseload. The two immediate looming problems in a decentralized system is first based on economic theory the overall costs of such a decentralized system greatly exceeds a centralized system largely due to the increased transport costs (multiple build sites versus one) and adjustment for terrain inefficiencies resulting in redundant builds. Second, intermittent energy sources (solar and wind) require storage backup, but in a decentralized model this storage backup can lack multi-modal storage inputs, thus it would demand more redundancies in the system, which would further increase costs.

So those individuals that support a decentralized model of energy need to demonstrate the justifications for the incredible increase in costs over a centralized model governed by nuclear or enhanced geothermal as well as document how effective storage systems for each decentralized unit will be developed as it is assumed that individuals would want on-demand electricity availability.

Another potential problem that solar proponents avoid is the relationship between solar radiation management geo-engineering and solar energy. Most solar proponents would suggest that this confliction is irrelevant because it would be dangerous to undertake solar radiation management based geo-engineering methodologies. Unfortunately the slow global response to carbon mitigation increases the probability that solar radiation management techniques need to be utilized despite questions of uncertainty. For example at the moment global temperatures have increased approximately 0.9 degrees C. If one believes the conclusions of Dr. James Hansen, one of the grandfathers of climate science, this temperature increase only represents approximately 50% of the anticipated warming associated with the concentration increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due a two tiered (one slow and one fast) feedback effect. Thus, another 0.8-1 degree C temperature increase is expected in the future even if carbon emissions were reduced to generate a net mass balance difference of 0 tomorrow (basically the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere equaled the amount of carbon removed by carbon sinks).

At this moment expecting such a result is completely unrealistic and most individuals believe global emissions will continue to rise, largely due to the growth in China, India and Brazil and mitigation resistance from more developed countries like Canada and the United States; therefore, it would be reasonable to add at least another 0.8-1 degree C temperature increase to the 0.9 that has already occurred and the 0.8-1 that is already expected for a total increase of 2.5 – 2.9 degree C. Working from existing information and behaviors this is the best possible case for warming at the moment. Even this ‘best-case’ will place significant strain on both the environment and society that solar radiation management geo-engineering strategies will more than likely be needed.

Due to the fact that all solar radiation management techniques will reduce the volume or intensity of solar energy striking the earth what strategies do solar proponents have that will address how this reduction will influence available solar energy and electricity when solar consists of 40+% of the grid as dreamed of by solar proponents? As discussed above, simply saying that it will not happen is not a viable strategy because logic dictates that it probably will happen.

The most important issue that solar and wind supporters refuse to address is the realistic long-term shortage of rare earths, which depending on the type of rare earth will either result in higher mining and building costs or the inability to construct the particular renewable source. It is surprising that solar and wind proponents do not address the central question of whether or not enough materials even exist to construct their desired trace emission energy infrastructure. This reluctance implies either ignorance to the fact that rare earth supply is actually an issue or fear as answering the question of rare earths will lead to an answer that will not be liked. Look at this blog post for an excellent place to understand the rare earth issue.

Returning to one of the central problems with the arguments of solar and wind proponents is a matter of scale relative to intermittence. It stands to reason that wind and solar supporters are tired of hearing about intermittence as a problem, but that characteristic is the greatest weakness of solar and wind power. Sadly the more pressing problem almost seems to be the way proponents are responding to this weakness with inappropriate exaltations of very small and sheltered proof-of-concept test storage plants like Gemasolar (19.9 MW). No realistic individual can conclude that an effective solar infrastructure can be developed by building millions of 20-50 MW solar plants, thus these small proof-of-concept plants cannot be touted as the solution to the intermittence problem.

Another problem pertaining to intermittence is transmission loss. In a more centralized model for solar and wind power generation a vast majority of the production occurs in low population areas, which will result in meaningful transmission losses. Unfortunately for the most part the extent of these losses is unclear. Thus solar and wind proponents need to understand how the scale and nature of these losses of these low population infrastructure plans they have devised are appropriate.

For example all three types of plants (baseload, load-following and peak) operate on a general level of consistency based on usage trends. However, they are able to do so because they are dispatchable in various ways whereas wind and solar are not. Thus, transmission losses may provide more influence to wind and solar transfer versus current sources because those losses are more sporadic and non-linear than the more linear losses of baseload plants. Within the vein of transmission loss is the unfortunate crutch of a smart grid. While the full incorporation of a smart grid would be great, too many renewable proponents view it as inevitable and as a panacea for all intermittence and transmission problems, which it is not on both accords. Thus, renewable proponents must make contingency plans in case smart grids do not emerge in the ubiquitous nature solar and wind proponents dream.

Another big problem for proponents is storage, but not in the limits maximums demonstrated so far, but the demands that will be required. One must recall that the storage components to these plants start empty and need to be charged. Clearly this charge comes from surplus generated by the system. Most proponents believe that this surplus will be widely available, but there is a concern that these proponents are misleading themselves because their conclusions come based on observations of the existing energy infrastructure where significant overage is created by solar and wind sources due to existing fossil fuel baseload. However, if that fossil fuel baseload is removed then the probability for surplus is dramatically reduced. Therefore, in a trace emission energy world heavy redundancy of solar and wind constructions will be required to ensure sufficient storage during the ‘bleaker’ times. The concern is that not only will this excess redundancy increase costs, but is it even possible to construct due to rare earth shortages?

For example suppose renewables are to replace 500 MW from a baseload plant. If renewable sources function at an average capacitance of 25% with a 100% penetration one would initially suggest more than 500 MW of name-plate capacity is required (probably somewhere between 750-850 MW) to effectively cover the replaced baseload amount. Unfortunately the unpredictability of intermittence along with the maximum ceilings on storage elements (due to cost even if a surplus of 124 MW may exist over the period of a month only 50 MW may be available for storage) will demand that an even greater redundancy be developed to ensure available electricity. Basically if one could plan out all weather over the course of a year and how much electricity would be demanded every minute or so over that year then redundancy would be more controllable, but because this is not the case more source is required to cover the uncertainty.

Some proponents argue that biomass based energy, which can be better controlled, will act as a counterweight limiting the amount of redundancy required. The problem is that individuals who make this argument do not discuss how a steady supply of biomass will be cultivated over years and years because most of the biomass supply utilizes land that will compete or complicate food production. For example one idea is to use grain and forest residues because no animals consume them, but people forget about bacteria and how the bacterial-based decomposition of these residues aid soil quality; take away these residues and soil becomes more exposed to water and wind erosion in addition to being stripped of nutrient rejuvenation.

Wind and solar proponents largely have a problem with details and specifics when it comes to their ideas for a future trace infrastructure governed principally by these two generating sources. When planning for the future the details need to rival that of the Sistine Chapel not ‘Connect the dots to see an outline of an elephant’. The two biggest problems seem to be that most proponent tie cost, name-plate and storage estimations of wind and solar to the present system with fossil fuel baseload instead of the future system where fossil fuels and (for most of them nuclear) will not be contributing to the energy mix. Also proponents have not appropriately addressed the availability of rare earths both from a cost structure and a simple supply amount. Part of this problem is that rare earths that are used in wind turbines and solar cells are not exclusive to these elements, but are also utilized in other commercial products. The looming potential of solar radiation management strategies is also ignored in general under the increasingly less realistic belief that they will never be utilized.

Overall wind and solar proponents need to start getting serious when it comes to the details and future planning of their intended energy infrastructure; just looking at Germany and saying ‘that’s the model’ is not good enough because the German system is not mature or independent enough to warrant it as a model.

Re-energizing the Environmental Movement

On October 10, 2010 the environment movement, largely driven by the group 350.org, held a global coordinated effort comprised of over 7,000 independent gatherings in an attempt to demonstrate global solidarity behind aggressive and effective action to stem global carbon emissions. Such a large organized global gathering, consisting of individuals actually carrying out positive environmental actions, must have garnered significant and thorough media attention, especially in the main target countries of U.S. and China right? No, environmental gatherings rarely make any dent in the news cycle for either country; in fact for the U.S. the date 10/10/10 was noted more for the increased amount of weddings than anything else. So how has it come to this, how is it that the most important issue in human history, sustaining the strength of a living environment for a single-plant species, receives only substandard media coverage and enthusiasm from the masses?

One of the main problems is that environmentalists have no legitimate attack strategy against those that either deny the legitimacy of human driven global warming or oppose action to combat it due to selfish economic reasons. The general response to these individuals typically involves citing more and more scientific evidence supporting the validity of human driven global warming and its consequences. They have continually expressed the same warning for decades, yet there is little substance for such effort. In essence they have walked a mile to seemingly move a mere inch. Others plead for boycotts against the more powerful adversaries, but such an outcry is futile because the organization and will power to execute such a strategy is limited in the environmental movement. Their opponents have money, organization and a singular message/purpose. What does the environmental movement have… certainly not what amounts to the title of a Meatloaf song. So it is about time for environmentalists to wake up and effectively begin to counter these advantages.

First, forgot the idea of any type of boycott because such a strategy will simply waste time and resources. There are too many individuals in U.S. that depend on oil, coal and natural gas, especially on a socio-economical gradient. One of the problems with some in the environmental movement is that they seem to have a perception that millions of people have tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of disposable income sitting in the bank and just don’t have the motivation to embrace the environmental movement and a boycott. Approximately 17% of the country is below the poverty line with bi-weekly stories about the vanishing middle class and yet some expect these people to go buy a 15,000 – 30,000 dollar solar panel system or a 30,000 – 40,000 dollar electric vehicle with the explanation that it is good for them because of a rate of return at 5-10 years, what nonsense.

Also look at some of the more successful boycotts in recent history, the ‘Mitsubishi: Don't Buy It’ campaign, the movement against De Beers and the National Mobilization Against Sweatshops vs. Donna Karan, why did all of those boycotts work? Three reasons: 1. a viable alternative was already available in the market; if you didn’t like Mitsubishi’s environmental policy in Mexico buy a vehicle from Ford; if you didn’t like De Beers screwing over the Kalahari Bushmen, then buy from Zales; if you didn’t like Donna Karan using sweatshops and screwing over its employees, then buy from another clothing designer as there are thousands of options; 2. the purchase/use of these products was not daily, weekly or even monthly. Basically the need of these products were not such that switching suppliers or not buying them at all significantly disrupted livelihood in any real way and less frequent purchasing meant that each purchase mattered more to the company; 3. the changes being demanded by the boycotters were rather small from an industry perspective and could be made by the respective companies without putting them out of business.

All three of these success parameters fail when considering a boycott against a company like ExxonMobil. Looking at the failure of the third point first, the point of the boycott is the very destruction of the company as it presently exists. Some may argue that the main focus would be to ‘encourage’ ExxonMobil to convert completely from an oil company to a bio-fuel company, but even this ideal basically destroys what exists as ExxonMobil today. This motivation then filters into the first point as in the De Beers case the goal was not to eliminate the entire diamond mining industry, but to rectify the circumstances surrounding a single mine. The alternatives that were available could be accessed to put pressure on De Beers; however, in the case of an ExxonMobil boycott, clearly purchasing fuel from BP does not support the overall goal of an ExxonMobil boycott and bio-fuel alternatives are not nearly in enough supply to put even a microscopic dent in ExxonMobil’s bottom line. Finally it is much easier for people to boycott consumer goods that do not heavily impact their lives, but can be viewed more as luxury items. Oil, largely in the form of gasoline, is a consumer good that is used far too frequently to induce enough people to make the dramatic switch from gas to another form of transportation medium. Thus any further discussion of a ‘major’ boycott against any oil and/or coal companies is just a waste of breath.

Second, sadly enough it appears that a single focus on the environment and its overall importance is an argument that has yet to spark the masses to action. In addition it does not appear that such an argument has an amplifying effectiveness where if people are just told about the future dangers to the environment and human species enough a light will eventually turn on and these individuals will magically now fight for the environment. Should one really expect someone that has denied global warming with the science at a 95% confidence level to change his/her opinion when a new set of studies upgrades the confidence level to 97%? That is like a person declining to play the lottery with numbers that have a 95% chance of winning instead waiting until given a set of numbers that have a 97% chance of winning, not a realistic psychological scenario.

The line in the sand has already been drawn regarding the role of human involvement in global warming and few people are dancing along that line changing their minds based on the latest news report or scientific paper. For most people ‘present egocentricity’ typically have them caring more about who Taylor Swift or Kim Kardashian might be dating over the prospect of Manhattan being underwater 30 years from now. Unfortunately this mindset also eliminates effective arguing for emission reduction from an ethical standpoint of saving a place like the Maldive Islands. It would take a local catastrophic event, not huge stable for thousands of years ice sheets breaking away from Greenland, to spur enough people to action using a ‘save the environment’ strategy and such an event does not seem in the cards until it is far too late. Therefore, despite their clear legitimacy, environmental dangers cannot be the main linchpin argument for action against global warming, at least not for the general public.

Expanding on the above point, although most of the issues regarding criticism of climate scientists were addressed here, one important point remains. Recently an extremely bias and problematic documentary entitled “Waiting for Superman” was released which purported to address the problems in the U.S. education system. Not surprisingly the film basically takes the position that all of the problems in the education system are a result of bad teachers and the evil teacher’s union and the simple solution to these problems lies within the widespread expansion of charter schools and their quality teachers. Sadly the film does not produce anything that has not already been heard thousands of times before from individuals or groups that are pro-charter school anti-public school/teacher, thus making it a meaningless propaganda tool that does nothing to actually solve the problems in the education system.

A number of individuals within the environmental movement also appear to be falling into this trap of ‘Waiting for Superman’. They believe that if enough climate scientists speak out directly to the public about the dangers of global warming that such action will turn the tide. Unfortunately there is no reason to suspect such an outcome. While any help from climate scientists would be appreciated, one must remember that some have certain internal pressures which may not allow them to behave with the requisite level of freedom and outspokenness these environmentalist expect. In fact the saddest thing about this entire hope is that in the eyes of the general public, regardless of it being wrong, climate scientists are commonly viewed with a level of enthusiasm not akin to Superman, but instead Supergrover.

Third, the appropriate argument needs to develop a personal tone focusing on how environmental policy tangibly helps specific individuals. At one time relating ‘green jobs’ to environmental policy may have been a good idea, but the messaging was carried out so poorly that, similar to the ‘doomsday’ environmental damage 30 years from now scenarios, most of the public seems to tune out such a message. For example suppose you have Stanley a blue-collar construction worker. Now the statement that investing billions of dollars in a new ‘green’ infrastructure over the next 10-20 years will produce millions of new jobs may not mean anything to him, unless Stanley digs deep and really studies the new suggested policy, but Stanley has things to do that he views as more important. However, what if it was clearly specified that of those 3 million new jobs, suppose 1.5 million are construction jobs with an average 3 year commitment, now that is a detail that should make supporting a ‘green’ infrastructure much more important to Stanley. The reason ‘green’ jobs has generally failed as a message is that the argument has been far too general, excluding the ‘what’s in it for me’ aspect. Remember, specificity solves problems generality perpetuates them.

Fourth, the environmental movement is not tapping into one of the most powerful elements in all of human history, nationalism. Joe Klein, a writer for Time Magazine, recently finished a tour of the country and he reports that for every person that carried about terrorism (which can be viewed symbolically as concern for survival), approximately 20 people cared about China and its growing influence in the world relative to the waning influence of the United States. That concern seems like an opening to tap into some good old-fashioned nationalism. Environmentalists have focused on attempting to convince people that investment in ‘green’ infrastructure is important in effort to keep jobs like PV and wind turbine manufacturing in the United States opposed to those jobs being done in South Korea or China. Again while this argument seems solid, a different focus can be applied from a nationalistic perspective. When trying to create a nationalistic fervor it is important to remember history. Recall the national climate when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. Sure there was some fear, but for the most part Sputnik was an insult to U.S. pride. Basically a ‘No way we’re going to let the Soviet Union beat the U.S.’ mindset took over. Why hasn’t the environmental movement transmogrified this concern over China into boisterous competitive adrenaline?

What would be the best way to ‘take it to’ China? Clearly by slowing their economic growth and how is that done … investment in a trace emission energy infrastructure. How would the argument go: not only will creating a new infrastructure increase our economic output, but it would also increase our credibility on the international stage to facilitate an international carbon emission treaty which would force China to abandon its policy of constructing 1 coal plant per 10 days in order to feed the growing energy demands for its economic expansion. Therefore, if China wanted to continue their economic growth, which by all accounts they do, they would have to replace this loss with trace emission energy sources, which by design (due to the tremendous energy demands for manufacturing) they could not supply nearly enough in isolation. Instead they would have to import vast quantities of materials to continue the seamless construction of this new energy infrastructure to continue their current economic growth. Take one guess who should be the country supplying the bulk of this demand? Such a scenario would take a significant bite out of the trade deficit as well as allowing the U.S. to apply real economic pressure on China if any ethical issue arose. Basically this is the scenario that everyone who wants the U.S. to reaffirm its place as a global power should be striving for regardless of whether or not they believe global warming is driven by human activities.

Now the ‘green’ economy will not materialize by the invisible hand of the market at a fast enough speed to foster the ability to either reaffirm U.S. greatness or significantly reduce the probability of detrimental environmental damage. The most effective means of developing the resources to beat China will come from establishing a national price on carbon. The only way to establish a price on carbon is to elect officials that will vote on legislation creating such a carbon price with no offset loopholes. Voting for these individuals is accomplished through the above economic competition strategy, if the U.S. is to restore/retain its greatness then it needs to establish a trace emission energy infrastructure based economy and to do that voters need to elect congressmen and women that will pass legislation to put a price on carbon. So if that appears to be the most effective argument for creating a ‘green’ economy why is the domain name: “BeatChina.org” or “ReaffirmUSgreatness.org” still available?

Another bonus is that the “Reaffirm U.S. Greatness” campaign also neutralizes the sphere of influence created by those that argue against the legitimacy of human driven global warming because the focus of the issue is no longer ‘develop/deploy cleaner energy to save the planet’, but instead ‘develop/deploy cleaner energy to beat China’. Therefore, all nonsense like ‘climategate’ and potential Congressional investigations into global warming become moot. Using such a direct campaign slogan can create an attempted sidestep of the ability of global warming opponents to attack the environmental movement because doing so can be turned back in their faces that these individuals are against American prosperity and want China to take over the world. In fact one of the most useful elements of the “Reaffirm U.S. Greatness” campaign is it limits the scientific issue of global warming on an individual level. For example the following is a theoretical conversation between an individual that does not believe in human driven global warming (Person A) and an individual that does (Person B):

Person A: “Global warming is a complete hoax. The world is so big that there is no way humans could influence it in any meaningful way.”

Person B: “Do you think that government should put a price on carbon?”

Person A: “Uhhh, what, oh ummmmm…(Yes/No)”

Person B: (if yes) – “That’s a good point because by putting a price on carbon we can develop and expand new industries, so we can compete with and beat China. We need to make sure that we vote for candidates that will vote for legislation that puts a price on carbon so America can stay great and number one in the world.”

Person B: (if no) – “Why do you hate America? You really want China to win? I don’t see any other way the U.S. beats China other than by putting a price on carbon.

By changing the topic, Person B can direct the conversation to a more meaningful conclusion versus making a purely scientific retort to Person A’s initial claim which is normally countered by Person A saying something to the effect of: “oh yeah, well you can’t prove that!”. No longer having to deal with time-wasting ‘global warming is not real’ nonsense environmentalist will have more time to spread the word about the “Reaffirm U.S. Greatness” campaign, participate in detailed analysis about how the development of trace emission energy infrastructure in the U.S. should proceed or work to expand mitigation and/or remediation strategies. Note that if asked directly with genuine scientific curiosity why global warming is a threat then one can cite all of the scientific evidence about how humans continuing to release carbon into the atmosphere is unbalancing the carbon cycle, aggravating the Greenhouse Effect and leading to climate destabilization. However, overall the principle battle cry needs to be ‘help the U.S. transition to a trace emission energy economy so we can maintain U.S. greatness and beat China’.

Some have argued, most notably the Center for American Progress (CAP), that the U.S. should cooperate with China to hasten the development of new technologies like CCS in order to combat climate change. Unfortunately while in most situations cooperation should be preferred to competition the current situation is not one of them. As discussed above, people are concerned about China overtaking the U.S. in global and economic influence and stripping it of its place in the global community, cooperation with the ‘enemy’ as the see it will not allay that concern. Also China continues, and for all intensive purposes will continue, to hold the belief that the U.S. and other developed countries should have to provide the majority of the anticipated capital to convert China’s economy to a more ‘trace emission’ nature as a consequence of putting most of the carbon in the atmosphere despite currently being the highest emitter. For all of the publicity that China has received for the money they are investing in ‘green’ energy, most of that investment is insignificant relative what they continue to invest in fossil fuel energy and the overall energy demand that China will require in the future relative to its desired level of economic growth.

This is not to say that the U.S. and China should not cooperate on any cleaner energy methodology, especially when it comes to research and development as to allow a fantastic technological achievement to remain theoretical due to inadequate information exchange would be foolish; however, cooperation does not seem to have the ability to light the necessary fire under the American populous that competition with the Chinese would. Regarding potential conflicts with the Memorandum of Understanding, China’s behavior at Copenhagen demonstrates that cooperation may not be as forthcoming as anticipated; in addition a vast majority of the recommendations made by the Memorandum are slanted towards research and development anyways which is the one place cooperation should occur. Finally, the motivation behind such a nationalistic strategy should be upright and passionate competition with China and not fall into the paranoia, fear and hate which plagued the competitive relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Of course there are no guarantees that a “Reaffirm U.S. Greatness” campaign will work, but it seems like an important tool for the environmental movement that has been left in the toolbox.

While it is sad and troubling that the most promising piece of legislation, which would have established a carbon price, stalled in Congress some believe that the failure of this bill is less relevant than others because of a belief that the proposed 4% reduction of 1990 emission levels by 2020 was an insufficient goal. Most who harbor that belief also believe that there needs to be an emission reduction of 20-50% by 2020. To those that tout reduction goals of 20-50% by 2020, would you please explain your plan to attain that goal? It is easy to say ‘this is what we need to do’, but where is the methodology to do it? Current technological deployment does not lend itself to accomplishing this ideal without a significant blow to the economy, which would defeat the entire purpose of the action.

Ideally to reach any 20-50% goal almost all to all energy from coal would have to be transferred to another trace emission source (allowing natural gas to pick-up all the slack would not reduce emissions enough (only 12-18% depending on the total efficiency of natural gas plants)). With the total amount of electricity being supplied by coal at just less than 2 billion MW-hr (according to the EIA 2008 data), where is the replacement energy going to come from? Assume about 40% of the loss from coal is picked-up by natural gas and there is a 10% reduction in auto emissions (which makes up about 27% of total U.S. CO2eq emissions for a total reduction of 2.7%), so to meet a goal of 20% reduction by 2020 where is the remaining approx. 1 billion MW-hr going to come from? Some may argue that energy efficiency will carry the day and while such a result would be highly encouraging a number of energy efficiency strategies have existed for a while beyond the snazzy smart meters and most have yet to be implemented on a wide scale. In fact without new national energy consumption standards for buildings any real gains from energy efficiency in a piecemeal way are unlikely to be significant, but just for the sake of argument where is the remaining 900 million MW-hr going to come from?

Also remember that to reach the natural gas goal approximately 800 million MW-hr of new natural gas electricity will need to be generated which will involve huge levels of hydraulic fracking (how much is unclear) which will more than likely contaminate some number of underground aquifers. Also because there is uncertainty regarding how much of the transportation reduction will come from increased fuel economy vs. electrical vehicles there will be additional electricity demands for those electric vehicles. One could venture that these demands will exist because as this post demonstrates most meaningful transportation emission reduction will come from deployment of electrical vehicles.

Off the cuff it seems inherently unrealistic to assume that a significant amount of this 950 million - 1 billion MW-hr need is going to materialize from concentrated or PV solar power being constructed in the Mojave Desert or anywhere else seeing how little is currently in the construction pipeline and how dependent solar power is on government subsidies to bend the cost curve. Recalling, as the anti-nuclear crowd does so well, that power plant construction no matter what the medium almost always finishes over budget and behind schedule, how much more solar will even be in the pipeline before 2020 let alone actually built and operational?

The U.S. has exhausted almost all of its growth potential for hydroelectric and offshore tidal power has no realistic potential to do anything significant for at least 15-20 years. Wind power, while expanding rapidly in the last 5 years, is running into problems as the best locations have already been built upon, limiting its remaining potential for total power generation, effective capacity and cost effectiveness to fill in for a baseload power source like coal. Maybe new offshore locations help, but more than likely not nearly enough. Also the second coming of nuclear power in the U.S. seems to have hit a significant snag with the abandonment of a high-profile reactor in Maryland sponsored in part by Constellation Energy. Finally geothermal plant construction in the last decade does not inspire confidence that any significant gains will be had from geothermal energy. So again where is all of this extra necessary energy going to come from by 2020? Sadly these are only a small number of the real obstacles to achieving a 20-50% decrease in 1990 level emissions by 2020. Realistically there is almost no way, short of a miracle, like fusion magically becoming viable, that such a goal can be achieved without significant economical damage. Therefore to continue to talk about things that ‘need’ to happen in such a context does not appear to be useful.

Once accepting the fact that these short-term high emission reduction scenarios are fantasy, the environmental community then needs to accept the reality that some form of geo-engineering will be required to increase the probability of less detrimental environmental damage until proper mitigation methods can be scaled-up. The simple fact is that the world has two options: 1. carry out effective and widespread remediation and mitigation strategies; 2. face an environment radically different than the one humans have dealt with for a vast majority of their existence, one that is much less hospitable to our comfortable existence; of course when proposing the acceptance of geo-engineering, this does not include the impractical and illogical ideas like space mirrors or tubes to ferry CO2 from the atmosphere to space. However, there is the very real possibility that sulfur stratospheric geo-engineering will occur over a small time window maybe something like 3 – 5 years in effort to reduce global temperatures to ensure adequate growing seasons while mitigation efforts scale-up.

There are other strategies that have generally been more or less have been mischaracterized as ‘geo-engineering’ that focus more on remediation or rebalancing the atmosphere vs. the typical ‘geo-engineering’ strategy of counterbalancing. The most popular methods of remediation are widespread application of Bio-char in agriculture, air capture both at a point source and from ambient air and albedo restoration which commonly involves painting rooftops white and other surface visual lightening. While these methods are extremely important in limiting the overall environmental damage from climate change, a number of individuals in the environmental movement more than likely oversell the total effect of these methods; for example assuming that every house in the U.S. will have a white roof or that Bio-char will be in every agricultural plot everywhere in the world. The problem is not the general unrealistic nature of such a belief, although it would take a Herculean effort, but the fact that there is no plan to achieve such a feat which makes it unrealistic. No planning, just talking and waiting for the government to do it.

One final note regarding geo-engineering is the question of where are the eccentric ideas to tackle various remediation and mitigation problems. This blog has proposed some of these ideas here and here. While skeptics will say these ideas are not plausible (definitely possible), the same can be said for almost all of the technological advances in our history. Someone thought of a ‘wacky’ idea and told another person, who told another person, who told another and eventually the idea was analyzed, tested and the problems were identified and fleshed out and while most ended up failing, a number succeeded. Who cares about how wacky an idea may sound because it could stimulate the evolution of something that could be extremely helpful in warding off future environmental damage. The key is to put each idea through objective, transparent and rigorous analysis to ensure the highest benefit to cost ratio. This issue of invention cannot be stressed enough because it is highly probable that the saving grace game-changer has yet to be developed and such interactive creativity must be encouraged.

As alluded to above if the environmental movement truly wishes to advance their movement and help reduce the probability of detrimental climate change, they also need to go deeper in their recommendations and analysis. Climate scientists have done a remarkable job, especially amid all of the radical and vicious opposition, doing the best they can to describe the intricate details of what type of and to what degree environmental changes will impact the Earth as more carbon is released into the atmosphere. However, that is where the details end as potential responses and strategies to dealing with these outcomes have become generalized and repetitive. Such lack of detail in general public discourse is unacceptable if humans are to have any chance at maintaining a comfortable living environment.

One of the reasons it is important that the environmental movement begins to develop much more cohesive and detailed plans is the ability to pitch those plans to private companies and venture capitalists to create a more efficient and effective transition into a ‘green’ economy. For example if the Mojave Desert is going to be the saving grace for the solar power movement those that believe this need to create a detailed report of exactly every little detail regarding the construction of every solar plant in the Mojave, potential transmission losses, efficiency scales, electricity gaps that need to be covered by other mediums, water use and transport, etc.

Unfortunately instead of carrying out such a strategy a number of environmentalists simply make general statements like ‘All we have to do is build a bunch of concentrated solar power in 0.0x% of the Mojave Desert and that will provide all of our electricity needs forever.’ Such statements are incredibly useless. The environmental community is huge, where are these detailed through reports of analysis? Some of the discussions of the reduction of transportation emissions and possible strategies for remediation that have appeared on this blog try to be open and clear reports with regards to planning future strategy made available for public consumption. One should be saddened after the reading the above statement, not because the reports on this blog are of substandard quality, they are not, but because there is not significantly more information easily available or at least so it appears who knows how many other similar blogs have conducted similar studies and yet remain unknown.

Some may argue that the various reports put out by CAP and other similar think tanks do some of the work suggested, but when actually reading these reports one encounters more generalities and optimistic assumptions then one would like. Generality is fine when an issue is in its infancy, but clearly the danger global warming poses to our environment and the longevity of our species is not in its infancy. What one would like to see is instead of a statement like ‘developing a green economy will create millions of jobs’ is a detailed statement like ‘over the first five years of developing a green economy with investments of 10 billion per year most of the job growth will come from the manufacturing and construction sectors where we estimate the creation of 10 construction jobs lasting an average of 14 months and 5 manufacturing jobs lasting an average of 30 months for every 1 MW of solar power developed…’

Now that latter statement has a lot more significance to all involved over the former statement. Clearly the ideal should be to produce accurate, objective, detailed and transparent information, thus when producing reports of this nature all of the assumptions need to be laid out at the beginning. Transparent declaration of assumptions is critically important for accuracy and validity because as any scientist or engineer knows even a variance of one assumption in only a small way can dramatically change the identity of the best possible solution.

There are only two reasons to not be forthcoming with assumptions: 1. laziness, which would beg the question why create the report at all unless for cheap publicity for your organization; 2. fear, which would imply that the authors of the report realize that their conclusions are generalized and would probably not hold up under scrutiny, thus the assumptions remain hidden so the authors keep a level of deniability. Neither of those two rationalities is appropriate to justify withholding vital information like assumptions, which can be used to further support the superiority of an analysis or lead to the discovery of a critical flaw that makes it unsuitable for application.

Brave New Climate is one group that, despite a possible bias towards nuclear power, actually attempts to better understand which energy medium(s) should be utilized for a future non-fossil fuel infrastructure at a scientific and economic level. However, their analysis only goes so far to address what medium(s) should be pursued; it is a good start, but more needs to be done. It must be stated that not all environmental organizations have the overall mission objective, manpower or member expertise to create reports to the level of detail that is needed, but for those that do not they must at least command a better understanding of the demands behind creating a trace emission infrastructure than ‘all we have to do is build a bunch of solar plants in the Mojave and the Sahara, so let’s do that’. For those that have the ability to create these reports, overall there should be no reason to hide assumptions made or withhold details when conducting an analysis of the economics, necessary deployment time frame or whatever else regarding a new trace energy infrastructure; recall specificity solves problems and generality perpetuates them.

Another possible reason environmentalist are not making as much headway with the public as they should, beyond improper messaging, is that their primary information sources (websites) appear to be stuck in Phase I. For some reason for major environmental organizations like 350.org, Environmental Defense Fund, National Resource Defense Counsel, etc. the primary focus seem to be recruiting more members or soliciting monetary support. Initially continuous recruitment of new members should be viewed as intelligent and important, especially in an overall movement where numbers genuinely matter, but while the previous statement is true, it is only true when those numbers are given something to do, which is rarer for these movements. Unless you are in the inner circle, most of the activities that are available to members of these organizations are lacking in importance diminishing the importance of being a member. The biggest problem is a lack of motivational direction.

Suppose John cares about helping the environment, so he joins Environment Organization x (EOX). Inspired by joining EOX John prints out handmade flyers and walks door to door in his neighborhood passing out the flyers and having polite conversations with the people he meets about the danger facing the environment due to human activities and what to do about it. Next John researches for any price rebates available for installing solar panels on his home and makes a purchase appropriate to his situation. Finally John decides to plant a little switchgrass bio-char garden. Wow, go John! Sadly people like John are rare, most of the time unless there is some tangible reward or quid pro quo most people will not go the extra mile to research solar panels, create their own pro-environment flyers or create bio-char gardens. However, if the resources and/or information are provided in an easy to understand and easily accessible format then most people will take advantage of it and apply their time to advance the movement. This is Phase II of a movement, providing the depth of information necessary to allow members to maximize their potential.

More on Phase II in a little while, but there is another important problem within the environmental movement and that is a seeming lack of coordination and joint action. Now this assessment may not be accurate, but to an individual not at a leadership position in any of these major environmental groups, these groups seem a lot like all of the intelligence agencies in Washington. Once in a while they share information and try to coordinate a joint event, but the vast majority of their activities are performed independently. This strategy is the same nonsense that plagues charities. For example there are hundreds to thousands of charities in the United States alone designed to support cancer; how in the world is it more useful to have hundreds of charities over two or three strong cancer collective charities that can increase efficiency, decrease overhead and have a more effective collection, treatment and information network? Short answer, it’s not. So why doesn’t the public see more coordination between environmental movements?

Returning to Phase II execution, one of the principle requirements for these sites should be to act in part as a clearinghouse of information. So with this issue in mind what information can be generated looking at the home page for 350.org a day after the big 10/10/10 event?




Well browsing through the above section headers ‘about’, ‘10/10/10’, ‘media’, ‘campaigns’, ‘sign up’ and ‘donate’ the following intent can be identified. The 350.org site seems to focus on two elements: 1. providing scientific information at a layman’s level to demonstrate the dangers of climate change and what needs to be done to reduce the probability of detrimental damage on a very general level; 2. information regarding how to promote 350.org in your area and before the actual 10/10/10 work party event occurred how to promote and/or organize that event as well; at first glance focusing on this information may be appropriate, but how useful is it really?

For example suppose Susan visits 350.org because she heard about it from a friend and want to know what she can do to help? Susan already understands the general science behind global warming and climate change, so all of that information is rendered moot. Unfortunately beyond wearing a t-shirt or some other material object, the promotional material outside of 10/10/10 is rather scant. There appears to be no direct information for Susan if she wants to somehow make a lifestyle change regarding her carbon footprint. Susan is also out-of-luck if she wants to learn about the most recent news about wind power deployment.

Now it can be argued that hosting this information is not the responsibility of 350.org, which is a valid point, but certainly it has links to sources for this information, right? Well when visiting the most obvious location for these links, the friends & allies section, the following picture illustrates the first page.



Unfortunately this organizational method leaves much to be desired. Instead of being designed for easy and effective transition from 350.org to another site with the desired information, its design more symbolizes a kind of arrogance, almost a visual representation of ‘look at how many allies we have, that means we are important.’ While such a contention may seem harsh it cannot be argued that such a listing does little to aid the movement as a whole. However, Susan is diligent and eventually finds some information to answer her first inquiry about things she can do as an individual tucked away at the organizational wiki, not an easy find.

It stands to reason that a better strategy would use subject headers to direct traffic for those individuals that want to know about other environmental organizations, sites that have strategies for carbon footprint reduction, sites for general up-to-date environmental information, sites which discuss in more detail about a particular environmental topic, organizations which are developing new trace emission energy infrastructure solutions, etc. None of that information appears to be effectively presented on this page or any other page in 350.org. There are scattered links throughout the site, but most pertain to scientific inquiry about global warming.

Clearly due to the multi-national cooperation origins of 350.org, it would be inappropriate for it to sponsor any form of action for putting a price on carbon using competition with China as a motivational tool. On its face 350.org needs to organize local, national and global movements and do so more innovatively and frequently than one or two big demonstrations per year. For example there are some general fact-sheets available on 350.org, but it appears that no one has ever advocated a ‘Print out a fact-sheet and post it somewhere in your local community’ day. Where are the unique t-shirt designs that do not simply advertise 350.org? What is going to garner more attention (picture size aside), someone walking around with this on the front:



Or this on the front:



Whether it is viewed as droll, thought provoking or just silly the latter slogan certainly attracts more attention. In fact why hasn’t 350.org sponsored a contest to design some new t-shirts which would attract attention? The winners would be placed on the website and split any sales between the designer and 350.org. In general when looking at the 350.org site one sees so much untapped potential, which could fight against the somewhat ‘do-it-yourself’ mentality that tends to permeate within the environmental movement.

As for the other stuff that Susan wants information on the evolution of a site like 350.org should follow the course of becoming a logistical information powerhouse. Basically if someone wants to know the most cost-effective way to lower his/her at-home carbon footprint for $500, click this link; if someone wants a step-by-step guide to completely eliminate his/her at-home carbon footprint where cost is not an object, click this link; if someone wants to join a debate about whether or not pursuing PV solar energy is worthwhile, click this link; if someone wants to read the latest report on the viability of IFR nuclear power, click this link, etc.

For example what if the above point was somewhat mistaken in that there is plenty of detailed and thorough information, outside of government reports, regarding objective energy medium analysis, deployment scheduling, specific job growth statistics pertaining to capitalization of specific emission reduction strategies, etc, but it could not be located by this blogger? If so, then is it not the job of at least one of the major environmental websites to catalog these reports so that interested parties do not have to go through UN, EIA, IEA, GAO, CBO and EPA database searches and general search engine queries (which is rather futile for anyone wishing to find accurate and up-to-date detailed information) to extract this information? If such a catalog exists then it is important for major sites to make it known to new environmentalists. It is difficult to expect effective solutions to environmental problems when useful information remains scattered and by extension legitimate debate is fractured.

In addition while it is true that one can search the Internet for information regarding home-based solar panel installation or electrical car purchasing, it is a hassle for individuals, especially those who are not diehards, to sort through all of the information a general web search can provide to get the teeth of what information is actually helpful. Therefore, to improve their effectiveness as tools to help the environment these websites need to have either the necessary information organized in a useful and easy to understand and compare manner or at least easily found links to websites with the information in that format.

Regarding these websites the most interesting thing may be the contrast in style for some environmentalists act like they are waging war against those that oppose human driven global warming, but the principle websites that represent the environment movements are not organized for logistics and information exchange, critical components in any operation. No one single organization should be expected to do it all, but they should as a group and if one person knows about one of these organizations they should be able to easily locate information about all of the other major environmental organizations.

In the end the primary objective of the environmental movement should be to create a Congress that will place a price on carbon in order to foster the new era of a trace emission energy infrastructure in the U.S. Individual action is nice and should be continually encouraged, but overall has a rather minimalist effect on absolute emission reduction both within the U.S. and abroad. Unfortunately most in the movement do not appear to realize that it is highly unlikely that the ‘price on carbon’ objective will be achieved by continuing to express concern about the future dangers of unrelenting emission release at a scientific level. For whatever reason lack of moral authority, lack of believability, lack of immediate occurrence or something else the public is not willing to make the necessary leap to voting to facilitate a change in course on a single issue vote mindset based on that scientific argument.

Therefore, the environmental movement must change its line of thought when encouraging the general populous to focus on establishing a national price for carbon. Some environmentalists like to talk about how the U.S. needs a WWII type mobilization, yet fail to realize that the government didn’t come up with Rosie the Riveter and the mindset of liberty and justice for all did not drive the U.S. to enter the war, but instead nationalism against the Germans and Japanese was a chief motivating factor to get the public onboard. There needs to be more ‘legwork’ for the general populous both locally and online to provide better access to information that should increase the probability that they engage in environmentally positive behaviors like increasing energy efficiency at home, reducing transportation emissions and water conservation. Finally the environmental movement needs to better evaluate future energy development and deployment strategies using far more detail to smooth the transition between current fossil fuel energy infrastructure to a trace emission energy infrastructure while also working to reduce overall environmental damage. Just because the construction workers have not shown up for work yet does not mean that the foreman and lead civil engineer can lounge around without a competed blueprint.

Determining the Future of the U.S. Electrical Grid

Although the official position of the government is not to attempt to select winners and losers through application of certain policy, the situation involving the environment is becoming dire. It is time for the government to realize that the free market is not capable of developing the appropriate grid demographic to substitute for the electricity provided by coal in the necessary allotted time frame to avoid severely detrimental consequences. This failure of the market is largely because of all of the lobbyists and the ‘so-called experts’ that are unwilling to accept the potential shortcomings in their preferred power medium. Normally even in the face of this common market bias people have faith in the market that the best option will outmaneuver the lesser options eventually controlling the market; however, on the doorstep to the end of ‘cheap oil’ with the era of ‘no oil’ not that far behind, decisions need to be made now, something the market is incapable of doing.

Almost all infrastructure is dependent on oil for its construction due to material transportation and construction operation and in an era of constant $150+ a barrel oil it will be incredibly difficult to construct an effective new electricity grid when the market is still deciding upon a winner because of its inefficiencies and imperfections. A wide range of piecemeal energy infrastructure (solar plant there, wind farm here, nuclear plant there, geothermal plant here) will not solve the energy problems of the future and yet that is exactly where the market is leading energy infrastructure. Therefore, the government MUST convene a legitimate and thorough energy conference to determine what one or two power mediums will be supported by government funds and which power mediums will be left out in the cold (from a government funding and subsidy perspective). It is time for the U.S. government to step-up, do its job and stop relying on the ‘all-powerful’ market to do a job that it is ill-equipped to do. Below are some concerns regarding most of the viable candidates to replace coal to get the ball rolling.

--

Some Issues about Nuclear Power –

1. With the lack of commercially viable Generation IV plants and none predicted to be available until 2021 at the very earliest, can Generation III plants carry the load for nuclear investment in the near-future from a cost prospective for clearly the cost effectiveness of Generation II plants is lacking.

2. Generation III plants do not appear to be able to create a negative radioactive waste load, so until Generation IV plants are created and fully commercialized in, at the earliest, 2025 where does all the excess radioactive waste go?

3. Although the probability of nuclear accident/meltdown is extremely small in modern nuclear plant designs, there are still lingering questions about who will foot the bill in the case of an accident.

Note the issue of ‘target for terrorist theft or strike’ seems irrelevant as no nuclear power plant has been destroyed by terrorist attack in decades of operation and with Pakistan, North Korea and in due time Iran all having nuclear bomb capacity, the impact and probability of terrorists stealing substandard and improperly enriched materials from a nuclear plant seems significantly unlikely when they can more easily acquire it from these countries.

Some Issues about Geothermal Power –

1. Without enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) is geothermal even worth pursuing as a baseload power source?

2. Can EGS be commercialized fast enough for geothermal to become a chief baseload provider warranting a rapid ramp-up of geothermal or should expansion be slow and steady pursuant to a back-up baseload provider?

Some Issues about Solar Power –

1. Will storage mediums ever move from uneconomical proof-of-concept plants to something which is actually realistic for a 500 – 1000 MW plant?

2. When will transmission lines be upgraded to dramatically reduce efficiency losses to warrant the massive economic investment of solar power in out-of-the-way desert and other high sun-low functional regions?

3. Will solar power ever become affordable relative to other options or will proponents continue to sell the yet-to-be-proven idea of scale-up significantly reducing prices? For decades solar proponents have professed that if only given a fair chance solar power could economically compete with fossil fuels and yet this proclamation for all intensive purposes remains false.

4. How will large-scale deployment of solar power handle large volcano erruption events? What is the attitude regarding the confliction between using solar power and the geo-engineering technique of seeding the atmosphere with sulfur dioxides?

Some Issues about Tidal Power –

1. Can tidal derived power even begin to produce any meaningful level of power required within the appropriate time frame of climate change? Basically is it even worth talking about tidal power?

Some Issues about Wind Power –

1. No one, wind proponents or wind opponents, seem to address the very real possibility of slower average wind speeds in the future due to higher average air temperatures in the Arctic brought on by climate change taking a significant bite out of wind power generation potential. Here

2. The concern that cost per MW for wind power is actually moving upwards not downwards as the best land-based locations for wind power have already been developed. Note: Offshore wind farms have yet to materialize in any significant capacity to develop a real and valid cost estimation to how their future development would influence overall wind prices per MW.

3. There is still the issue regarding how much emission savings wind power actually generates. Initial intuition leads to the conclusion that additional wind power that directly replaces coal or natural gas should reduce carbon emissions and while correct that intuition could be too simplistic. The problem with wind power relative to coal or natural gas is that wind power has only intermittent capacity, which demands backup power from more reliable sources (coal, natural gas, nuclear, geo-thermal or some form of storage medium). Unfortunately wind power advocates continue to downplay this need for effective and efficient power storage strategies to augment widespread wind power deployment on legitimate scale up grounds. Most pro-wind arguments make very optimistic estimates about the ability to scale up wind power via potentially unrealistic assumptions, like an average wind power failure with a very low standard deviation a la Diesendorf’s “the wind is always blowing somewhere” comment. Exactly how much backup is needed? Not surprisingly wind proponents cite almost nothing and wind opponents cite almost 100%. What is actually the right answer?

Also there is the issue of natural gas. Natural gas proponents feature natural gas as a cheaper and more reliable source of electricity over alternatives like wind, geothermal, solar and nuclear in the short-term. Such a strategy could be troublesome because widespread expansion of natural gas could be viewed as a significant waste of money because natural gas is not an endpoint energy solution, even if society wanted it to be one. While switching all coal plants to natural gas would cut total U.S. carbon emissions anywhere from 10.5 to 13.1% (derived from 2007 EIA data depending on natural gas plant efficiency), such a strategy is only a stop-gap measure because if emission targets to evade the worst consequences of global warming are to be met natural gas use as an electricity source must be minimized. With that reality would any significant scale-up of natural gas use for electricity be regarded as a waste of money if it has to scale back down 10 years later when that investment could have better been distributed to a cleaner and more permanent energy generation technology like geothermal, nuclear or solar?