Image: Matt Collins
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
In a few short weeks, world leaders will assemble in Copenhagen for the much anticipated United Nations Climate Change Conference. Their goal: to draft an agreement that will limit global warming, chiefly by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As the 12-day meeting gets closer, the chorus from jaded pundits and politicians gets louder: “It can’t be done.”
Nonsense. The naysayers have two reasonable concerns. One: Countries will never agree on limits because they are out to protect their own interests, which differ. Two: Even if they reach an agreement, it will never hold because it will raise energy prices, which people will resist. Fortunately, both worries can be resolved.
The path to overcoming the diplomatic hurdle is daunting but clear. Leaders from China, Japan, the European Union and elsewhere have stated plainly that the U.S. must prove it will clean up its own backyard before they will agree to international limits. In June the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill. Originally a dictate to reduce fossil-fuel use, the bill was weakened as it was hammered out, so much so that some leading supporters claimed it no longer did enough. A bill that the Senate took up in September, introduced by John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, aimed to fix many of the problems.
But the important point is that Congress is finally acting. In his influential blog ClimateProgress.org, policy expert Joseph Romm wrote: “The original Clean Air Act didn’t do enough. And the 1987 Montréal protocol … would not have saved the ozone layer. But [each of these measures] began a process and established a framework that ... could be strengthened over time.” Commitment in Congress and President Barack Obama’s personal attendance in Copenhagen may be enough to prompt nations to seek a meaningful agreement.
As politicians and diplomats begin to clear the first hurdle, scientists and engineers have been dismantling the second: the claim that an aggressive goal can never be achieved economically because developed countries will never cut back on their lavish existence and developing nations will never slow their rise in living standards. In fact, reducing emissions does not mean cutting lifestyles. It does not mean punitive strategies. Rather it means replacing fossil fuels with clean, sustainable energy sources.
This notion is not naive ideology; it is hard-headed pragmatism. As Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi show in their article “A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030,” starting on page 58, wind, water and solar resources could supply 100 percent of the world’s energy by 2030. Step by step, the authors prove that more than enough sustainable energy exists, that the needed technologies are available now, and that they can produce power at the same or lower cost than traditional fossil and nuclear plants.
Wind power is already as cheap as coal power. Other renewables are not, but incremental improvements are steadily making them competitive. The key is to subsidize renewable sources, for a limited time, in a way that brings down their per-watt cost and hastens the day when they will be competitive on their own. Not all subsidies do that; in the U.S., a requirement that each state obtain a certain fraction of its energy from renewable sources, or a nationally mandated price for renewable power, could encourage builders to put up wind turbines in windless valleys and solar panels in sunless climes. A better approach would be a national renewable portfolio standard and state-by-state incentives to encourage renewables where they would be most productive, such as wind in North Dakota and solar in Arizona. An alternative is direct cash grants to boost installation of renewables, which the Department of Energy and other agencies have begun to make through the federal stimulus plan.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentAnother irresponsible bunch of hooey from the editors. Pulp fiction really. James Hoggan's new book Climate Cover-Up shows how Big Coal/Oil finances global warming deniers. One of their tactics is planting denier pieces in main stream media. Given that nuclear power could easily wipeout their industry while "renewables" haven't yet and won't ever cost them a dime, it isn't a stretch to think they are doing the same thing with Nuclear deniers at Scientific American. Author Delucchi's college is heavily dependant on Chevron donations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors offered absolutely no proof that their "renewables" could work at the same or lower cost than traditional fossil and nuclear plants. If you follow the commentaries to the Jacobsen's article you see it has been completely debunked with references. Jacobson's lunatic nuclear carbon costing theories are based on nuclear power leading to a nuclear bomb attack every 30 years which burns a city down and adds lots of carbon to the air.
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030#comments
Wind power is in fact 20 times the cost of new nuclear in capital and 10 times the cost per kilowatt hour - not competitive with any alternative . Again comments to the original article prove this with references. Jacobsen's numbers come from references to another greenie activist article which was in itself debunked.
The United States spends almost $1 trillion annually on greenhouse gases. With new reactors at current costs coming in less than $2 billion a gigawatt, the 2500 gigawatts of nuclear power required to end US fossil fuel use would come in at $4 trillion a 4 year payback. However projections and now evidence from India is showing mass production techniques have cut that cost to less than a $1 billion a gigawatt or $2.5 trillion with a 2.5 year payback. The conversion is cheap and with the current recession the industrial capacity is there. We can do this.
We are as little as ten years from a civilization ending global warming/peak oil catastrophe. Read this paper and buy a lotto ticket because it might already be happening.
www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282
The biggest roadblock to civilization's survival is Big Oil's Nuclear Denier team cranking out this renewable claptrap that this magazine this publishes and endorses. Are Big Oil profit's so important to the editors and authors here that they would rather see civilization destroyed and billions die?
In the United States GREED is at the Top of the food chain, need I go on?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSethdayal, What planet are you from? You figures are so far off on cost it makes you look like a nut.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are some far better ones based on actual facts.
Whether GW is real or not is a red herring as far as cutting way back on fossil fuels is concerned.
Their damage to national, economic security is huge. As oil has peaked in production as any unbiased person could see last yr when despite $140+/bbl oil, they could not keep up with demand.
Oil and coals socialized and direct subsidies are huge. Oil costs from pollution not including CO2, Persian Gulf military, the oil wars and trade deficit costs are over $500B/yr. If not for oil none of these costs would be there.
Then there is coal which cost $63B, 100k lives/yr according to various sources in various damages, not including CO2
And the cost of these are going up with a bullet, oil already in the $80/bbl braket in the middle of the worst recession in 70 yrs.
Now compare them to RE which is dropping in price about as fast and it's clear we must cut fossil fuel use greatly soon or be broke.
RE is a stable price energy source, most no more costly than them. Wind is under $1,5kkw, solar CSP is under $3k/kw with a huge heat bonus which happens when power is needed most and can be fired by wood pellets or any fuel for 24-7 availability, river/tidal power is under $2k/kw ands baseline power vs coal at $4k/kw plus fuel, Nuke at $8.5k/kw in recent US plant bids plus fuel. So it's clear RE is the low cost energy source of the future.
RE is just simple machines. A Windgen is just a 2kw generator, 2 7' blades, a tail, tower which including an inverter can be mass produced for under $4k and available now and last 50 yrs. Google Axial Flux wind generators.
Solar CSP is just a 5hp steam/heat engine, a 200sq' collector and a 3kw alternator which can supply a home 9-20kwhrs/day for electric anf 20-60kwhrs/day for heat. Mass produced no reason this can't be done for under $5k for 50 yrs of energy.
The same engine can be used with biomass/wood pellets to produce both electric and heat eff at lower costs.
PV is now under $1/wt for solar farm panels which mean $2/wt ones for homes is soon coming makes even them cost effective.
Continuing,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEV's using composite bodies, light, aero and old forklift EV drive tech can be built for under $12k for a 2 seat crash worthy 80mph, 100 mile range EV using lead batteries. These can do 80% of US trips according to the EPA, etc.
Personally I've built, used wind, tidal power and EV's at far lower cost than this so I know it can be done, we just need to do it.
It's only the massive subsidies of oil, coal that have kept these from the market. Let's put the true cost of fossil fuels in them so solutions can be done, making us competitive again with stable energy prices.
Waste biomass from yard, crop, forests can be made into vehicle fuels along with NG for semi's and peak power are the low cost, carbon solutions.
Or it's more war, pollution, health, land, air, water pollution and we'll go broke if we stay on oil, coal. Your choice
Look Jerry you already were administered a spanking over your poorly thought out posts over at
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
My "nutty" figures are backed up with references.
Where do you get your figures your for your home solar csp installations? Can you give us some references for somebody who has built one these units can keep track of the cost, performance, and projections for the unit? Obviously you haven't considered cloudy days and winter but perhaps you show us some calculations including those factors and sources?
Your $1.5 kw for wind once again does not consider days with no wind, transmission, storage, roads, civils, O&M. Those increase the cost of wind ten times. Many sources are quoted for that info in the commentaries for the previous article.
Those same commentators are giving you lots of reference to to nuclear costs a fraction of what you quote, for which you have no sources..
Your $1 a watt PV shows you lack even an elemental understanding of solar PV power costing. Let me show you!!
First Solar's China installation, a state of the art 2 gigawatt facility destroying forever 26 sq miles of Chinese desert (who cares in China anyway) which they claim would cost $6 billion to build in the US if even possible with the regulatory difficulties. This farm would produce 2500 kwh per annum per collector peak watt at a 25% load factor (ie nighttime, clouds, winter etc). First Solar's claim of $1000 a Kilowatt for the cells, becomes $3000 a kilowatt in a field collector farm, becomes $12000 a kilowatt when the load factor is added in. Absolutely no way in sight to economically store the power for nighttime, clouds, winter.
Goggle First Solar China for some help.
Your cost to convert your car to electric is for the most part lot greater than just driving it on gasoline for a 100K miles or converting it to natural gas and driving a 1000k miles.
Sorry Jerry but your "renewable" religion needs to do some fact checking before publishing its dogma.
Instead of spending time arguing the reality of global warming, spend just a few minutes looking into the future. The world is moving in the direction of renewable resources, it's not a debate. I am not suggesting that this move is good or bad, just making the observation, and hopefully coming to the conclusion that those of us with capitalists / competitive natures will, as we always do, rise to the top. If the world is moving this way then I don't mind investing capital funds to be the best at it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the left and socialists gripe about the US, they all enjoy the fruits of our labor and offer very little in return aside from cheap labor. There is a reason the US gets the major portion of Nobel science prizes - MONEY - the evil thing that put computers in our hands, TVs in our living rooms and vaccines in our bodies. There is a reason we have rovers on other planets while most of the worlds governments would struggle with model rockets. The drive to explore and compete are what makes capitalism successful. The traits so many shun are the traits that got us out of caves and make leaders of men.
The good news is that while we continue to prosper, we will still get to hear the incessant whines of the worlds socialists while they sit in their coffee / smoke shops and revel in their own brilliance while promoting the social policies that increase suffering - for without the suffering who would they get to help? What purpose would they serve?
It's time to be better capitalists, not fear mongering neophobes. In world producing lambs as quickly as possible, it's a great time to be a wolf.
Renewables makes the argument which is more in line with the human condition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need to do your homework. This world agreement will actually be a "treaty" which will place the U.S. at the top of the money teepee. Because the "treaty" will be signed as a "world government agreement" we will be instituting a indefinite contract on the pockets of the American public similar to the ones that were signed between the Aboriginals and North America eons ago. There is no end to those penalties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlong with agreeing to a bottomless money pot, we would be accepting more government control which would include the entire world of government. I believe this is a dangerous move and should involve the general public prior to signing any treaty with the WORLD GOVERNMENTS.
OK gang, and you heard it first here....think coconuts. soon the entire Midwest will be primed for coconut farms. people are going to be looking for start up money for such enterprises as banana plantations in Iowa.....Mango is another biggie as bread fruit.....this will be what brings Detroit out of its current Kakistocracy.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisare you on ecstasy.....?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisseth your da dadadada dummmb go away +start harassing someone else with truthful figures, that don't have an oil and nuclear agenda and government jerk off industry backing them up.....Have you even added in any of the externality costs in YOUR FIGURES do it then well see who's a 2 cent whore..., Besides even if you were right, maybe not everyone's as completely greedy, shallow, short sighted, and uneducated as mo fo's like you are, and dont care so much about the monetary value, when the quality of life, environmental, health, communal, and ethical benifits far outway your accounting...Also in case you didn't know, smarty mc not freakin smart.... a lot of people and places, already live off of solar, wind and in Hawaii, tidal. So get your shit straight there nucleur boyy. Also don't act like your some meteorolgy expert, The whole point of this is not to balance your check book, ITS TO KEEP THE PLANET habitable you freaking moron. So go live on Jupiter with all the money you could ever need or want, but absolutely nothing that sustains life in your environment there with you, and suck that lovely helium atmosphere down asshole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisseth your da dadadada dummmb go away +start harassing someone else with truthful figures, that don't have an oil and nuclear agenda and government jerk off industry backing them up.....Have you even added in any of the externality costs in YOUR FIGURES do it then well see who's a 2 cent whore..., Besides even if you were right, maybe not everyone's as completely greedy, shallow, short sighted, and uneducated as mo fo's like you are, and dont care so much about the monetary value, when the quality of life, environmental, health, communal, and ethical benifits far outway your accounting...Also in case you didn't know, smarty mc not freakin smart.... a lot of people and places, already live off of solar, wind and in Hawaii, tidal. So get your shit straight there nucleur boyy. Also don't act like your some meteorolgy expert, The whole point of this is not to balance your check book, ITS TO KEEP THE PLANET habitable you freaking moron. So go live on Jupiter with all the money you could ever need or want, but absolutely nothing that sustains life in your environment there with you, and suck that lovely helium atmosphere down asshole. btw i know this didn't have any facts, but i don't care your stupid and they'd be wasted on you. look em up yourself again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that much of the carbon propoganda now is stemming from fear of the economic consequences of people REALIZING what is happening:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/iea-whistleblowers-world-oil-stats-deliberately-inflated-appease-us.php?dtc=TH_rotator
So the man that was on TV explaining if the president signed this treaty it would banrupt up send all our money to Africa
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand make us a Comminist state.
Not know anything for my self was this fear mongering?
The solution to global warming is dead simple. Biomass pyrolysis can produce biofuel, biogas, hydrogen and biochar. In doing so, it sequesters excess atmospheric CO2. The only problem is that it cannot produce the same quantities as fossil fuels. This means solar power is necessary, and that society be replanned for energy efficiency by 2050. Investors will have to prepare for the new ecological society of the 21st Century. See : www.eprida.com for technical details.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this