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 »
The House of Representatives passed the American Climate and Energy Security Act in June and sent it to the Senate. The House bill, running to 1,428 pages, aspires in one breathtaking stroke to take on renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), nuclear power, electric vehicles, carbon cap-and-trade, power transmission, energy efficiency and climate adaptation. It ranges from grand vision to minuscule details such as technical specifications on lighting fixtures.
What’s missing in this sprawling draft is prioritization. The bill rightly recognizes that America and the rest of the world require a fundamental overhaul in energy technology and use. The insecurity of global oil supply lines, the growing global scarcity of conventional fossil fuels and the urgency to reduce carbon emissions all point to the need for a fundamental energy overhaul. Yet to accomplish such a worldwide, fundamental energy overhaul, we will need to keep our eye on the big picture—the technology systems that will make a large and lasting difference—and not get mired in excruciating details.
Of the dozens of actions discussed in the bill, only a half dozen or so are likely to make a consequential difference. Putting a price on carbon is the single most important policy, because that will indeed send a signal through the economy to shift to low-carbon technologies. Alas, a straightforward tax on carbon would be far superior to the cumbersome and nontransparent cap-and-trade system based on tradable emissions permits that is proposed in the House bill. Politicians hate the word “tax” and like to distribute free emissions permits to powerful interest groups. The result is an overly complicated and somewhat arbitrary system, but still much better than nothing. At least carbon emissions would finally bear a market price under the legislation, and the Senate still has time for major improvements.
Ramping up nuclear power is probably the second most important measure, because it is currently the most scalable, cost-competitive, base-load source of non-carbon electricity. The legislation is decidedly ambivalent about nuclear power, reflecting the continuing divisions within the environmental community between advocates and staunch foes. Whether or not we choose to expand nuclear power, China and many other countries certainly will. The U.S. should as well; it is necessary to accomplish a cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Third, we need to test and, if successful, rapidly deploy CCS on a large scale. The legislation rightly champions CCS, though many environmentalists continue to oppose coal unconditionally. Yet as with nuclear, even if environmentalists turn up their noses at coal, China, India, and other countries will continue to use it on a massive scale. So too will the U.S. The key is to ensure that future coal plants are using CCS.
Fourth, we need to develop our tremendous solar potential. The Mojave Desert alone could provide up to half of electricity needs in the U.S. if a high-voltage direct current transmission grid were available to carry the power to major population centers, and if the remaining technological obstacles and cost factors can be resolved. If ever there were a case of learning-by-doing, it’s this one. Investments in large-scale solar power are very likely to pay off massively within years or decades, but we will need an integrated strategy of R&D, feed-in tariffs for solar power, federal land management support and high-voltage grid development to bring that great potential to fruition.
Fifth, we need to speed and complete the changeover from a vehicle fleet powered almost entirely by internal combustion engines to a new generation of electric ones, including plug-in hybrids, battery-operated and fuel-cell automobiles. Either America will learn to produce such cars competitively or we’ll end up importing them from China, Europe and Japan, which are also gearing up for this historic change. There is a good bet that the entire world will make the transition to electric vehicles in the next 20 years. American global competitiveness as well as cost efficiency in greenhouse gas reduction should prompt us to make major investments in this effort.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentMuch of what Jeffrey Sachs says makes sense. As a economist however he should know better than to claim without qualification that nuclear power is cost-competitive with cleaner forms of energy. Any market advantage nuclear power may have (and it isn't very large) depends entirely on failure to internalize three major socialized costs. First, no nuclear plant could be built if Price-Anderson were repealed and nuclear plants were required to post insurance against Chernobyl-sized catastrophes. Second, Sachs seems to be assuming that perpetual in-situ storage of nuclear waste is an acceptable option. Third, Sachs apparently places no value on avoiding the production of more plutonium, which is an inevitable and hugely dangerous byproduct of fission that is mainly useful for making cheap bombs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA point of lesser importance is that I find Sach's technological optimism about CO2 sequestration to be inconsistent with the time scale usually required for developing and adopting major new technologies. We don't even have a working prototype; even 20 years from here until wide-spread adoption strikes me as a guess that is too optimistic. (E.g. it took 21 years from the first nuclear reactor patent to the first commercial power plant--despite the huge impetus of the Manhattan project.) But technologies 20 years away are of essentially no use in our current emergency, which allows about a ten year window of opportunity for action to avoid immense damage from global warming.
David Burress
Ad Astra Institute
Lawrence KS
Space Based Solar Power makes a great deal more sense than blanketing the Mojave Desert with Solar Arrays. Heliosat, Inc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalready possesses the IP for Hypersonic USV's, MEO Tethers,
Closed-Cycle Helium Xenon Gas Turbines and RF Beaming(Others) to Earth. It is simple, cost effective at scale and easily distributed World-Wide. The starting point is the production of the US Oil Shale and Canadian Oil Sands in compliance with EISA 2007. Five Trillion Barrels of Resources
have already been identified and can be produced by closing the Carbon Cycle and recirculating CO2 into the shale matrix using the Raytheon-MIT RF-CF Process.(Licensed to SLB)
Joe Burris
Chairman/CEO
Heliosat, Inc.
Dallas, Texas
Jeffrey D. Sachs recognition that we must prioritize carbon strategy is like a ray of sunshine on a difficult problem. He needs to be highly complemented and heard by many.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been unsuccessfully advocating that our highest priority for carbon strategy is that of an organized development of carbon emission metrics. Emission metrics would include carbon capture capability of many forms of plant life and man made techniques as well as carbon generating levels of fuels, manufacturing, maintenance and disposal operations.
We cannot simply throw money at proposed solutions without first applying a theoretical study on cost and benefits that is well founded with established emission metrics. Projects that successfully pass the theoretical evaluation, become funded should then be continuously appraised against the established emission metrics. Refinement and improvement of emission metrics would be an ongoing overlay process.
Concerning CCS, Mr. Burress states "We don't even have a working prototype; even 20 years from here until wide-spread adoption strikes me as a guess that is too optimistic." In one sense, he is correct. We don't have one prototype, there are many and they have been discussed in earlier issues of SciAm: Sleipner, Snovit, and In Salah are all commercial capture and sequestration projects. The Weyburn field in Canada pairs carbon capture from a gasification plant with enhanced oil recovery. CO2 enhanced oil recovery projects in west Texas and the U.S. Gulf Coast have demonstrated underground injection and safe transport of CO2 in more than 1,500 miles of pipelines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent technology certainly needs to be scaled up and more efficient (lower construction cost, lower capture cost, greater efficiency, lower energy penalty).
The questions are, will there be government programs to jump start large scale implementation of CCS and will consumers accept the inevitable increase in their electric bills?
Sigh...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack of the envelope calculations:
$20k for solar panels on a house's roof x 100 million households = $2 trillion = roughly the cost of the Iraq war or one year of health care spending
Results:
-virtually free power once the fixed costs are paid
-drastic pollution reduction
-no additional environmental destruction (including even deserts)
-no need for massive transmission lines
-absolute immunity from energy security threats thanks to almost perfectly decentralized generation (most power generated almost exactly where it is used)
It is really a bit ridiculous how much better this is than other solutions, despite the higher initial price tag. So, why not just do this, Apollo style? The stimulus could have covered 1/3 of the cost.
I am not a US citizen and I also think that US should prioritize its Carbon Strategy. However I dont think that converting to Solar or utilizing CCS would be too effective. On the other hand utilizing Nuclear Fission means transfering the deadly waste pollution problem to all future generations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUS should use its leading role and technological data base to convince its own citizens the world leaders/citizens that 6-8 billion population on this earth is not something earth can handle.
Sustainability of nature(including humans) should be the dominating criteria over sustainable economy.
Jonderry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe solution is not as simple as you make it seem.
In addition to your initial capital costs, you have to include the following:
1. Maintenance costs for 100 million households over the lifetime of the soar panel installation. I've seen estimated lifetimes of Cadmium Telluride solar panels in the range of 20 to 25 years (Reference IEEE Spectrum, Aug 2008 "First Solar's Quest for the $1 Watt), but this has never been verified. Many other manufacturers will give you an estimate of their solar cells lifetime, but do not have any statistics to back it up.
2. Replacement costs after the 20 to 25 year lifetime. This means you have to pay the initial capital cost again.
3. Energy storage facilities for 100 million households. If you're assuming batteries, this is a lot of batteries that usually only last 10 to 12 years; and you have to consider the disposal problems for this large number of batteries.
4. Transmission lines required to supply all these households at night, or on extended cloudy periods when their battery storage power is insufficient.(Unless, of course, you just intend the household to go dark) Transmission lines to supply reserve power are especially warranted in the winter time when you have overcast days, and below freezing temperatures. For this situation, when your battery power dies, you will not only lose lights, but your furnace will not turn on because you have lost electrical power.
5. Obtaining permission from 100 million households to mount solar panels on their roofs.
Once again, the solar solution is not as simple as you make it sound.
Once again this article spews green nonsense unfortunately designed to delay a climate solution long past us sliding over the no return climate precipice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnlike most gweenies the author has given up on wind. Because of the rapid ups and downs of wind turbines replacing only fast spooling low efficiency gas plants with high efficiency slow spooling versions actually produces less green house gases at a lower cost for the same amount of power than if the wind mill was never built.
Then for these Greenie carbon tax fools, Paul Krugman a Nobel prize winner in economics recently in the New York Times ripped apart carbon taxes in favor of the Cap n Trade.
First Solar just today announced plans for 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.
Westinghouse research claims with a long detailed study that with mass production techniques and political action for a one time nationwide regulatory approval of a standard design plant, they can build nuclear for $1000 a kilowatt or less than 2 cents a kilowatt hour. They've put their money on the table with a $1200 a kilowatt $5.5 billion nuke sale to China.
Projecting the Westinghouse China nuclear sale, it would cost $1 trillion to buy enough nuclear plants to replace the energy equivalent all of the United States crude oil consumption now costing $500 billion per year. That's less than the cost of the War in Iraq, it would get everybody to work and it be payed easily for by replacing oil purchases.
We were able to retool and regear to fight World War Two. We can do this with a lot less resources required than those needed to build millions of homes and automobiles every year.
The nuclear waste problem is solved with the consignment of waste to fuel for liquid metal fast reactors, like the one Sandia Labs has just designed and just needs political support to launch. In any case, better to use a few square miles of Solar array destroyed desert forever than to lose the planet.
We need to do this NOW.
David Clemen, I disagree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 & 2. The marginal cost per unit of energy once installed is much lower than with most other power sources. Solar panels often last longer than 20-25 years and even when they do need replacement, costs will likely have gone down considerably.
3. Energy storage is unnecessary. If all of the panels were tied in to the grid, all of the power generated from solar panels would be used by other households and business across the grid, usually nearby. For high use times and during the night, current sources could fill in the gaps.
4. The total distance traveled by all units of energy would surely go down with so much of the energy that is consumed being generated so close to where it is used. This would allow for *savings* in total transmission costs relative to the current situation, even though you still require transmission for nighttime power.
In the unfortunate event of war, a terrorist attack, or a natural disaster (one that didn't block out the sun...in that case we'd have bigger problems), most household would experience minimal electricity outages, perhaps forgoing only nighttime electricity until the problem was resolved.
5. Permission is unnecessary. Just offer people the option to buy power at a slightly lower cost than the current cost with the stipulation that they have to allow solar panels to be installed on their roof. I wager that virtually everyone would accept this proposition. In fact, I remember hearing about some power companies already toying with this idea.
My point is that we should not wait until this makes sense on strictly financial grounds because there are massive, massive positive externalities to making this change.
Jonderry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisItems 1 & 2: If you have any "substantiated" information (means manufacturers have either built panels that have lasted that long, or can verify statistically based upon the components utilized) and/or sources related to solar panels lasting longer than 20 to 25 years, I would be interested in reading it. Otherwise I would say the published documentation that I've read(IEEE Spectrum magazine, Aug 2008) supports 20 to 25 years as the limit. That means replacement costs are an issue that has to be addressed after 20 or 25 years.
Items 3: Your response to Item 3, Energy Storage is wrong. The entire North American continent (equals the entire U.S. electrical grid) goes into night time (no solar power) in the winter from 5 P.M. Eastern time to about 7 A.M. in the morning (about 14 hours). What is generating your electrical power at this time? If you assume battery storage from multiple households and businesses can support the electrical grid, you are absolutely wrong.
Item 4: This is related to Item 3. If no one is generating solar power at night because the entire N. American continent is in darkness, it doesn't matter if the energy that is consumed is close to the source. None of the solar panels are generating electricity at night. Therefore, transmission lines are required to supply energy from reserve sources for anyone who did not have a fully charged battery system. And, do you have any references for this "savings" that you state would occur in the transmission lines, or do you just assume this would be the case.
Item 5: Permission is necessary to carry out you plan on a whole scale basis. If 60 million of your 100 million households decide not to install solar power because they are retired, don't want to spend the additional money, their house is not located in a good solar area, or is shaded by trees, etc. etc. ; your plan will be a failure.
I agree with your point that we should offer the solar power option at a reduced price, thereby implementing this option in a number of households. Solar is a renewable, zero emission energy source; and should be implemented where feasible technically, and financially. However, your "grand solar" plan will never work on a national scale
Global Warming is a lie. Just check ocean temperatures, which are down. And why are you not mentioning that Antarctic ice is at its highest ever recorded? More sophisicated studies show the same thing. Plus the world has been both warmer and colder in the last thousand years -- nothing to do with us -- and it will do so again. Always someone who wants to tell others what to do. I work hard to make my carbon footprint as big as possible -- but Mother Nature has such a substantial carbon footprint that we might as well be just a couple fleas on the dog. Alas, I guess I will never get to see tropical beachfront property for sale above the Arctic Circle in my lifetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Clemen,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 & 2. No it's just anecdotal things I've read and seen on tv about 30+ year old panels still working fine, but the point is that the amortized cost per unit of energy is not much higher than other energy sources, and the improvements in externalities more than justify subsidies to make rooftop solar competitive to other current energy sources. Rooftop solar is better even than utility solar for the reasons mentioned above (less transmission, better national security, less environmental destruction).
3. I think you missed my point. If we used my plan, we'd still get probably 30% of our power from other sources such as hydroelectric or whatever. This could fill the gaps when demand is high and supply is low. Some individuals might choose to get batteries on their own, but that's up to them. Most people probably wouldn't bother.
4. I don't have any sources on this savings. Just common sense. If you generate all power far away from where it's used, you need more lines and bigger lines with more maintenance to make it work, and when there are problems, they affect a much wider area of buildings than if everyone who got sun could generate their own electricity. It's frustrating that no one ever seems to mention the benefits of drastic decentralization of power generation.
5. I think you missed the idea. Under my suggestion, utilities would be subsidized to provide this option. Basically, a salesman would come to your house and say "so you pay about 9 cents per kwh now, how would you like to pay 8 cents per kwh and save the planet at the same time? just let us put solar panels on your roof and we'll take care of everything." I suspect at least 90% of house owners would respond "absolutely, where do I sign."
jonderry makes a common mistake made by advocates of solar power. One can't just ignore the installation cost and then call all the power coming out free. Installation costs matter. Everything I've seen tells me that solar power is at least double the cost of conventional sources - and that's in a favorable climate. In New Jersey, a state going broke assisted by its large solar subsidies for an unfavorable climate, it probably costs 3x. Look at the collapse of solar power in Spain after the government went broke subsidizing it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the suggestion in his latest post that "utilities would be subsidized to provide this (solar array on house) option", now he's claiming that the power will be competitive because it will be subsidized. Guess what, someone is paying the true cost, and it's going to be you.
And he thinks that there will be "no environmental destruction". Well guess what. To manufacture this tremendous quantity of solar arrays takes many large factories. It takes large amounts of steel and concrete just to build the factories, not to mention the tremendous amounts of raw materials to make the panels themselves. All these materials need to be transported to the factory and to the job sites. It takes a lot of employees commuting to work. It's kind of like duplicating the automobile industry in terms of scale. This is all a consequence of that up front capital cost he wants to ignore.
Solar will likely be a dud for a very long time, if not forever. The fundamental fact is that solar energy is diffuse and not well distributed geographically and not well distributed across time. Creating large arrays to capture this energy will be expensive on a per kw basis. Subsidizing this will destroy limited government resources that should be prioritized to something else.
Soccerdad:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"One can't just ignore the installation cost and then call all the power coming out free."
I did not ignore such costs. You talk of states and countries going broke from supporting solar, but as I pointed out, the startup costs are lower than the cost of the Bush tax cuts and Iraq War. And the actual amortized cost of the switch would be even lower than the $2 trillion I quoted since after installation, the cost to generate electricity is drastically lower than with most other sources.
"Guess what, someone is paying the true cost, and it's going to be you."
How do you think large transmission lines are going to be paid for? What about the true costs of environmental destruction, energy dependence, and vulnerability to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and corporations that can game a centralized power distribution system (remember Enron?)? Think about this. If we are ever unfortunate enough to fight a war on our home soil, our opponent would have to destroy every single house in the country to shut down our power. On the other hand if we got most of our power from utility-scale generating stations, destroying just a few of the power plants and a few transmission lines would wreak havoc on our energy supply.
"And he thinks that there will be "no environmental destruction". Well guess what. To manufacture this tremendous quantity of solar arrays takes many large factories."
I have to admire your audacity in pitching solar panels as an environmentally unfriendly energy solution. However, in support of common sense, studies have shown that life-cycle pollution from solar panels is 87-97% lower than conventional sources, and this efficiency is improved by a factor of 3 with recycling of old panels. See http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/solar_panel_lifecycle.pdf
"Solar will likely be a dud for a very long time, if not forever."
Even using your pessimistic cost comparison, the additional amortized cost of electricity from solar would amount to less than 1% of GDP. With the inevitable cost improvements that would follow such a large commitment to solar, this would surely be reduced even further. A minor cost correction to account for the positive externalities of rooftop solar would cause it to take off rapidly (actually, it is taking off rapidly, but I believe we would see a complete revolution within 10 years).
Jonderry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you've read anecdotal things about the estimated lifetime of solar panels (read this as no hard data); and don't have any sources (anecdotal or otherwise) to confirm your transmission line "savings". In addition, you still have not answered where all your energy is coming from with your 100 million solar household initiative when the entire N. American continent is in darkness at night.
It's obvious your fixated on some massive solar energy scheme whether it has major problems or not (won't work, can't quote any sources that say it will work, don't know how it will work). I'd say this conversation is finished.
David Clemen,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In addition, you still have not answered where all your energy is coming from with your 100 million solar household initiative when the entire N. American continent is in darkness at night."
Please read my posts before responding to them.
From my previous post:
"If we used my plan, we'd still get probably 30% of our power from other sources such as hydroelectric or whatever. This could fill the gaps when demand is high and supply is low."
You'll find that I've addressed every problem that you've brought up.
Or we could make our appliances and electric generators more efficient...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy problem is the starting premise that carbon is evil and man has been changing the world climate by putting really a trivial, minute extra amount of carbon into the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnthropogenic global warming was an extremely over-ambitious proposition to start with. Since 1998 the world has been in a non-warming pattern and we should watch where it goes from there for a decade or so. This is not a "breathlessly" urgent issue because China, India, and Russia do not really take it seriously despite polite vague rhetoric.
Y'know, generally I disagree with Dr. Sachs' column. But this time I agree almost 100% with the short version published in the magazine. Congress needs to focus on a short bill with a short list of policy priorities set by what actually has a chance of getting us toward the goal. The current bill has not only something for everyone, but also something for everyone to object strenuously to. And, at 1400+ pages, the current bill lacks the transparency that the American public deserves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am glad also to see how Dr. Sachs positioned the carbon tax. Cap and trade, as discussed previously in Sci Am itself, is subject to massive fraud and, worse, as sen by the experience in Germany, it does not achieve the goal. A carbon tax, as discussed compellingly by The Breakthrough Institute, will also not be effective because any tax high enough will lead to politically untenable consequences. However, a carbon tax would send a useful signal through the marketplace... creating at least some incentive to move off carbon while simultaneously raising money that can be invested in solar, CCS, and other policy initiatives. All of that is better than a cap and trade system that simply sends our capital to other countries where it may or may not actually do anything to reduce emissions.
And to those opposed to nuclear: everything you say about storing the waste and the risks are true. There are several things to consider though before you simply say no. First, while nuclear plants already pay a tax for their waste, coal plants do not. So, be careful in challenging the cost competitiveness of nuclear: coal plants paying to retrofit CCS might be a lot less competitive even if nuclear plants needed to insure against catastrophe. Second, current generation is not all that safe either: yes, TMI and Chernobyl stand out, but don't suffer reinforcement bias and neglect the casualties EVERY year from mining accidents, black lung, and the occasional coal-plant explosion. It's a bit like saying you're scared to fly even though the drive to the airport is statistically a whole lot more dangerous. Third, it is completely insufficient to say no without proposing an alternative. Do not expect people to give up their standard of living: offer another cost competitive emission-free technology. Fourth, consider that "nuclear" is now a range from 1.5 GW plants down to 25 MW "nuclear battery" plants derived from the nuclear Navy. Are these all bad? All subject to catastrophe? So -- please stop chanting "no nukes" and think more broadly!
As usual, climate change deniers also forget to mention the forthcoming ressource depletion crisis and the gigantic costs pollution will incur. The only good energy is energy saved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this