Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
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 »
Fifteen terawatts. That's 150 billion 100-watt light bulbs burning 24/7 for a year. Which is how much energy humanity now uses annually.
Most of it is dirty. Burning coal sullies the atmosphere and leaves toxic ash mountains. Natural gas is better for CO2 but not enough to halt global warming. So the hope of man who combat climate change is that alternative energy—electricity from sunshine, wind or low-carbon nuclear—can begin to replace fossil fuels.
And renewables like wind and solar have been booming. There are now nearly 240,000 megawatts worth of wind turbines globally, and the U.S. added nearly 2,000 megawatts of solar in 2011.
Unfortunately, the additional renewables are not helping cut back on fossil fuels much. That's according to an analysis published in the journal Nature Climate Change. In fact, over the last 50 years, adding a unit of alternative energy to the grid displaced a mere one tenth of a unit of fossil fuel-fired power. And those alternative energy additions have been small.
In other words, to get away from fossil fuels requires not just expanding alternatives but also discouraging the use of coal, oil and natural gas. Carbon tax anyone?
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentThe reason for this is because all alternative energy is dependent on weather conditions so you can't just 1 for 1 replace traditional sources of energy because you need a backup for alternative energy when it's cloudy or the wind is calm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI HATE this whole carbon tax idea. It's artificially inflating the price of current viable energies so that less viable energies become viable...and this is already happening with regulations. Doing this puts an even greater burden on the poor. It boils my blood. Make a viable alternative energy (nuclear fusion) and it will naturally replace all others.
There's nothing arbitrary with making something cost closer to their real costs. The government picks up the tab and the people lose a lot of resources for the sake of fossil fuels. You think cities breathing in soot costs nothing? It's energy that's dug out of the ground that got trapped for various reasons, the idea that we deserve that energy is absurd. Or that it's artificial inflating the price to make the dirtiness of the energy reflect in the pricetag. If energy were to cost what it would need to cost to be sustainable, carbon would not be competitive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot all alternative energy is dependent on weather conditions, geothermal energy for example...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake two seconds and think on the benefits of cleaner energy sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I HATE this whole carbon tax idea. It's artificially inflating the price of current viable energies .."
Well when fossil fuels do not pay for their externalities and when they do receive subsidies I don't feel hate surging through my veins but I do feel anger and indignation.
Let's look honestly at energy and I include nuclear power too. Fossil fuels were the one BIG SIMPLE source for our energy needs now we need to grow up and face complexity.
I hate dirty energy as much as anyone, but I think that dirty energy is better than none. It's time for all the poor people in the world to finally get their fair share of all of those terawatts that we generate. Let's not let our environmentalism justify fiendish policies in which we deny them access to energy and industrialization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving said that, I'd say that coal power is so much worse than the alternatives that in places where choices are available, we should choose anything but coal.
Unfortunately, the solution to the carbon problem is not solved by thinking of ways to do a job that used to require carbon and do it in a way that doesn't require carbon. This is because how much we do tomorrow is not decided by how much we do now. If we become more efficient or wealthier we just do more. So any process that replaces carbon and makes you wealthier or more efficient has no carbon effect. Here is an example of how it doesn't work:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI decide that I can help the world by installing a solar collector and remove the need to use coal power electricity off the grid.
The first thing I notice is that I have to spend a lot of money to buy the equipment to give me the capability. This equipment is going to be produced the same carbon requiring way that everything else is so my first impact is to increase my carbon footprint, relative to the issue of providing electricity to my home.
Fortunately, that isn't the end of the story, because from now on my house is powered carbon free from the heavens so gradually my carbon debt is being repaid. Eventually the debt is repaid and goes negative - my carbon footprint is clearly smaller - obvious - but wrong.
The other part of the transaction forgotten is that the electricity now comes for free. So that about the time that I have repaid my carbon debt, I have also paid for the installation with reduced electricity bills. I am now in the same position I was in before I made the installation. But!!! it is now cheaper to live because I don't have to pay the electricity company. I have become more efficient - more wealthy.
What do I do with the money I have saved? I spend it, and on average I will spend it the same way as everyone else (except for the need to pay for electricity). This expenditure is just as carbon hungry as any other expenditure. Net result - almost no change in my carbon footprint. The power stations that were needed to provide my electricity are now needed to produce the new goods and services I am able to buy.
Oh, and in case you are thinking of lots of community minded solutions to this such as putting your money under the bed - they won't work either. Economies have lots of buffering capacity that will ruin your plans.
I applaud your concern for the poor, but I should remind you that such concern is poorly placed if you merely hurt someone tomorrow because you avoided hurting someone today. It is especially poorly placed if you hurt two tomorrow for the one you protected today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSummoning up imaginary energy sources will not alter the equation. Until they are demonstrated to work and can be scaled up to the required capacity in a relevant timescale, they are imaginary and of little interest to tomorrow's poor, or wealthy for that matter.
Carbon taxes have a saving grace in that I think they are generally seen as a precursor to emissions trading schemes. EMS are important because they value taking carbon out of the air and don't just concentrate on stopping it being put in. This idea takes some pressure off the coal industry. It also lets the market decide when coal has had its days and that the alternatives are cheaper.
This will be a product of a simple equation - the cost of extracting the energy less the cost of taking the carbon out of the air it creates is the lowest for the best technology. The result of that equation will vary with the technologies available and the quality of the resources being used (eg brown coal versus black coal, high grade uranium versus low grade uranium). This is eminently sensible and the imaginary solutions can contribute to the solution when they are no longer imaginary and before they would become economic under the do nothing option.
I would add a proviso to this though, because it will favour nuclear fission because there doesn't seem to be a price on its environmental effects such as land becoming uninhabitable after accidents and the disruption caused by the heightened awareness associated with escaped radiation. All too often these costs are borne by communities and not the industry. Given that these are not really reversible effects an industry tax is probably most appropriate, rather than a trading scheme. A bit of modelling by smart people should be able to come up with something appropriate. If there is little to fear from nuclear power this will be demonstrated by the tax having little impact on its attractiveness compared to other options.
Yes installing consumer owned solar rooftops for all Americans is just a small step in solving the energy problem, but can we get started soon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery day we keep feeding the media controlling filthy and unhealthy coal, gasoline, oil, and nuclear energy monopolies more money to fund their self perpetuating political machines. Somehow we need to break the vicious cycle they have us locked into.
I guess people in India burn cow dung just to make Biello and other eco-zealots angry. They could easily afford to switch, but they are making a political statement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishose 240,000 megs of wind energy come at less than 25% capacity factor, and because the electricity is intermittat, musch of it is essentially lost in the grid's load following shuffle. Nuclear provides far higher capacity factors, more valuable baseload electricity, and 1970's design nuclear plants can have life expectantcies around three times that of 2st century design wind turbines. By displacing coal, Chernobyl and the Japanese reactors saved far more lives than they accidentally took. With the UN estimating 2.5 million deaths a year (6,850 per day) due to smoke from fossil fuels and 'renewable' biomass energy, it's time to let nuclear energy save even more lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon taxes will likely inspire some politicians to favor approving Carbon intensive energy sources instead of wind, solar and nuclear plants, so the tax revenue tricks some voters into thinking the politicians managed their budgets well, when they've just made bad energy choices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewables can only supplement the conventional energy sources like coal,petroleum,gas etc. but cannot replace the latter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
Nuclear power kills fewer people than other sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html#more
Other energy sources have their niches but different, simpler and lower cost technologies are required. For example, wind power should be used to store compressed air through simple mechanical devices and used in pneumatic tools for various uses like pumping water, climate control or household gadgets run with pneumatic motors.
Solar energy has to be converted by current methods and stored in batteries but used only for CFL lighting, and running of TV or computers as a 12V DC system used in vehicles.
Geothermal energy is talked about but a bigger source of hydro-power is ocean currents. Where close to coasts, water mills can be anchored at suitable depth with generators and power brought to shores. There need be no costly dams and reaction turbines could be used on a Run of the river(current) basis.