In a piece in the New Yorker Ben McKribben argues that we can greatly reduce if not completely eliminate our present dependence on fossil fuels or, as he puts it in the article, “burning things”:
In the place of those fires we keep lit day and night, it’s possible for us to rely on the fact that there is a fire in the sky—a great ball of burning gas about ninety-three million miles away, whose energy can be collected in photovoltaic panels, and which differentially heats the Earth, driving winds whose energy can now be harnessed with great efficiency by turbines. The electricity they produce can warm and cool our homes, cook our food, and power our cars and bikes and buses. The sun burns, so we don’t need to.
Nowhere in the piece does the word “baseload” appear.
To his credit he spends a significant portion of the article explaining that to accomplish his goal it will be necessary to increases our use of nuclear power. He discredits that somewhat by bringing up fusion.
Let’s consider what can and cannot be accomplished with present technology.
Electric vehicles cannot completely replace internal combustion engines.
At the present state of battery technology the range of EV batteries is simply too small to replace vehicles driven by IC engines with EVs.
Hybrids are a better choice than EVs.
There is presently no evidence that the production and yield of batteries for EVs can be scaled up sufficiently for EVs to supplant hybrids let alone IC engines. We can greatly reduce our use of gasoline, natural gas, and biofuels (like ethanol) to power vehicles by using hybrids. Hybrids use fewer batteries than EVs; how much we can reduce burning for fuels is dependent on how much production of batteries can be scaled up.
We can greatly improve the capacity, efficiency, resilience, and reliability of our electrical grid.
A considerable part of how much we can end the use of burning for cooking and heat depends on Africa.
A large number of African countries are partly or largely dependent on burning wood for cooking and heating. Changing that would require substantial development of African economies.
It’s a scandal and an outrage that Germany burns as much wood as it does for cooking and heating.
Practical fusion is a future technology.
It may always be a future technology.
Practical carbon capture is a future technology.
It might always be a future technology.
Small-scale nukes are a future technology.
There is no Moore’s Law for battery technology.
That means that the ability to improve battery technology is not assured. We might or we might not.
There is no such thing as a green container ship.
We can make much greater use of wind and solar power than we do at present. That will come with problems of their own. Zero carbon would require a lot of changes that are hard to envision in the foreseeable future with present technology.
One final good point that Mr. McKribben makes: some of the greatest impediments to reducing carbon emissions today are environmentalists. How’s that for irony?
One stat I have listed before.
The materials used for 300,000 EV batteries sold in 2020 could be used for 14 million hybrid batteries (practically all US new car sales). The savings from 14 million hybrids would save 79x the gasoline of the 300,000 EV’s.
You can think of the problem another way; most daily commuting trips are 30 miles or so. A battery capable of a range of > 30 miles is wasteful because that excess charge isn’t necessary on most days.
Very much my point.
He diminishes his point by derisively referring to “burning things.” (Such hyperbole should be reserved for me, and blogs.) Better: Unleashing stored energy through oxidation reactions with carbon and hydrogen. And after all, that stored energy came from the same place he cites.
Good on him for understanding nuclear, which derives its energy similarly.
Total electric vehicle solutions are pass the bong stuff. But is there a definitive study on hybrids? That energy that charges those batteries has to come from somewhere. What is the net, net, net energy footprint? The stat CO cites is pretty powerful from the standpoint of battery availability. But how about tatal energy?
The hybrid stat is from here https://youtu.be/8Fub8AdysmI?t=214 — a respected car reviewer who based the info from Toyota engineers.
The hybrids we are talking about (for the 14 million) are the Prius / RAV4 hybrid / Accord hybrid type. Charging is from regenerative braking so no extra electricity generation is required. The number can be calculated based on the observation that “mild” hybrid based on regenerative braking generally gains 20-30% in efficiency compared to the equivalent non-hybrid engine.
“Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the University of California, published a paper suggesting that hydroelectric, wind, and solar energy could conceivably supply enough power to meet all the world’s energy needs.”
None of these people seem to grasp the concept of capacity factor, which is the ratio of the actual annual electrical output divided by the nominal rated output.
In the very best sites, wind has a capacity factor of 40%, however the typical wind capacity factor is under 10% (Texas PUCO). Solar is typically around 25% in deserts.
All of the remaining power 60% to 90+% must be made up by nuclear or fossil fuels. In some areas hydro is available, but environmentalists hate hydro as much as they hate coal.
By the way, worldwide coal consumption is rising. Worldwide there has been no reduction in the amount of power generated by fossil fuels (ca. 80%).
The end result of McKibben’s fantasy is an economy much like that of the Roman Empire or Middle ages. A large serf/slave population living in poverty and disease owned/ruled by a small self-appointed ruling class.
Every society prior to the industrial revolution and the adoption of coal/oil for power was a slave/serf/indentured servant society. There were no exceptions. Even classical Athens was a slave society.
The US environmental and energy agencies, like Germany’s, are nowadays run by fanatics who are determined to shut down all fossil fuel use.
What you keep ignoring is the cost factor. When we discussed this years ago costs for green energy were much higher. While you claim there is no Moore’s law, which really wasn’t a law, costs have consistently decreased for just about every aspect of renewables including batteries with battery ranges for EVs also increasing. It is becoming cost effective to switch to renewables. Yes, it has a ways to go but we also arent near to real economies of scale and already have those cost savings.
“There is no such thing as a green container ship.”
40% of that shipping is for the purpose of transporting fossil fuels.
Nuclear- Nuclear does have the disadvantage of being pretty inflexible. You can vary output but its not hat easy and takes planning. Should be easier, by report, to do with newer designs and smaller nuclear sources. We haven’t really perfected those yet cost effectively.
Hybrids- They do use less carbon and fewer batteries. It does bring up the issue that the author cites of how much money we want to lose by delaying the rapid uptake of renewables. If we dont have the capacity to produce enough batteries hybrids are better but if we do then the delay just costs us more money in the long run.
The grid- This will continue to be a big issue. It needs to be improved anyway. I predict that conservatives will continue to object to spending the billions of dollars to improve it that would save us trillions.
Iowa already has about 40% of its total electiricyt coming from wind and Oklahoma is over 30% and if memory serves there are 10-15 well over 10%. Wind turbine installation continues to rapidly grow as it is now cheaper than fossil fuel energy. In September about 60% of South Dakota per came from wind. Note that as you look over the numbers there is a lot of change to wind power in red states. Ideologically they might speak out against renewables but they are actually spending their own money on wind power.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/wind-power-states-us/#
Steve
And you persistently ignore that technology doesn’t progress in a linear or geometric fashion. You just assume that the costs will always continue to decrease.
I think we can do better than we are now and that renewables can play a larger role. However, for that to happen we need to be producing more of the stuff that makes that happen here. And without nuclear the goal can’t be “zero carbon”. Furthermore, those whose goal is to reduce the power we’re using absolutely are actually counterproductive. The goal should be to produce more power but to do so more efficiently and responsibly.
” You just assume that the costs will always continue to decrease.”
Nope, just pointing out that every year when you write about this costs have dropped again. You keep writing as though costs are much higher than they actually are. Do I think they will keep dropping? We arent really working at scale yet so yes, plus if you read the technical sites it looks like there are some significant improvements with good chances of working out.
Steve
It’s amazing what the Chinese can do with subsidies.
Some of the price decreases have been due to factory automation. Most have been due to Chinese subsidies of various different kinds including forced labor.
Relatively little of the decreases have been due to improvements in battery technology.
I recalled a study from not too long ago that had those findings, It’s discussed here.
The thing is that even if solar cells and wind turbines were free, they still wouldn’t provide baseload power. That means that a non-nuclear carbon-free future is presently out of reach and may always be out of reach.
That seems to be true. If it keeps on that trajectory, then the market will sort things out.
For vehicles, hybrids and fully-electric vehicles still have a significant price premium. And that’s before the added costs of electrical infrastructure. Adding a charging station to a house can be $2k-$8k. People who live in apartments and condos can’t magically make a charging station appear at their designated parking spot.
The massive advantage of ICE vehicles is that you don’t need a fueling infrastructure at your place of residence. Even rapid-charging stations (which can’t be installed in homes) take an hour to fully charge an EV.
In my view, this is a big reason plug-in hybrids are the way to go. I think the argument about “how much money we want to lose by delaying the rapid uptake of renewables” is a fantasy – there’s very little chance we could rapidly make such a transition, even with trillions in federal dollars.
Lots of papers saying it isn’t just labor costs. Note that the costs are about $1/W. If memory serves it was about $8/W in 2008. The is for US made panels. Of course the biggest change is in wind power. Note that in your later chart it is wind power that has grown so much and why it produces over 20% of power on many states.
https://www.rsc.org/news-events/articles/2013/09-september/cheaper-chinese-solar-panels-are-not-due-to-low-cost-labour/
You realize that EV batteries cost about 1/10 of what they did in 2010 and that energy density has significantly increased? You didnt really have cars with 300 mile range a few years ago. Now there are multiple. Batteries have improved as have manufacturing methods and components.
Steve
No, it isn’t. Some is in the form of other production and export subsidies. They’re so numerous it’s hard to tally how much.
So how do you explain US costs also down so much?
Steve
There is no law (or economic reason) that renewables or EV’s will keep getting cheaper.
Just a data point — the Tesla Model 3 was available for $35K at the beginning of 2019. Now the cheapest Model 3 Tesla sells is $47K.
Most projections for EV’s and renewables of ever cheaper prices are extrapolations of previous price history.
EV’s are a toy for doctors and lawyers and criminals who sneak up on their families to kill them, enjoy, A_Holes.
Hello, Philly, bloody Philly.
“There is no law (or economic reason) that renewables or EV’s will keep getting cheaper.”
I have never disputed that. I just keep pointing out that for years that is what you guys have been saying and I point out that every year costs for renewables have come down. So however many years we have arguing this I think you are stuck on costs being the same instead of realizing they really have come done a lot. When you look at existing research and realize that we are nowhere near real economies of scale there are good reasons to think costs could come down. I fully expect to point this out in 2023. (And you guys will again say there is no law that it will happen again.)
Steve