[Noozhawk’s note: Fourth in a series. Click here for the first article, click here for the second, and click here for the third.]
Over the summer, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released it sixth assessment report, the latest in 30-plus years of reporting on man’s destruction of the planet.
Working Group I is at the top of this food chain, writing the summary report that typically is the only depth of information that the news media and many government policy makers absorb. It has for decades been the Holy Grail of truth and wisdom in claiming man-made fossil fuel emissions are the largest threat to mankind.
An Aug. 9. IPCC summary p;concluded, “Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes, such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts and tropical cyclones, and in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5 (in 2013).”
But the words most heavily quoted by the news media came directly from U.N. officials that the recent report was a “code red for humanity” and “no one is safe.”
Hurricanes are often cited as a bell climate indicator.
“Our results show that these storms have become stronger on global and regional levels, which is consistent with expectations of how hurricanes respond to a warming world,” James Kossin, a climate scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote in a recent report.
“It’s a good step forward and increases our confidence that global warming has made hurricanes stronger, but our results don’t tell us precisely how much of the trends are caused by human activities and how much may be just natural variability.”
So as one variable of moving parts, for U.N. officials to sensationalize without root cause verifications, is disingenuous at the least.
If we only read the IPCC’s official Summary for Policy Makers section, and not understand how this mammoth climate forecaster machine works, shame on us and the news media.
Technically, we mortals aren’t going to appreciate the scientific jargon and methodology on our own and will need published peer review subject matter experts to interpret and then debate the differences.
The sixth assessment report, known as AR6, now documents for the first time that the likely worst-case scenario above 4.5 degrees Celsius is now found to be very unlikely.
The detailed report also indicates that the impacts of man-made atmospheric emissions on the earth won’t be realized for decades, even a century later.
The IPCC has narrowed the range of warming based on a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of C0₂ from preindustrial levels, to 2.5 and 4.0 Celsius, which means much warmer and cooler outcomes by 2100 are less probable, but still significant.
One preliminary read, according to theoretical physicist Steven Koonin in an Aug. 10 Wall Street Journal commentary, “Climate Change Brings a Flood of Hyperbole,” is that “the more plausible scenarios have an average global temperature in 2100 ~2.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the late 1800s. The globe has already warmed 1 degree Celsius since, and humanity’s well-being has improved spectacularly during the 20th century, so it’s absurd to suggest that an additional degree over this next century will be catastrophic.”
So therein lies the early battleground positions for this latest report. Most of the 195 member governments have for the last decade or so embraced what has been called Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, or RCP 8.5, with global surface temperatures at 4.5 degrees Celsius by 2100. As a result, they’ve adopted more aggressive pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (RCP 8.5 represents conditions that has CO₂ concentrations at ~1200 parts per million in 2100 which is 3X higher than today].
President Joe Biden is advocating for some of the strongest and most expensive price tags for his net-zero carbon emission reduction by 2050.
To put this into perspective, a study by Nature estimates that to get to a 95% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 will cost $2 billion annually, which is about the total expenditure for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined.
Now on to the green energy bucket of solutions to better understand their cost/benefits to humanity. What follows is the history of U.S. energy consumption by source since 1950. (Note: Don’t forget that U.S. emissions from fossil fuels is the same in 2018 (5 GT) as 1993, while the population grew 31% and our GDP doubled.)
As indicated in the data above, fossil fuel (primarily natural gas) and nuclear have been the fuels of choice for the recent decades, both in the United States and, as important, world-wide (wind was 7% in 2019, and growing, with overall green energy ~11% of our total energy requirements).
Robert Bryce, an author and former senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has been writing about the energy sector for decades. In a 2014 Wall Street Journal commentary, “Dreaming the Impossible Green Dream,” he wrote, “(Bill) McKibben, one of the world’s most famous environmentalists … founder of 350.org, whose goal is to reduce atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels to 350 parts per million (ppm) from 400 ppm. To achieve that goal, we need to cut our fossil fuel use by a factor of 20 over the next few decades.”
This reduction, according the Bryce, is equivalent to the amount of energy now consumed by India, which has a population of 1.4 billion.
Now let’s dig into wind energy as a sustainable and viable energy for our world. Mentioned previously in Part 3 was the fact that population growth globally is estimated to be close to 10 billion by 2100 versus 7.7 billion today.
Again, quoting Bryce, “Merely to keep pace with the global growth on electricity demand would require the installation of about 280,000 megawatts of new wind-energy capacity every year. According to several academic studies … the amount of power that can be derived from a given amount of land, is about one watt per square meter. This means that installing the requisite additional wind capacity would require covering about 108,000 square miles, an area the size of Italy, with wind turbines — every year.”
Also, it’s worth detailing what it takes to build one of these puppies. One wind turbine, those big monsters you see on I-15 heading out to Las Vegas, requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete 45 tons of plastic (be sure to watch Michael Moore’s documentary, Planet of the Humans, outlining the truth about the renewable energy industry).
The consumption of hydrocarbons to build enough wind turbines to supply half the world’s electricity would be 2 billion tons of coal (concrete and steel) and 2 billion barrels of oil (for the composite blades).
As for an electric car battery, which can weigh ~1,000 pounds, requires digging up 500,000 pounds of raw material (not exactly carbon neutral). And for comparison, according to multiple academic studies, the average amount of wind power generated (1 watt per square meter) is only 30%-40% efficient. For comparison, oil/gas wells are at ~27 watts per square meter, nuclear power at ~50 watts.
Solar power, with today’s technology, also has its challenges. As Bill Gates says, “it’s surprisingly hard to store wind and solar energy … and expensive.”
How many solar panels would it take to power the world? In 2017, the world consumed ~65 terawatt (TWh) hours of electricity/daily, according to the International Energy Agency).
Assuming an average 3½ hours of peak sunlight hours daily would require 18.54 TWh of solar power. If each solar panel generated 359 watts of power, the world would need 51.4 billion solar panels!
For comparison, the size of land required to house that many solar panels is equivalent to Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and West Virginia.
About 90% of today’s panels are built in Asia, including the rare earth materials required (that mostly comes from China). But the toxic chemicals required include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium(di)selenide, copper indium gallium, hexafluoroethanes, lead and polyvinyl fluoride.
“Even if the panels were free, the land, infrastructure, maintenance and backup power (for nighttime and cloudy days) would still make it more expensive than gas-fired electricity,” Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser wrote in a 2015 Wall Street Journal commentary, “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate.”
One of the biggest environmental inventions is the Ivanpah solar power facility, laid out on 3,500 acres of public land in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County and intended to produce energy for 140,000 homes. At one time, Ivanpah was the largest concentrated solar power (CSP) plant in the world.
When most of us think of solar power, we’re referring to photovoltaic cells that directly convert sunlight into electrical energy. CSP works by using a large number of mirrors to reflect and concentrate sunlight onto a central receiver, which then converts it to heat for electricity.
The project cost $2.2 billion with a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from President Barack Obama’s administration and, later, a $539 million stimulus grant to help pay it off!
The irony of this kind of buffoonery is this production was sold to the public as “green,” renewable energy. But natural gas, also at several other California wind and solar operations, is used during the evenings to help protect against overnight freezing and temperature changes that can hurt equipment (up to 4½ hours a day).
Another big concern is the death of plant and animal life when the ecology is disturbed at such a level (air temperatures reach 1,000 degrees F). San Bernardino County, larger than many East Coast states, banned “utility-oriented renewable energy” in 14 communities and in “rural living zoning districts” throughout the county in 2019.
“Renewable energy is a misnomer,” Manhatan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills in a 2019 Wall Street Journal article, “If You Want ‘Renewable Energy,’ Get Ready to Dig.”
“Wind, solar and batteries are built from nonrenewable materials. The International Renewable Energy Agency calculates those solar goals for 2050 (consistent with the Paris Accords) will result in old-panels disposal constituting more than double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste.”
Today, many municipal governments are pushing through new regulations called “reach codes.” The most progressive cities and counties are or have started the process of phasing out natural gas for home heating and cooking because of man-made climate change.
Unfortunately, this is beginning to be a battle of blue states versus red states raising their flags of independence.
Advocates of this requirement see the kitchen as the last stop of the conveyer belt of end-to-end green energy, and natural gas will not be any part of any solution equation. Homes and businesses account for ~13% of our nation’s fossil fuel emission.
A recent study found that retrofitting all homes now using natural gas would cost upward of $6 billion. Induction ranges, which use magnets that heat all new pots and pans, are more expensive to buy than equivalent gas cooking. Restaurant associations nationally also have raised concerns about cost and this forced regulation.
Even in Santa Barbara, the county and our cities are pushing “reach codes” without much public awareness.
A 2018 California natural gas poll conducted by Competitive Edge Research & Communication drew responses from 3,000 citizens, who were overwhelming — 67% — opposed to the elimination of natural gas for home use. The poll also found that just 11% were strongly supportive of elected officials outlawing natural gas for new homes.
What it comes down to is it factual science driving this agenda or is this an agenda driven for other purposes? We all have to decide as decisions are being made daily that constitute submission without proof that we know precisely the true impact of man-made emissions versus Mother Nature.
Koonin’s final takeaway, in his book, Unsettled, noted “climate and energy are complex and nuanced subjects. Simple descriptions of the problem or putative solutions will not result in wise choices.”
In this current warming period, today’s temperatures are well within normal ranges after 10,000 years. Yes, man-made carbon dioxide and methane emissions cumulatively will eventually result in extra warming in this cycle, but better science is required to truly understand their impacts on climate.
On an encouraging note, there are many new alternative energy solutions that private industry is pursuing that will reduce our carbon footprint appropriately. Government and industry need to be better partners in the development of basic research for alternative technologies like fission, fusion, next generations of biofuels, enhancing the earth’s albedo, tidal steam generators and other geoengineering methods not yet discovered that are emissions-light.
Carbon dioxide removal might be a consideration, but the scale and cost of removing CO₂ from the atmosphere has multiple challenges not yet solved. But we shouldn’t let government be a forcing function with government-based solutions before we know the problems that need fixing. (Just look at the recall issue GM is having with its Chevy Bolt batteries.)
In summary, we all need to better appreciate causes and effects of global warming and cooling periods; they are certainly more complex than meets the eye.
Earth still has 5,000 years of warming, and today and future generations will adapt — appropriately — just as we have for the last 10,000 years. We are all stakeholders, let your voice count.
— Michael Rattray is a longtime Santa Barbara resident, retired after 34 years in the defense industry. Today, active in both the preservation of Goleta Beach Park and the restoration of the Goleta Bay macrocystis (sand-dwelling kelp) forest lost during the 1982-1983 El Niño. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.