Gordon L. Weil
A U.S. Open Tennis Tournament match was suspended so a climate protester, who had glued his bare feet to the ground, could be removed.
Though his means of expression was extreme, his protest was valid. The U.N. group tracking progress in halting global warming issued its report almost the same day. The world is not getting there.
Most countries have set the net emissions goal for greenhouse gasses (GHG) at zero by the middle of the century – just 27 years from now. With massive understatement, the report says that achieving that “goal requires broad and rapid changes in existing practices.”
Can anyone seriously believe the net zero goal for GHG – mainly resulting from carbon-producing fossil fuels – will be achieved by then? The U.S. struggles to cut emissions and begins to try taking carbon out of the air. Meanwhile China, the next largest producer, keeps adding coal-fired power plants.
Energy to fuel cars, heat homes and run offices and factories will come largely from electricity. Electric power will have to come from wind, solar and even hydro to make a serious dent in the use of fossil fuels. Sustained efforts at efficiency, which means using less, are essential but unlikely to cover the gap left by renewables.
There are good reasons for restrained enthusiasm about renewables. They depend on the weather, which is far from being under human control and perhaps shouldn’t be. They also are not always available just at the time they’re needed. Continuous power supply from renewables will require electricity storage that is not yet fully developed.
Ending global warming is a matter of economics. Oil companies talk a better game about renewables than they play. Renewables may produce long-term savings and new jobs, but the transition may raise costs and reduce jobs. And a new world economy increases demand for energy.
Renewables won’t be enough. Focusing heavily on them avoids talking about the elephant in the room. It does not produce carbon. Its technology is available now. It reduces dependence on questionable energy suppliers like Russia and Saudi Arabia. It is nuclear power.
Apprehension about nuclear power has two main causes. The first is the destructive power of the atom revealed by the two bombs that ended World War II. The second is the demonstrated failure of some power producers to understand how or where to build a nuclear power plant, which caused accidents or even disasters. Think Chernobyl.
The fear has been so deep that some people want to dismantle nuclear power. Before it was closed, the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant faced no less than three referendums and prevailed in all. For some politicians, nuclear power has become an automatic no-no. The U.N. report, aware of political sensitivities, never uses the word “nuclear.”
Government and industry are learning that building a nuclear generating station is not the same as a traditional oil or coal unit. In New England, that lesson was learned at the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire. A unit was put into service only after an experienced nuclear expert replaced the local utility managers.
Industry hasn’t been helping enough. Discharges of water from the Japanese Fukushima plant may be as harmless as claimed, but they have set back the use of nuclear power. Many people will not trust a company that hosted a nuclear disaster. The plant’s name should have been allowed to fade into relative obscurity. There had to be a better way, even if it cost more.
Concerns are met by government regulators, but the process is slow. Industry may resist and neighbors may worry. A more uniform regulatory review process could help. Federal regulators are developing it, but it remains to be tested in practice.
The US, UK, Japan and other countries are working to aid the development of nuclear fusion power plants. Fusion reactors produce little radioactive waste and require small amounts of fuel. U.S. federal aid goes to commercial developers, who seem to be the most advanced.
Even with efficiency, renewables and now nuclear in the works, much needs to be done. New generators and lines must be built. Auto charging points must work faster and be more available. Storage, from car batteries to wind farms or hydro reserves, must be created. Like nuclear power, they can face local opposition and impose new costs – the price of reversing global warming.
Obviously, the world cannot cling to fossil fuels or bet on a single solution to the climate crisis. There once was a song, “Wishing Will Make It So.” Nice kids’ song, but bad public policy.
The problem is that human civilization is now being transformed by climate change. All available solutions must be used. Renewables, efficiency, and nuclear all impose costs. So does doing nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment