Solving the Climate Crisis: Common Sense, Not Nobels, Needed

Nobel Laureate and Energy Secretary Steven Chu noted recently that we need "Nobel-level breakthroughs" to address our climate crisis in the areas of solar power, electric batteries, and the development of new crops to turn into fuel. Is it really that difficult? A look at the developments already underway in these three fields indicates that common sense is the real need here.

A good example of a common sense way to produce renewable energy is the second area mentioned above, solar power. Advances in just the past few years show that US research and development is up to the task, whether people win Nobels or not. Ever more efficient solar cells (14-18% is the current range of efficiency) are being developed to harness the sun's energy, and new ways of utilizing them promise greater efficiency at lower cost. Recent developments include: plastic solar cells that can be used on a wide variety of sunlit surfaces; organic solar concentrators that allow sunlight to be directed towards window edges, where far fewer of the costly solar cells are needed to absorb it; roof systems that include venting ambient heat energy for household use, in addition to the solar electricity created; and most recently, the development of a liquid battery, far cheaper and more durable than other batteries, that could store solar energy overnight. Both wind and solar derived electricity are showing the most practical promise in terms of production efficiency and cost for renewable energy. Once again, common sense dictates that these should receive most of the governmental funding focused on promoting clean renewable energy. A feasible and common sense goal here is to provide the economic incentives that encourage photovoltaic installations on every appropriate US roof.

Electric batteries for automobiles are already developed enough to enable the Chinese BYD (Build Your Dreams) F3DM to travel up to 60 miles on an electric battery, which is enough for most daily trips by US commuters. Yes, much more work needs to be and is being done on developing better batteries. Just the development so far, though, indicates that it's a feasible, not extraordinary goal. The real goal, of course, is energy efficiency, and Aptera Motors is banking that energy efficiency can be significantly increased via improvements in structural design. Nonetheless, common sense dictates that research and development of even better electric auto batteries should be a funding focus for the Obama administration.

In contrast, common sense also means that less promising technologies should not take up significant resources or time. Carbon sequestration, which only addresses one facet of "clean" in "clean coal technology," holds some promise, but not on the horizon anytime soon. Given that track record and the practical options we already have for clean energy, we should be devoting any coal industry related funding towards training coal workers in green energy jobs in the production, installation or maintenance of infrastructures that generate, store and distribute solar and wind based electricity. The US does not have the money to chase "clean coal technology" dreams, or the time, as the latest increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases and their re-assessed impacts show.

Biofuels have already been shown to be far less efficient than solar or wind electricity, especially when the true costs are folded in. Under ideal conditions, the conversion efficiency of sunlight into stored plant energy is 1%, as compared to the minimum 10% efficiency of solar farms and even more efficient solar cells. Then there is the energy devoted to harvesting the plant matter and converting it into electricity. Finally, competition for cropland translates into the loss of Amazonian rainforest, one of our best means of storing carbon on earth, when Amazonian farmers clear it to plant newly valuable energy crops, or food crops that North American farmers have forsaken for energy crops. When these true costs are folded in, biofuels often are shown to worsen not help the climate crisis overall, and you don't need Nobel prize-winning research to figure that out, as our recent book shows. Common sense here dictates that we should be including the true costs of biofuels in our budget, which should result in massively paring back funding for such a relatively inefficient and potentially damaging source of renewable energy.

Solving the climate crisis does not require rocket science, or earth-shaking technological breakthroughs. It does require common sense to recognize what is most effective and can be deployed fastest, and the political courage to cut out what isn't. Our free online book, "Cool the Earth, Save the Economy" is a primer for understanding and assessing the technologies and policies that already exist, and understanding the climate crisis in general.

Comments

[SonofLiberty1]

I like the idea of common sense....

Can you tell me why we decide that it's ok to light up the undersides of clouds, birds and airplanes?

That's NOT common sense at all...

We all need good night lighting ...to see where we are going to see some intersections and parking lots...all these object that we need to see are ....

down on the ground not in the sky...


Now tell me why we should light the night sky?

[Richard2]

"Solving the climate crisis" assumes that we have clearly identified the crisis. Right now, it is difficult to find credible scientific measurements that indicate any of the accelerating trends that were predicted by the orignial Global Warming computer models. Are global temperatures rising at an accelerated rate? Are global ocean temperatures rising at an accelerated rate? Is the global sea level rising at an accelerated rate? Is the increase in CO2 rising at an accelerated rate?

Also, some of these indicators show a cooling trend, a deceleration of rising indicators, or a shift to indications of global cooling. For example, the global ocean temperature is no longer rising. A global cooling, would be a different kind of issue to deal with. Just how mankind could solve this type of climate crisis is unclear.

[sheila]

POLICY is the problem, not technology. As long as this nation keeps re-enslaving itself to Big Energy (now it's Big Solar, Big Wind and Big Transmission), and rejecting democracy (feed in tariffs), we do not stand a chance to save the planet. The economy and the environment are inextricably linked and if WE do not get the fair, clean, economically and environmentally proven policies like generous feed in tariffs, we are about to see a perfect storm where millions of acres of pristine ecosystem (most of it taxpayer-owned lands) will be permanently destroyed for wasteful, unneeded remote power production and GHG-spewing powerlines, plus prices skyrocketing.

Feed in tariffs are a perfect solution - distributed energy supported by feed in tariffs is cleaner, cheaper and more stable, it pays people to produce and to CONSERVE, it improves property values (instead of decreasing them and/or using eminent domain to destroy them), creates more jobs, engages the people in their own lives (it's just like gardening in that way), and SAVES OUR WILDERNESS FROM TOTAL DESTRUCTION, while reducing, not increasing GHGs and Robber Baron monopolies.

Feed in tariffs are never mentioned in the US press, and certainly not on this blog, so it would be nice to see them supported, and a moratorium on wilderness slaughter until they have been fully implemented.

[melmoid]

The point is well taken. All sorts of innovations could lead us out of the problem, and many if not most of these do not require any startling breakthrough. But the major fly in the ointment is the climate change denier community and the startling lack of scientific literacy in the country. These folks have an outsized influence in the political arena. The key here is getting a tax or cap and trade system on carbon. I think this will be very difficult. Until a cost is established for use of carbon fuels that is reflective of their true environmental and social costs, the innovative solutions cannot succeed in the market. Thanks for the post. I would also encourage you to look at Peter Barnes book Capitalism 3.0.

[tjfdownsouth]

Why do you propose cap and trade? That is just another government crap fest for redistributing money to their croonies. Get them out of the business of directing technology, instead of penalizing everyone directly just quite subsidizing entergy across the board (including oil) and let the best tech win.

[melmoid]

This is just name calling rhetoric. I actually prefer a carbon tax. The problem here is that carbon fuel costs have never reflected the environmental cost because there has been no charge for dumping in the commonwealth of air. Even my city charges for dumping in the landfill. (See the Tragedy of the Commons by Hardin--probably on Wikipedia.­) Because carbon fuels are low in cost in the near term compared to alternatives and the costs to the environment are not fully assessed, carbon has an artificial price advantage. The solution is for the government to set the price of oil higher by taxes because the market cannot assess the environmental cost without a tax of some sort. Once the real cost of oil is set, alternate technologies can compete. The best technology will then win. (See Capitalism 3.0 by Peter Barnes.) By the way tax policies and governmental subsidies have always played a major role in the history of the nation particularly here in the West. That is why we have railroads, dams, etc.