Well, as Gilda Radner playing Roseann Roseannadanna used to say "its always something". The Christian Science Monitor has an article on the dangers posed to marine organisms by rising levels of carbonic acid formed by carbon dioxide dissolving into the oceans.
By the middle of the next century, for example, coral reefs in shallow waters could lose up to 30 percent of the calcium carbonate they need to build their structures, calculates an international research group led by Joan Kleypas, a marine biologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. That could lead to stunted growth or other effects, which could make them more vulnerable to erosion or storm damage.
Also, increased CO2 levels caused key plankton species to create badly formed or incomplete calcium carbonate shells, according to a team led by Ulf Riebesell with the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany. In lab experiments the ratio of shell to the rest of the organism dropped by as much as 52 percent.
Here is yet another report claiming yet another harm caused by carbon dioxide emissions produced by burning fossil fuels. What to do about it? Suppose atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up is going to cause even a quarter as many problems as the alarmists claim then isn't the most sensible and cost-effective response to spend money on basic research into energy technologies that will reduce or stop the emissions of carbon dioxide or even remove it from the atmosphere? Cheaper and cleaner energy technologies would displace fossil fuels without any regulatory interventions. No international treaties or international disputes about emissions would be needed.
There are historical parallels for cheaper cleaner technologies displacing more expensive and dirtier technologies. The displacement of coal for heating by oil and natural gas was driven by cost and convenience. No one wanted to wake up and shovel coal into their house heater in the morning or to clean out the accumulated ash or pay for chimney sweeps.
A regulatory response to the problem of carbon dioxide emissions would be incredibly expensive with total costs running into the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Contrast with this an alternative approach: spend major research bucks (Nobelist Richard Smalley argues for $10 billion a year which is a huge sum for basic research) to develop energy technologies that will be cheaper than fossil fuels and far less polluting.
Over on the Crumb Trail blog back40 argues that Richard Smalley may be advocating premature choosing of potential technological winners in energy technologies. However, I do not see Smalley's approach to energy funding through grants to basic researchers as likely to suffer from that problem. Obviously large major categories of research have to be chosen. But that is the case with, for example, NSF and NIH funding where the agencies have many subcategories of research in which researchers can apply for grants. It is easy to imagine, say, a category for photovoltaic thin films and another for photovoltaic nanotubes. Similarly, one can imagine a few subcategories for batteries and fuel cells. At a $10 billion a year funding level broken out across many categories it seems unlikely any major area of promising research would be neglected.
Even if the scale of the carbon dioxide accumulation problem is exaggerated that is not an argument against obsolescing fossil fuels. The displacement of fossil fuels through new energy technologies would provide a number of other benefits including lowering costs of energy, a reduction of a variety of pollutants that really do cause harm (e.g. particulates, mercury, sulfur oxides, and ground level ozone), and a reduction in the flow of money into Middle Eastern countries where it funds terrorism and the spread of Wahabbi and Salafist Islam. A regulatory approach to carbon dioxide emissions reduction would provide much less of each of these other benefits.
By Randall Parker at 2004 September 12 08:18 PM Trends Climate | TrackBackActually it was Gilda Radner's character "Roseann Roseannadanna" that said that. Emily Litella was the one that said, "Nevermind."
Randall Parker says "I only wish the Kyoto enthusiasts could find as much enthusiasm for energy research as they find for trying to create worldwide regulations to reduce fossil fuels use. The economic impact of Kyoto is so huge that it makes more sense far more sense to spend a much smaller sum of money (say $10 billion per year as Nobelist Richard Smalley argues) do research and development on other ways of getting energy and for more efficient ways to use energy."
I fully support energy research of the type advocated by Smalley, but I also support regulations restricting CO2 emissions and supporting energy alternatives, e.g., wind. The two approaches are in my view complementary. I recognize that there are great economic dangers in any large governmental interventions. I also recognize that there are remarkable efficiencies in free markets but the energy situation is dire and we can not wait for change.
The economic impact of adopting the Kyoto treaty is actually unknown at this time because predicting future technologies and estimating their costs and benefits is enormously difficult. Smalley and you both advocate a large research program to create superior energy technology, e.g., better photovoltaics and batteries. If this research program actually succeeds dramatically then there would be little or no cost for Kyoto. The superior new photovoltaic and battery technology would supercede existing energy technology because it would be more cost-effective. Myriad roofs would be replaced with solar roofs. Utilities could build solar farms, etc. Hybrid and electric cars would sell because electricity would be cheaper. Cheaper batteries that store more energy would increase vehicle range while reducing price. The multi-billion-dollar cost of Kyoto would be an illusion. Of course, there is no guarantee that the Smalley research program would "dramatically" succeed. For this to happen would require major research and production advances. This scenario illustrates the massive uncertainties in economic projections that try to guess the cost of Kyoto.
What is an example of a regulation I would support? Electricity utilities might be forced to buy a fraction of their total energy from sources that do not cause the release of additional CO2, methane or other undesirable gases, e.g., wind, solar, tidal. Note wind installations in the United States are economically feasible now when the wind energy tax credit is in effect. Wind energy could compete in this market without a tax credit. (Utilities would be able to trade credits toward achieving requirements to allow for the geographical distribution of alternative power resources.)
Why do I support this intervention? First, it is desirable to try to accurately determine the cost of "clean" power. With this regulation the contractual price for "clean" power could be made public. Hidden, complicated and delayed subsidies can be avoided. Energy users would pay the new cost when the energy is used. All sides of the energy debate would know what premium is paid. This approach does not pick a winner in advance; wind power, solar power, tidal power, geothermal power, etc. can all compete.
Most importantly a market is created for the type of power that we will probably be using in the future. The pathway toward increased cost effectiveness in a market environment is initiated for these power technologies. The efficiencies of production scale can be exploited when large contracts are signed. Market discipline moves the sector forward. Venture capitalists will know that there is an existing market for clean energy. When I read about companies like Stirling Energy Systems, Nanosys, Nanosolar, Solaicx, Vestas, General Electric Wind, Clipper Wind Power, and many others I want them to succeed in helping us move beyond fossil fuels. Their chance of surviving and prospering is increased when there is a large near-term market for their products. Our chance of surviving is also enhanced.
Garson Poole
Garson,
You state:
I also recognize that there are remarkable efficiencies in free markets but the energy situation is dire and we can not wait for change.
What about the energy situation is so dire that it requires us to be quick about instituting regulatory changes? Global warming is not an urgent problem. Most of the CO2 increase and most of the global warming will take place decades from now.
Why do I support this intervention? First, it is desirable to try to accurately determine the cost of "clean" power.
But we already know the cost of "clean" power: It is still much higher than the cost of oil. We need advances that allow new ways of making solar cells, batteries, fuel cells, and so on. Refinement of existing processes will not get costs down enough to make a difference.
One feasible method for neutralizing the CO_2 in the oceans (suggested by the late physicist Edward Teller), is to
feed the planktons with iron, by using a few supertankers full of iron powder or solution to fertilize
the oceans near the poles. This would increase the planktons so dramatically that a very significant amount
of CO_2 would be digested by the planktons, making it possible for oceans to absorb a lot more CO_2. This
method will almost certainly work, but it would, unfortunately, also increase our addiction to petroleum,
making the oil companies happy, and also delay the alternative sources of energy.
Garson, why should the US tie itself to an international treaty that caps US CO2 emissions while China and India get a free pass? Why do you believe other countries that sign the treaty would follow it? (See European failure to meet Kyoto goals.) Wouldn’t it be yet another case where international organizations would blame the US while ignoring the sins of other countries?
(I have no problem with your suggestions for encouraging non-CO2 energy production. I just don’t believe such steps should be dictated according to Kyoto.)
The world energy economy is dependent on oil from the Middle East, one of the most dangerous and volatile areas on the planet. Terrorism and war are currently disrupting oil exports from that region. Key pipelines in Iraq have been blown up repeatedly, and that is one of the reasons a barrel of oil has moved toward 50 dollars. Could pipelines, oil depots, and refineries be blown up elsewhere? The insurgency in Saudi Arabia has already detonated bombs adjacent to buildings. Could they blow up pipelines? Iran is furiously working to create multiple nuclear bombs. Could there be a nuclear war in the Middle East contaminating several major oil fields? Plausible scenarios for massive disruption of the oil supply do not begin in decades they begin in years or in some cases in just hours. The result could be a large worldwide economic contraction - perhaps a depression.
It is true that the primary deleterious effects of global warming would be felt in future years (and this supposes that the global warming hypothesis is correct). However, changing our energy mix also takes years. We should have started this project more seriously years ago but we did not. We must start now, in my opinion.
Randall Parker says "But we already know the cost of "clean" power: It is still much higher than the cost of oil." I am concerned about the cost of "clean" power, but the regulatory approach I have suggested can be adaptive and incremental. Utilities are told that they must buy a fraction of their total energy from "clean" sources. The fraction can initially be small. For example: Some Arizona utilities are under a state mandate to generate 1.1 percent of electricity through renewable resources by 2007. The fraction required can be increased over time as technology improves.
Currently I pay 9.037 cents per kilowatt-hour to my local utility. Consider the excerpts below that discuss the cost of wind and solar power. The company proponents of alternative energy are no doubt biased, but I think that the costs given below are close enough that a regulatory push to open a market for this type of energy is highly desirable.
The Master of Wind by Brad Stone
"Newsweek" dated September 20 2004
The industry grew in the '80s and '90s, but wind was still too costly, generating power at more than 10 cents per kilowatt hour, versus less than five cents for coal and other fossil fuels. Even today, wind power feeds less than half of 1 percent of America's ravenous energy appetite, and about 5 percent of Germany's and Spain's. ...
With rapidly improving technology and major corporate muscle behind wind power, costs are falling: wind contracts now average three cents per kilowatt hour (with tax subsidies), cheaper than coal and comparable to natural gas and oil. Because the wind is uncontrolled - it doesn't always blow - the challenge is to drive costs down further. Still, says Bob Thresher of the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab, "Wind is the first renewable technology that is very nearly competitive in the market for bulk power generation." ...
Dehlsen says the cost of wind needs to fall below three cents per kilowatt hour - without tax credits - to truly break society's addiction to fossil fuels. "It's still not there, but we're getting close," he says. He's putting in long days and full weeks, traveling frequently and trying to raise another round of investment dollars for Clipper.
Another Dawn For Solar Power
"Business Week" dated September 6, 2004
The solar-thermal strategy is roughly 30% efficient at turning the sun's heat into electricity -- about double the efficiency of photovoltaics. As a result, the thermal technique enjoys a pricing advantage. The giant solar-dish mirrors designed by Stirling Energy Systems Inc. could generate electricity for less than 8 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh) -- maybe even 6 cents, asserts David J. Slawson, CEO and founder of the Phoenix startup.
When these power dishes enter volume production, expected around the end of 2006, Slawson predicts costs will tumble 90%, to $25,000 per 25-kilowatt dish. That would put the capital cost of a 10-Mw plant at $10 million, or $1 per watt. But Arizona Public Service Co., which is under a state mandate to generate 1.1% of its electricity through renewable resources by 2007, isn't waiting. It will install 10 dishes next year. And utilities in Nevada and California are haggling for 40.
On the photovoltaics front, upstart Solaicx Inc. in Los Gatos, Calif., predicts that residential and commercial solar panels made with its silicon material will soon compete with conventional fossil-fuel generators in markets where electricity costs at least 10 cents per kwh. But for that to happen, the capital cost of solar cell systems needs to reach the same magic number of $1 per watt of generating capacity. That up-front investment, along with operating efficiency and equipment depreciation, determines the price at which kilowatt-hours of output can be sold. Today, the installed cost of high-efficiency silicon solar panels starts at $3 per watt. "Our customers should get to $1 a watt by 2007," declares Robert S. Ford, CEO of Solaicx. Around 2010, the Energy Dept. expects improved solar cells to generate electricity at 6 cents per kwh.
Fly, I think that the Kyoto treaty is flawed for the reasons that you have delineated and for other reasons. If global warming is real then simply abiding by the Kyoto treaty will not stop it. Also, signing unenforceable “feel-good” treaties sets a very poor precedent and degrades the status of all other treaties. In the first comment I gave above I was arguing that the “cost” of Kyoto is vary hard to assess. I was not arguing that the US should sign Kyoto. (The style of regulation that I thought might work was given in a later section of my comment.)
Yet, Kyoto does have powerful symbolic meaning to many influential people around the world and widely held international opinions do matter. The United States government can say that it will introduce regulations that will help the creative entrepreneurial people here (and in other nations) do the hard work necessary to create new energy technologies. These technologies will ultimately allow much greater reductions in CO2 and other gases then the ones given in Kyoto. Most importantly these innovations will not impoverish the world with exorbitant high-prices and scarcity.
Garson,
The dollars which you'd like to force to be spent on installations using current generation solar and other current generation energy technologies would not do much to advance those technologies. We'd just subsidize inefficient technologies. We would be better off spending those same dollars on energy research.
The problem with current generation solar photovoltaic cells is that there is a limit to how much their manufacturing processes can be refined to make them cheaper to manufacture. Solar cells based on silicon crystals are going to be too expensive because making the crystals is too expensive.
The same holds true for batteries. No matter how many tax credits are provided for building hybrid vehicles with lead acid or other existing battery technologies battery technology will not be advanced by spending more money to buy current generation batteries. Existing battery companies already have huge demand for existing battery technologies and have had that demand for decades. In spite of that fact battery technology for cars has not advanced by much.
We can waste a lot of money building stuff with current generation technologies and by tweaking current gen technologies to make small improvements. That will not get us where we need to go. We need lots of basic researchers working in laboratories.
There is a legitimate concern that regulation might cause money to be spent prematurely on dead-end technologies. But it is not easy to determine which technologies actually lead to a dead-end. Consider the following example. Remarkable progress has been made in chip manufacturing. Year after year researchers have solved multiple interlocking technical problems and have achieved “incremental” progress. Here the term incremental means an improvement by a factor of two within 12 to 24 months but not a factor of ten. (Yes, these are wonderful “increments” ;-))
I have been reading about advances in photolithography for decades. Years ago commentators would claim that a radical new technology was required to replace existing optical technology because of insurmountable obstacles. But it has not happened yet. Instead, optical lithography has been tweaked and extended to outlive many, many detractor’s predictions. The available roadmap to the future now says: “Candidates for the post-optical lithography are extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV), electron projection lithography (EPL), mask-less lithography (ML2), and imprint technology that is newly added in the 2003 version.” A next-generation winner has still not been selected. In fact, a wildcard technology was added in 2003. The claims that optical lithography was a dead-end were wrong or, more accurately, considerably premature.
Why do I bring up this example? One reason is to provide an illustration of the incremental progress possible in a market environment. I think that mandating the purchase of some “clean” energy will help to create a similar market environment that will facilitate rapid incremental progress. Markets provide guidance and reward innovators and investors. Note that a “moon shot” style multi-billion dollar governmental research program of the style envisioned by Smalley was not responsible for the extraordinary advances in semiconductors. Some “moon shot” type research projects do not accomplish much. Recall the much-publicized ten-year Japanese “Fifth Generation Computer Project” dedicated to producing a radically new kind of artificial intelligence based computer system in the 1980s. Formally, the project was a failure. There was little market guidance for the project and it was not trying to obtain an incremental improvement. (Though I certainly do not claim the project was useless.)
Randall Parker says, “Solar cells based on silicon crystals are going to be too expensive because making the crystals is too expensive.” The article that I excerpted above contains a solar company that uses silicon called Solaicx that claims it can soon compete at 10 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). I am already paying 9 cents per kWh in sunny Florida! (Wish we could tap the wind power in these hurricanes.)
Suppose silicon solar cells are a dead end. Solar-dish mirrors designed by Stirling Energy Systems are also mentioned in my earlier comment above. These systems are solar-thermal and do not use silicon crystal solar cells. The CEO claims a price of 8 cents per kWh -- maybe even 6 cents. As stated above I pay 9 cents per kWh. (Caveats: CEOs can exaggerate. Does this include the costs of power transmission? What about the cost of backup power availability when the sun does not shine?)
Fascinating wind power progress is mentioned in the Newsweek article. But no one has read this far.
Surely a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would - by itself - stimulate industry interest in basic research of the sort you deem desirable? If the tax could slowly rise, then that would allow time for a gradual slipover into these technologies.
I mean, this is very similar to what Kyoto was trying to do, although it didn't actually end up doing it because it ended up putting few or no restrictions on developing countries. (Which makes any sort of global carbon-dioxide control laughable, since carbon-intensive industries will migrate to places where the cost of emissions are lowest.)
Invisible Scientist, I remember first reading in 1997 about using plankton to capture carbon by seeding the ocean with iron. Physicist Gregory Benford called it “The Geritol Solution” in an article that discussed a wide variety of approaches for manipulating the climate. The article is now archived online. “Climate Controls” in “Reason” dated November 1997
http://reason.com/9711/fe.benford.shtml.
Readers might be interested in a more recent appraisal of plankton for carbon extraction that appeared in “Scientific American” dated October 07, 2002 called "The Little Plankton That Could - Maybe"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A5750-8AC2-1D9C-815A809EC5880000
See my previous post Ocean Iron Fertilization Viable To Remove Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide?. It looks like it may be too inefficient to be cost effective.
Garson Poole, Bob McGrew,
The American people are opposed to higher taxes on fossil fuels. The US Senate is not going to ratify Kyoto. That approach is dead.
Incremental progress: We've been waiting for decades to make enough incremental progress to make photovoltaics cheap enough. The incremental progress is slow. I'd rather fund basic researchers since they will generate far more knowledge per dollar spent than a tax or regulatory requirement will generate.
Most of the money spent on today's technologies will go toward just turning the crank on those technologies. Build factories, hire workers, buy materials, and work away. Very little of that money will go to researchers.
I have a friend who wants the government to spend more on drugs for old folks because he argues this will generate more pharmaceutical research and development. Well, it takes over $150 bil (might even be higher) in pharmaceutical spending to cause $30 bil per year to go into pharmaceutical development. But that $30 bil includes the cost of money while the drugs are developed before the drugs start to deliver a return. So the ratio is even higher than 5 to 1. It might be 10 to 1. Why should the government spend $10 to get private industry to spend $1 on research? The same applies to schemes to raise the price of energy to get more spent on photovoltaics and other alternatives.
Currently the world is pumping about 80 million barrels of oil per day that sells for about $40 per barrel. So 365 * 80 * $40 means $1.17 trillion per year is spent on oil and then hundreds of billions more are spent on transport, refining, retail sales, and other aspects of the energy industries. In the face of all this I'm saying, hey, lets spend $10 billion per year for researchers in academia. It is cheap. It will cause huge numbers of advances and transform the industry. Why not?
The energy issue is not really about technology, but fundamental physics. An inventory of currently conceivable energy sources shows that we're already exploiting the do-able ones. Our dilemma is that we don't have a clue as to where to go next. The "alternatives" and "renewables" will remain money pits due to the underlying physics (diffuse, low energy density, intermitency). Applying more technological know-how (i.e. R&D money) to a bad deal physics-wise is misguided. Making a more efficent solar cell solves little.
What we are seeing now is business people chasing corporate welfare dollars. Prospects for a radical change in energy markets are very dim.
Perhaps someone could offer some notions of the basic science concepts that offer new paths? Vacuum electroquantum dynamics, unified field theory, what? Cold fusion? Basic physics is where the R&D money needs to go. Just don't expect a new source to be commercially viable for 50 to 100 years, if then.
Joseph Somsel
Nuclear Engineer, MBA
Dear Joseph Somsel,
I'm not a cientist, but this matter is very interesting. I would like to show my observation, for me, the possible solution will be in a phisical investigation in extructural of the especificals semiconductors and transducers.
I believe in the incremental energy by use of crystal semiconductors on especifiques aleations, the principal of the matematic to explain is Nyquist equation. This low energy from the natural noise of the materials at especifical situations is possible to excite a especial manufactured piezoelectric crystal making a non linear amplification (exponential)similar at the a electronic crystal amplifier, you can see reference on the Electronic Enciclopedia writed by Tramaine, The cristal act like a piezoelectric transducer on low energy to high energy. You can simulate on the EWB512 software. I have this simulation in a sucessefull experiency. Maybe the software works at wrong form, but is true result.
Jose Sampaio
My only comment is that if we want to coexist on Earth with every other living species then it would be wise to quit using each other as well as abusing the systems we were given. "Why can't we all just get along?" spoken by the words of an angel. If it was an easy solution (which I think it is) then we could elongate the life cycles of the ones we love as well as the things we enjoy. Thank you for your time even though time is none existent in the span of eternity.