Keys to solving global warming....

Today’s post: Wednesday, 2-4-2009

NPR had a story in its online news saying that we almost need every developed and developing country to manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 % over the next 40 years or so, to halt global warming at a level short of global disaster.

And they quote a man who is working on the problem who makes the point, with which I agree, that overdoing taxes or other coercive devices to boost costs for fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide release are potentially undoable politically and economically dangerous as well.

His points are 3: We need to get the reductions anyway but we’ll need a different way to do it; innovation by dozens of new organizations that each do a little bit to solve the problem each working on their part of it at the same time may be needed; & the most critical part is using new technology to reduce the cost of renewable energy to the point it is cheaper than using fossil fuels.

The man they quote is Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University who runs the Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes based at Arizona State University. He is now trying to identify what institutions we need to drive that transformation in the coming decades.

His other goal is to make renewable energy as cheap as fossil fuels.

He believes there's little hope that the nations of the world will agree to tackle climate change unless that can be done. And, he says, “There's no time to lose.”

I agree with much of what they quote Dan Sarewitz as saying.

But I think there are some ways to get there that go beyond his views.

A. In an earlier post, I talk about how feed-in tariffs have proven to work in dramatically increasing the amount of renewable energy in a relatively short time. The evidence is dramatic. With a world location and area similar to just the Canadian province of British Columbia, Germany has used feed-in tariffs to install HALF of the worlds solar power. Note that they did this without severe harm to their economy AND at a time when the renewable energy produced electricity cost MORE than the electricity produced in other ways.

The feed-in tariff contracts with the solar or wind power provider to pay enough over the cost of electricity produced in other ways that the solar or wind power provider can build and deliver the renewable energy at a profit and that this rate lasts long enough the solar or wind power provider can build and deliver the renewable energy at a profit over the term of the contract.

But here’s why that works to avoid political fall out and economic disruption.

Let’s say these contracts cost double the price of energy produced by fossil fuels per unit of energy produced.

At the beginning when this only amounted to 1 % of Germany’s electricity, the increase in the net electricity bills to users was only 1%. (.99 + .02 = 1.01)

Then gradually it’s gone up to 16% where I’ve read it is now. Even if the costs did not come down, which I think they actually did do, the net increase in the net electricity bills to users was only 16% (.84 + .32 = 1.16)

So, even if we went to 100 % renewable, the total cost would only double. And the increases would be gradual.

But, when volume sales happen and new technologies come online, costs of virtually everything do gradually come down. So the increases will likely be less than that.

I think that if every nation and utility began using feed-in tariffs for renewable energy production of electricity and we used some of it for transport, an 80 % reduction in carbon dioxide release in 40 years may well be doable.

B. But what about the idea of making fossil fuel use cost more? Clearly that make sense as well because the sooner that cost is MORE than the cost of renewable energy, the more likely we are to get an 80 % reduction in carbon dioxide release in 40 years.

But if we cause fossil fuel costs to double or more in 12 months as happened recently to gasoline prices and other fuels as oil prices shot up, we’ll cause great harm to the economy and cause many individuals and businesses to suffer.

So, while causing fossil fuel use to go up in cost is not only desirable but ESSENTIAL, it’s also critical that the change be more gradual than that.

I think there are two ways to do the job but do it an economically safe pace.

1. Look first to charging the real costs of using fossil fuels to the providers.

a) As we’ve seen recently, coal ash dumped into rivers from coal mining and burning has ruinous effects. If the executives of the companies involved could go to jail for doing this; and/or the complete costs of cleaning up or preventing this damage were charged to the companies; and companies had to avoid this kind of thing as a cost of doing business, they’d have to charge more for their coal.

b) As we’ve seen recently, massive health care costs are created by health care and diseases caused or made worse by air pollution from burning coal and petroleum based fuels with in adequate pollution controls.

The producing companies have NOT been charged the costs of paying these bills or of installing enough thoroughly effective pollution controls to prevent it.

If over the next 15 years we gradually insisted that all the companies that burn coal or provide petroleum based fuels prevent these costs completely, by the end of that 15 years renewable energy may well cost less.

2. The key idea I think is to enact feed-in tariffs and extra financing for renewable energy production and build the new transmission grid first.

That way as the increased cost of fossil fuels begins to take hold, the renewable energy is already coming online at reasonable cost to cover our energy needs.

So, while we do need to make carbon based fuels cost more at least by adding their real and now unpaid costs to them, it will pay us to do it gradually. That is also the way it would make sense to add carbon taxes or delete existing tax breaks for those industries.

Lastly, by increasingly having coal and petroleum used for things other than burning directly such as making coal based but clean burning fuels to complement biofuels and by turning both coal and petroleum into sources of petrochemicals (as J. Paul Getty foresaw many years ago) the industries will have a safe place to land also as their income dries up from directly burning their fossil fuels.

C. We need to make an effort as great as the United States did to win World War II but on a planet wide basis to add all the renewable energy and energy efficiency we have the potential to use, or as close to it as possible and to do it for the next 40 years.

We need cost effective biofuels that can be produced in places that cause no environmental damage or compete with food production.

We need many more all electric and plug-in hybrid cars and trucks.

We need more wind power installations near existing populations and power grids.

We also need to build larger wind power farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby. (This part of T. Boone Pickens’ plan is absolutely correct and should be implemented immediately.)

Both kinds of wind power should be built right away since it is already cost competitive with fossil fuels.

We need more installations of simple and reliable solar hot water or water pre-warming systems by both individuals for their homes and by businesses.

We need more solar photovoltaic installations by homeowners and by business for their buildings AND parking lot spaces.

And we need to build smaller solar photovoltaic power farms near existing populations and power grids.

We also need to build larger solar photovoltaic farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby.

Similarly, we need to build smaller solar thermal farms near existing populations and power grids.

We also need to build larger solar thermal farms in appropriate locations AND build the new transmission needed to get that electricity to the people and businesses who will use it but are not nearby. Given the solar thermal potential of the whole South Western United States; almost all of Mexico; of central Australia; & and of North Africa, this is a truly huge part of the solution we need to also make sure to use. In the long run it may provide at least half the renewable energy we need. And, unlike solar photovoltaic power, solar thermal can provide electricity well after dark as well as after the sun is no longer near maximum brightness.

Ausra, the company that I’ve seen that has the best and most reliable solar thermal technology has temporarily, I read recently, stopped its efforts to build such large solar thermal farms.

It is my hope that they will plan to resume their efforts in this area once we have feed-in tariffs; a more normal banking climate or special renewable energy financing; and we’ve begun building transmission lines to these areas.

I think it’s essential we do that in the United States. Because if we do, the rest of the world will follow.

We also need to invest in LED lights; dramatically increase insulation and heat proofing of existing buildings; and insist on them in new buildings; and do everything else we can to make our use of energy more efficient without cutting our economy. In this category of things, some of them can be done within the first 5 years or even by a year from now.

They usually have a lifetime cost low enough to actually save money. And they often save money so well the payback is less than five years or even ONE year in some cases.

Since EACH of these things is doable, if we simply insist on doing them all, I think we CAN increase our renewable energy and energy efficiency AND replace enough fossil fuels by doing so to cut CO2 emissions 80 % while providing for economic and population GROWTH too.

And, if we show in the United States that it can be done & WE start doing it, we then can both bring the rest of the world along by example and providing the technologies and products (where we don’t import them ourselves.)

Plus, once that is moving well, we can consider adding import fees from countries based on how much carbon dioxide was used in creating their products.

One man said he thinks only such import fees will engage the full effort of China in fighting global warming. Based on my own reading of the Chinese, I think he badly underestimates their ingenuity, efforts already underway, and their ability to capitalize on things they see others doing well.

That said, they produce enough of the world’s CO2 each year now, once we begin actually doing ourselves what we want them to do, he may be right at that time. If he is correct then, I think that’s the time to use his solution.

My own belief is that by then it will not be necessary. But I agree with him that if it is, it would be effective.