Baby, It’s Hot Outside . . . Part 2
Here is another thought experiment. Let’s say that we were really serious about the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by human activity. Let’s say the protagonists could be lured out of their tribal caves to find common ground. Let’s say that facts could be squarely faced and logic applied. What might a resulting policy look like?
The climate activists tell us that the solutions are solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars. We’ll look at each in turn.
Years ago, I read a book called Physics for Future Presidents, which discussed science in relation to public policy. Among the things that stuck in my mind are two calculations the author did. He estimated that converting the roof of the average car into a solar panel would result in the generation of power equivalent to one horsepower. He calculated that, in order to service the electric power needs of England with solar power, the entire island would have to be covered with panels. So, we have a capacity problem. In addition, sunshine is not available 24/7, but electricity use is required 24/7. The proposed solution is battery storage. Good idea, except for a failure of execution. I don’t know enough about the physics or chemistry of electric power storage to understand the impediments, but I do know that a great deal of time and money spent on research has generated minor incremental improvements.
The problem with wind power is a mismatch of supply and demand, geographically. Very few people live in the places on the planet where the wind blows all the time. To use wind power, lots of transmission lines will be required. Transmission bleeds power as it goes — a very inefficient solution. In fact the number of wind turbines existing in the United States today would approach zero were it not for the $10,000 tax credit, which is regularly renewed after appropriate levels of funding of campaign coffers.
Then, there is the virtue signaling car. It does succeed in replacing the designated pew in the Episcopal church as a sign of righteous living, but it does nothing to cure the carbon problem. That nifty plug in the garage is connected to power stations, most of which are burning a hydrocarbon in order to generate the heat that generates the electricity. It’s a coal fired car.
There are efficient ways to use solar and wind. Ships at sea are in wind conditions most of the time. Energy harvested could be used to help drive electric motors turning the screws. Office buildings in hot climates could be skinned and roofed with solar panels, which would produce power for air conditioning at precisely the time and place it was needed.
Mostly, however, the current politically correct thinking overlooks the three obvious solutions for, in my view, utterly illogical reasons.
The first place to look is natural gas. It has a much lighter carbon footprint than coal, and could be used to fuel power plants during a transition process. That would allow the conversion to carbon free power without doing serious damage to the economy. The whole of Europe and the State of New York are doing the cause of prevention of climate change a terrible disservice by outlawing fracking. We should be extracting as much gas as possible and running as many energy applications with that gas as we can. Even oil extracted locally has a lower carbon footprint that oil extracted in third world countries with no environmental safeguards, and shipped to us in tankers.
The second blindingly obvious source of carbon free power is hydroelectric. Water always runs downhill. That motion can be used to drive turbines. Think of it as liquid wind, if that helps your environmentalist creds. Generating power from running water does not have to involve big dams. A portion of streams can be diverted and fed back into the river. Waterwheel technology might make a comeback. The ideal solution would be an artificial lake adjacent to a river, where excess winter runoff could be stored, and fed back into the river as it dried up in the summer. Let’s poll the fish about that proposal. I understand there is a proposal at Hoover Dam to use solar power to pump water that has gone through the turbines back behind the dam so it can be used again. Grand idea. The right power source in the right place.
Finally . . . the really ugly one. Nuclear power has unlimited capacity and it is totally carbon free. The standard objection is safety. There have been, in the whole history of nuclear power generation, only three accidents. All three of them were caused by genuinely obvious mistakes, easily corrected in future plants. France has mostly run on nuclear power for years with no significant problems. New plants would have to be hardened against terrorist attacks and set up for remote shutdown, but the technology exists. There is the problem of storage of nuclear waste, but it is surmountable. If the very survival of human life on earth is threatened by global warming, we can surely find a safe way to encapsulate spent fuel rods.
All of these suggestions could be implemented with a minimum of government action. Mostly, government would have to get out of the way. A fairly simple taxing regime would get the job done.
