The fact that countries have come together once again to discuss actions to avoid the worst outcomes of the forecast global climate fueled disaster(s) is heartening, especially now that the USA has re-engaged with the discussions.  However, from what I observe, it appears that the attendees of the Glasgow Climate Change Conference are talking about agreeing to actions that are “too little, too late.”  Clearly, something is better than nothing, but in many ways we are still at the starting gate agreed upon during the 2015 Paris Climate Conference. 

It appears to me that while many things have been changing concerning how we power our economy, it isn’t clear that those changes are necessarily in the directions required to moderate the problem of too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.  For example, there has been a global boom in the construction of giant wind turbines to make electricity under the fiction that they are somehow “green,” renewable, sustainable, and affordable – and reduce the production of greenhouses gases while reducing our dependency upon fossil fuels.  The reality is that when the entire energy production system is included in the equations wind turbines require the use of as much (or more) fossil fuel derived energy to power them as they make.  The reason for this seemingly contradictory result is that natural gas “peaker” power plants are required to balance the variable production of electricity with the loads, and these power plants use as much energy on average as the wind turbines produce.  In addition, there are currently no viable ways to re-use or recycle the materials of construction of the turbines, not to mention the problem that the turbines are affordable without massive government funded subsidies.  The same levels of carbon dioxide production per kW of electricity can be achieved by using high performance natural gas fired powerplants without the wind turbines that is achieved with them.  The rows and rows of giant turbines look impressive, make impressive amounts of electricity at the site of the turbines, but don’t do much of anything when the “big picture” of the entire grid is included. 

All of the new electric vehicles are going to result in similar problems unless fundamental changes are made to the overall use and production of electricity.  Adding a vastly increase demand on the electric grid will require vastly increased production of electricity – and there currently are not enough low carbon power sources available.  In the United States, most of the affordable sources of hydroelectric power are already in use.  There are few locations for new dams, new hydroelectric power plants, or other sources of hydroelectric power.  Making electricity from oceans waves is an interesting novelty, but not likely to produce significant power any time soon.  Biofuel is a disaster if it requires cutting down forests and existing methods of sequestration of CO2 (which is the current situation).  Truly “green” sources of biofuel powered electrical generators from landfills and similar “small” producers won’t nearly be enough to pick up the difference.  Nuclear power is going to continue to be a significant resource for the next couple of decades, but it is extremely expensive, comes with major environmental and safety risks, and takes decades to come on line.  Fusion power remains in the distant future (if at all).  Basically, we don’t have anything near the required new electrical generation capacity to power the envisioned switch from gasoline and diesel to electricity.  Using our current approach, the “electrical future” will be powered by fossil fuels and other sources of greenhouse gas for the foreseeable future.

The discussions happening at Glasgow that I have heard about are focused on how to switch more of our use from directly being powered by fossil fuels (engines, heaters, stoves, furnaces, etc) to being powered by an equivalent amount of electricity – as if this new supply of electricity is just going to come, as if by magic, without requiring either an increase in fossil fuel use or a decrease in CO2 sequestration.  As far as I understand the problem, that is all a pipe dream.  The unstated goal is to keep the energy market as big and profitable as it currently is (hopefully, expanding the profits for the energy moguls) – the proposed changes impact the methods for delivering energy, not how much is used.

I see very little hope in achieving the goals of reducing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas without also massively reducing the amount of energy required to do the things that need to be done.  For example, in the United States (and other “first world” countries), the amount of energy required to condition the space within buildings, especially homes, can be reduced to less than ¼ of the current levels by making a few, simple, inexpensive changes that pay for themselves in savings from reduced up-front installation costs.  Add a small amount of solar and as if by “magic” that home no longer requires power from the grid or natural gas from the pipeline.  Of course that also means that the energy companies no longer sell energy to that customer – a major sticking point with implementing these solutions throughout the market.  In California this approach has the potential for reducing the overall energy use of the State by about 30%, for “free.”  Add to that potential massive increases in efficiency of automobiles from the current average of about 25 mpg to something closer to 100 mpg and another 30% or so the energy use is no longer used.  Change our current 10 watt per 750 lumen lights to 1 watt per 750 lumen lights is ten-fold decrease in power used for lighting.  (Lights that have this kind of efficiency, at a retail price of less than a dollar have been developed, but not put into the market place yet).  Replacing swimming pool pumps with properly sized and designed pumps can reduce the cost of energy to circulate water to ¼ the current energy requirements – saving approximately $100/month in electric bills for a typically home sized swimming pool. 

The point is that there are thousands and thousands of “low hanging fruit” opportunities to massively cut energy requirements at costs that are either the same as current costs, or so low as to be paid back in energy savings on the order of 3 or 4 years.  Once efficiencies have been improved, then the need for energy will go down, with the result that our existing “zero emissions” sources of energy (i.e., hydroelectric, existing nuclear power plants, sustainable bio-fuels, roof-top solar) are sufficient to power most of the remaining loads.  Instead of building new power producing devices, we can turn off many (or all) of the existing fossil fuel power plants.  The solution isn’t in making more fancier, higher priced, power plants – it is in reducing the amount of energy required to do the things that need to be done. Because reducing the sales of power is not in the interest of large power producers, the government will need to help through subsides, low interest loans, research into new ways to get the outcomes that we need by using less energy.  The energy grids won’t be left of out the picture because they will still be needed to provide the zero emissions energy; as well as for balancing and managing the grid current and voltage – most of the services that the currently provide.  Focusing on energy efficiency has the potential for being a relatively quick and affordable means for reducing the use of power that increases the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, with the added benefit of vastly reducing air pollution and the on-going disaster being caused by the acidification of the oceans.