The Solution to “Global Warming”
Just for the record, this is how NASA explains the difference between global warming and climate change.
“Global warming” refers to the long-term warming of the planet.
“Climate change” encompasses global warming but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melting in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times.
If I’m interpreting these definitions correctly, Climate Change and Global Warming sound like the same thing. But I digress.
Most of us realize the earth experienced an Ice Age that lasted from about 2.6 million years ago to 11,700 years ago. It was characterized by the widespread presence of glaciers and extensive ice sheets covering large portions of the Earth’s surface.
Obviously, our planet has warmed up significantly since that period.
I also accept the proposition that the average surface temperature has risen about 1°C (about 2°F) in the last 150 years.
Climate change alarmists tell us it’s not the earth’s warming that’s the problem, but the rate at which global warming is occurring. They conclude the rate of global warming is not natural the last 50 years or so – and therefore must be attributed to human activity – and that’s bad.
And while it’s not the only greenhouse gas emission, CO2 (carbon dioxide) is considered the major culprit trapping the sun’s warmth in the atmosphere.
Where I begin the divergence from global warming enthusiasts is what to do about it.
My first inclination is to just ignore it – write it off. The rises in temperatures predicted by these ‘scientists’ over the last 30 years have been markedly overstated, meaning I can’t trust the latest IPCC or whoever’s computer models are used to give me anything close to reality.
My second proclivity is to say why not try to address the emissions of CO2 to lessen the so-called human element of the global warming equation.
But that’s when I find myself ‘bucking the tide’ or ‘trying to swim upstream.’
It’s simple to know the largest contributor to CO2 emissions is the generation of electricity. Next in that line are combustible engines – overwhelmingly found in cars and trucks.
The answer or solution offered by global warming devotees is to substitute fossil fuel generated electricity with solar and wind – renewables. On top of that, they see eliminating combustible engine vehicles with electrically powered ones – storing the power in batteries.
There are numerous problems with solar and wind as solutions to global warming. Both struggle to deliver affordability and reliability in electrical generating systems. Both are expensive to manufacture and actually result in higher electricity costs because the power companies need to set up – or keep – fossil fuel generated electricity capacity for those times when the sun doesn’t shine, and the wind doesn’t blow. That obviously means maintaining parallel – duplicating – systems. Power companies call it the fat tail problem. Just because a resource might be cheaper most of the time does not mean it reduces overall system costs.
Further, the global warming solution to limit vehicle transportation to electricity means a society like the United States would need to generate gobs of more electricity so cars and trucks can power up their batteries. This major shift to dependence on electricity would come at a time when AI proliferation and other growing IT applications will require additional major increases in electric power generation all by themselves.
If those aren’t enough downsides dictating that it’s time to reconsider a hell-bent drive to solar and wind, here’s the last kicker.
Compared with conventional energy sources, solar and wind produce a very small amount of energy on a per-unit of input basis. Thus, they require both enormous amounts of land and vast quantities of raw materials to manufacture panels and windmills, but also mega-batteries.
To generate the amount of electricity created right now – not in the future, it would take as much acreage as twice the size of California for the number of solar panels and windmills needed. There are consequences for taking that much earth space to generate insufficient amounts of electricity for just the United States. Putting the future of electrical power on solar and wind is ridiculous if not insane. That’s not to mention the unreliability of those sources.
Because they are so low-intensity, wind, solar and batteries require enormous amounts of raw materials. To actually transition to a “green” economy based on solar and wind would require the greatest mining, manufacturing, transportation and construction effort since the Industrial Revolution. And mining, manufacturing, transportation and construction all have significant environmental impacts.
Throw into this predicament the fact that the 2nd and 3rd largest CO2 emitting countries, China and India, have no interest in reducing carbon emissions. Their “scientists” don’t see the problem some of ours do. Assuming CO2 emissions as the major culprit, the impact of reducing CO2 emissions in the US and Europe is hardly the solution on the “global warming” front.
Bottom line? The Green New Deal is a disaster waiting to plunge us back to the Middle Ages.
If you buy the idea that burning fossil fuels is creating a CO2 problem which in turn is accelerating global warming, the solution is NOT solar and wind – two of the most least efficient methods.
Efficiency represents how much of the input power is converted into useful output power, with the rest being lost as waste energy. Here’s the efficiency numbers for various systems:
Nuclear: 93%
Geothermal: 70%
Natural Gas: 60%
Offshore Wind: 35-50%
On-Shore Wind: 25-35%
Hydro: 34%
Solar: 23%
Further, if we had used half of the money that has gone into solar and wind in the last 20 years while rejecting fossil fuels and other sources altogether, I believe there would be technologies for even cleaner burning of fossil fuels, development of other energy sources, and extensive capture of carbon emissions.
It’s time for common sense – not blind stupidity.
**************
Have a great and prosperous week.
Hug somebody.
References:
