Electrical consumption in both the United States and the world has doubled since 1980 and it is also expected to double again by 2030. Needless to say, to meet this demand we will need to create new electrical generating power plants. The cost to build these new plants is estimated at 14 trillion dollars (Daniel Yergin, The Quest, p. 396). 

Before we start creating these new power plants we must decide what will be the fuel of choice for these new plants. The fuel choice boils down to continue using fossil fuel and nuclear power or converting to non-carbon base renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric or geothermal. This is a critical issue because these new plants can operate for 60 to 70 years. Thus, once they are built we will be stuck using that fuel for a long time! 

Shouldn’t we consider making a major shift from fossil fuel to non-carbon based renewable energy sources?  Currently the United States generates 45 percent of its electricity from coal-fired plants, 23 percent from natural gas, 20 percent from nuclear, 7 percent from hydropower, 2 percent from wind and 1 percent from oil. (U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics, 2009). The United States has significant resources in wind, solar and geothermal to meet all of its electrical needs several times over (see my posting entitled The Cost of Climate Change). 

Some people argue that natural gas is the fuel choice for future due to its abundance and it is cleaner to burn than coal along with the fact that natural gas generates about half the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of electricity as coal. It is true that natural gas doesn’t emit the pollutants that are human health hazards that coal emits. However, natural gas does emit carbon dioxide! Even though natural gas emits half the amount of carbon dioxide as coal this carbon dioxide will continue to enhance climate change as the demand for electricity increases.  

People also argue that renewables are not competitive with conventional energy. It is true that electricity generated by renewables is currently more expense than conventional energy sources.  However, recent research and development on renewables is starting to lower the cost of electricity generated by these sources. In addition, a price on carbon in the form of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system would make renewables more competitive with the conventional energy sources and also stimulate the conversion of conventional sources to renewable sources. An example of how cap-and-trade can be used to solve an environmental problem is acid rain. Acid rain occurs when sulfur dioxide, which is emitted into the atmosphere by coal burning power plants, reacts with moisture in the atmosphere to produce sulfuric acid. Acid rain damages forests and acidifies lakes killing fish and corroding buildings. In 1990, a cap-and-trade system to reduce acid rain was enacted in the United States. By 2008 sulfur dioxide emissions had been reduced to almost 60 per cent from the 1980 level (Environmental Protection Agency, Acid Rain and Related Programs: 2008 Highlights, December 2009).

The conversion to renewable energy sources will not occur overnight because history has demonstrated energy transitions takes several decades. This conversion will require significantly more investments by capital venture companies and energy companies along with research and developed funds from the federal government. The time for action is now, not in 2030!

Photo by Fotolia/Thaut Images 

This year the United States had unprecedented triple-digit heat, devastating droughts, deadly tornadoes, massive river flooding and a billion dollar blizzard. Then last month an unusual hurricane caused flooding in Vermont and other areas of the Northeast. So far this year total weather losses are more than 35 billion dollars, and this figure does not include the losses from Hurricane Irene or Tropical Storm Lee. 

As our planet continues to warm through our use of fossil fuel, we will see an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events along with the increasing loss of lives and cost to repair the damage.  Do we want to continue paying for these spiraling weather related losses? This spiraling cost alone should be sufficient justification for us to convert to a non-carbon basis renewable energy infrastructure.  Some people argue that converting to a non-carbon base energy source will hurt the economy. This simply isn’t true because a new workforce will be necessary to develop and maintain the solar panels, wind turbines, etc that are required for the new energy sources. An example of a successful conversion to a renewable energy source is Iceland, which has a wealth of geothermal power. According to Jared Diamond in his book Collapse, Iceland was once the poorest country in Europe. Today Iceland is one of the world’s richest countries on per-capita basis partially due to its conversion from fossil fuel to a geothermal energy source. In Iceland today about 90 percent of the homes are heated with thermal energy and the country has essentially eliminated the use of coal for home heating.

The United States has sufficient wind, solar and geothermal energy to allow a conversion from a fossil fuel to a non-carbon base energy infrastructure. As Lester Brown points out in his book Plan B 4.0, the National Renewable Energy Lab has shown the United States has enough land based wind energy to satisfy our national electricity needs several times over. Furthermore, there is enough offshore wind capacity along the East Coast to supply sufficient power for all the major metropolitans on the East Coast. Wind turbines can be mass-produced on assembly lines similar to the assembly lines used by the automobile industry. This would be a good way to utilized idle automobile plants and put the skilled auto workers back to work.

Energy from the sun can be harnessed with solar photovoltaics (PV) and solar thermal collectors. Solar PV cells convert sunlight directly into electricity. Solar thermal collectors can be used to concentrate sunlight on water to produce steam and generate electricity. Solar energy could supply the planet’s entire energy requirement!

The potential of geothermal energy to provide electricity to heat homes and supply heat for industry is vast. An interdisciplinary team of scientists and engineers assembled in 2006 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to assess the United States geothermal electrical generating potential. The development of geothermal energy will use the latest technology including the techology developed by oil companies for drilling and oil recovery. This technology involves drilling down to the hot rock layer, fracturing the rock and pumping water into the cracked rock and then removing the heated water to drive steam turbines.  The MIT team estimates that with this technology the United States has enough geothermal energy to meet its energy needs 2,000 times over! To fully utilize this energy source the MIT team estimates the government and industry must invest about 1 billion dollars in geothermal research and development which is about the cost of one coal-fired electrical plant [The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21^st Century]!  Should new electrical generating plants be coal-fired or renewable energy plants?  Since this technology is similar to what the oil industry is currently using, it would be very easy for oil industry workers to make the transition to geothermal energy jobs.

Clearly the United States has more than sufficient natural resources to convert to a non-carbon base renewable energy. Many people believe that the cost of developing a non-carbon based renewable energy infrastructure outweigh the benefits of making these changes. If we agree with this assessment then we need to accept the fact that continued use of fossil fuel will increase the frequency of extreme weather events and thus increase the cost of repairing the damage.

Photo Credit: Fotolia/Vantage Point 

In 2009 Gallup published a poll on the environment which concluded that 97.5 percent of practicing climate scientist believed global warming was occurring while only 58 percent of the general public believed that global warming was occurring.  Why is there such a disconnect between the climate change experts and the general public? One reason is climate change is an extremely complex issue involving different scientific disciplines. Another reason is that there is a lot of misinformation from both the scientific community and the public floating around. All of this leads to confusion and misconceptions in the minds of the general public.

However, there are two fundamental facts pertaining to climate change that can’t be refuted! The first fact is carbon dioxide absorbs heat. This has been known since the 1850s and this fact can be demonstrated by any physics lab in the world. Secondly, burning of fossil fuel as an energy source produces carbon dioxide as a waste product. This carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere from the smoke stacks of coal-firing electrical plants and from exhaust pipes of our automobiles. It should be very easy for all of us to comprehend that by increasing the atmospheric concentration of heat absorbing carbon dioxide means that a rise in the global temperature will follow!

If we fail to act on the climate problem that we have created, we will pass on a much impoverished world to our grandchildren and future generations. This new world will have higher temperatures, more heat waves, more droughts, more hurricanes, more tropical storms, more flooding, more tornadoes, a significant rise in sea level, less quality water, less land for agriculture, less biodiversity and a collapse of ecosystems that are essential to our way of life.

As the number of extreme weather events spiral upward so will the cost in lives and billions of dollars to repair the damage. The choice is ours. We either convert to non-carbon base renewable energy sources or we let future generations face the consequences. What legacy do we want to leave for future generations?

Photo Credit: Fotolia/sdecoret 

As this summer’s heat wave lingers on some people speculate that the current global warming trend is part of the natural cycle and there is nothing for us to worry about. Unfortunately the wealth of scientific data does not support this hypothesis. It is true that over geological time the planet has seen higher temperatures than we are witnessing today. However, there are two important differences between past natural cycles and the current global warming trend. The first difference is that previous global warming trends evolved over long periods of time (thousands of years) while the current trend is evolving at a much faster rate and takes only decades. Secondly, humans were not a contributing factor in earlier natural cycles.

In the natural cycle orbital variations of the Sun initiate global warming. This initial warming then triggers the release of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane and these gases amplify the orbital warming (my posting entitled Role of Milankovitch Cycles and Sunspots in Climate Change). In other words, the natural climate cycle is due to both orbital changes and greenhouse gases. These natural cycles have been occurring for millions of years long before humans entered the picture. The scientific consensus is that climate change is happening and that humans are responsible for the increased global temperature over the last century (my posting entitled Fossil Fuel and Atmospheric Levels of Carbon Dioxide). After a half century of scientific work it is clear that the human footprint on the planet is overwhelming the natural cycle. The natural cycle is being over whelmed by humans because of their use of fossil fuel which introduces are carbon overload into the atmosphere (my posting entitled Carbon Cycle).

The speed of human induced climate change is happening at a much faster rate than that of earlier periods. The temperature difference between the end of the last ice age and today is 5 degrees Celsius and this occurred over 10,000 years. This is a temperature difference of 0.05 degrees Celcius per 100 years. In contrast the observed rate for the past 50 years is 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees per 100 years)! It is easy to comprehend that the ability of species to adapt to climate change over 10,000 years is less difficult than over 100 years. Most plant species can’t migrate faster than one kilometer per year. It is this fast change on the world’s ecosystem that could trigger major extinction of both plants and animals. A recent report in Science magazine demonstrates that global warming is already causing a migration of both plant and animal species poleward and to higher elevations. 

This rapid ascent of the global temperature along with rising sea levels will also necessitate humans to migrate away from the sea. Over 100 million people live less than 3 feet above sea level. What will happen when we these climate refugees start moving inland?

Some people also state that there is nothing we can do about global warming except adapt. They are correct that we must adapt. Hopefully one of the adapting measures will be to convert our energy infrastructure from a fossil fuel base to a non-carbon base renewable energy source. Converting to a non-carbon base renewable energy source will make our adaptation less stressful.

Photo Credit: Fotolia/Julydfg

In the past two years there have been major volcanic eruptions in Iceland that have ejected ash and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. These eruptions have led some people to speculate that volcanic carbon dioxide emissions are far greater than the emissions produced by human activity. This would suggest that human induced release of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuel plays an insignificant role in the current global warming trend. However, scientific data does not support this school of thought.  

The annual anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions exceed the annual volcanic emissions by two orders of magnitude! Global carbon dioxide emissions from volcanoes is 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year while the 2010 anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is estimated to be 35 gigatons. Clearly, volcanic carbon dioxide release is insignificant when compared to anthropogenic release. Indeed, the annual amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes is equivalent to the amount released by two 1000 megawatt coal-fired power plants (0.22 gigaton per year) which is just 2 per cent of the world’s coal-fired electricity generating capacity.

It is also important to keep in mind that carbon dioxide emitted from volcanoes is part of a natural process which recycles carbon between long and short term reservoirs. Volcanic emitted carbon dioxide comes from the long term reservoir and is used to restore carbon in the short term reservoir. To maintain a global temperature and ocean pH suitable for life the planet must regulate the amount of carbon dioxide in the short term reservoir. Carbon dioxide found in the short term reservoir is also utilized by plants during photosynthesis and is part of the shells of various marine organisms (my posting entitled The Carbon Cycle).    

On the other hand, burning of fossil is considered an unnatural release of carbon dioxide because this carbon dioxide enters the short term reservoir and overwhelms/disrupts the planet’s ability to cycle the excess carbon into the long term reservoir. This excess carbon dioxide is responsible for the greenhouse effect and thus global warming. In addition, some of the excess carbon dioxide enters the ocean and contributes to ocean acidification (my postings entitled Solar activity, Greenhouse Gas Levels and Climate Change on Our Earth and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels and Ocean Acidification).

We can’t continue to use volcanic carbon dioxide emissions as an excuse for our failing to curtail the use of fossil fuel.

 Photo Credit: Fotolia/Beboy

The United States is currently experiencing an extreme heat wave! At one time 32 states were under either a heat advisory or heat warning covering about 100 million square miles and affecting about 141 million people. At least 12 deaths have been attributed to this heat wave. Furthermore, parts of the midwest and southeast are experiencing severe drought conditions. What is the relationship between heat waves, weather, climate change and global warming? To address this question we must understand the link between weather and climate.

Weather is comprised of temperature, wind speed, humidity, precipitation, etc that occurs over only a few days. Climate, on the other hand, is the average weather patterns that occur over decades. In other words weather is concerned about the immediate whereas climate is more focused on the long term. The climate is currently evolving because of the human induced burning of fossil fuel that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This release of carbon dioxide is responsible for the current atmospheric carbon overload which triggers the current global warming trend (my postings entitled Fossil Fuel and Atmospheric Levels of Carbon Dioxide and Solar Activity, Greenhouse Gas Levels and Climate Change on Our Earth). Since global warming occurs over decades, it represents a shift to a warmer climate. This shift to a warmer climate increases the frequency of powerful storms and extreme weather events which is something we have experienced in the past several years.

Since climate change represents what is happening in the future, there is only one possible future if we continue in our use of fossil fuels. The continued burning of fossil fuel is triggering climate change by shifting the global temperature to a higher level. Some people believe we don’t have to worry about global warming until climate change triggers events that are harmful to us personally. Unfortunately this will be too late! The climate system has a time lag because it will take thousands of years to remove the excess carbon dioxide we are pumping into the atmosphere by burning of fossil fuel (my posting entitled Carbon Cycle). Thus, when we see the effects of global warming in the weather on a daily basis it will be too late to fix the problem!

If we want to see an increase in the frequency of heat waves like the one we are currently experiencing, all we have to do is continue our use of fossil fuel.

More information on the relationship of weather and the climate can be found in the book entitled THE WEATHER OF THE FUTURE:  Heat Waves, Extreme Storms and Other Scenes from a Climate-Changed Planet by Heidi Cullen.   

Earlier this year the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) convened a workshop of marine scientists to consider the impact of multiple stressors such as warming, acidification and overfishing of the ocean. The scientists concluded that a mass extinction of ocean species will occur if the damage to the ecosystem continues to escalate!  Two of the findings which we will discuss were:

1. The ocean is currently absorbing more carbon from the atmosphere than at the time of the last mass extinction millions of years ago.

2. A single mass coral bleaching event in 1998 killed 16 percent of the world’s tropical coral reefs.

In this posting we will discuss how the burning of fossil fuel is changing the “State of the Ocean.” Our burning of fossil fuel has created an overload of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (my posting entitled “Fossil Fuel and Atmospheric Levels of Carbon Dioxide”). The ocean is becoming more acidic because atmospheric carbon dioxide overload is dropping more carbon dioxide into the ocean (my posting entitled “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels and Ocean Acidification”). 

The atmospheric carbon dioxide overload has also triggered an increase in global temperature (my posting entitled Solar Activity, Greenhouse Gas Levels and Climate Change on our Earth). Rising ocean water temperature is killing the coral reef! Coral reefs are colonial animals and individual coral animals are called polyps. Large number of these polyps grow together into delicately branched colonies. Within the tissue of the polyps are single cell algae called zooxanthellae that require light for photosynthesis. Polyps and zooxanthellae have a symbiotic relationship in which the coral provides the algae with a protected environment and carbon dioxide which the algal cells photosynthesize to generate oxygen and nutrients for the polyps. Coral bleaching or reef death occurs when the zooxanthellae die as the ocean temperature rises.  This is deadly not only to the coral but also to young fish and marine life that depend on the coral reef for protection and food. It is estimated that one in every four species in the ocean depends on the coral reef for at least part of their life cycle. Bleaching has wiped out at least half of the coral in the Florida Keys and bleached corals have recently been found as far north as Charleston SC.

The ocean ecosystem is already under tremendous stress. If we continue “business as usual” in our use of fossil fuel the increase in ocean acidification along with the increase in water temperature will put additional strains on the ocean ecosystem. These additional strains could trigger a total collapse of the ecosystem killing off species in a mass extinction that hasn’t been seen in millions of years. As one member of the IPSO workshop appropriately put it “If the Ocean goes down, it’s game over.” The choice is ours! Continue use of fossil fuel or convert to noncarbon based renewable energy sources.

Photo Credit: Fotolia