As I finish revisions to the MS and dramatically revise my chapter on solutions, some detailed evaluation of climate solutions has found itself on the cutting room floor. I hope reading these out-takes will make you feel privy to the inside story, like watching the director's cut. My students may recognize material I share in IDS 3304: Global Environmental Health.
Figure 1: Jacobson & Delucchi, 2017.
Though there is massive scientific consensus about renewable energy solutions, there are two important live debates on how to deploy technologies. One debate is between those who believe we should include nuclear, versus those relying solely on wind, water, solar. The other debate is between those who believe we should aim for an abundance economy fueled by cheap renewable energies and those who believe that conservation remains essential because all energy sources and material goods have some impact.
One side of the debate on renewable energy transition is articulated by Jim Hansen and others, who argue for including nuclear in a low-emissions lineup; on the other side, Mark Jacobson, Mark Delucchi, and others propose only existing renewable technologies to supply all energy needs globally: wind, water, and solar (WWS). They avoid including nuclear because of delays, opportunity costs, public aversion to nuclear power’s risks, and other impacts.
Jacobson and Delucchi, working out of Stanford, have for years issued exhilarating plans to power the entire planet using only renewables, including a cover article in Scientific American in 2009. They subsequently completed the detailed calculations to tally economic costs and showed that a fully renewable energy system is not more expensive, that the only obstacles are social and political, which, as we have seen, have indeed been considerable barriers to change. In 2017, they put out detailed plans for 139 different countries, though they are far from dogmatic about their recommendations. Their chief aims are to show feasibility and to model how to customize plans to individual localities. After all, Iceland, with its natural hot springs conducive to geothermal and abundant space for offshore wind, has a very different profile from Qatar, where photovoltaic is the obvious opportunity. The charts that lay all this out make for appealing perusal.
When Jacobson and Delucchi wrote the 2009 article, pinch points included high demand for rare metals and the difficulty of addressing dips in energy supply in between night winds and daytime sunbeams. As Bill McKibben points out, however, availability of lithium and other metals has increased, and battery storage technology has improved—rapidly. Economies of scale are reinforcing a virtuous cycle that is heartening even in a bleak political landscape.[i] Renewable energies are also inherently more efficient than burning things—think of an incandescent bulb that produces heat vs. LEDs, which do not—lessening the total amount of energy required to power the planet. Crucially, Jacobson and Delucchi estimate that while 27.7 million jobs would be lost in this new plan, 52 million would be gained, without costing more than business as usual.[ii]
While both strong champions of wind, water, and solar, Hansen and Michael Shellenberger also support using nuclear, particularly newer, more advanced nuclear that relies for fuel on what now is waste, and they have articulated how much less risky it is than fossil-fuel energy. Their major arguments are that renewables will not be enough, that fossil fuels kill far more people from air pollution alone, and that deaths even from the worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl have been vastly overblown. They endorse France, which relies primarily on nuclear, compared to Germany, which has paid a great deal to install wind and solar but still relies at times on coal. Hansen and Shellenberger argue that the opposition to nuclear is rooted in myth, quoting JFK: “for the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.” While their analysis may underestimate risks pertaining to human error, they certainly reframe the argument in a persuasive way.[iii]
For better or worse, neither of these plans ask users to cut back; indeed, both allow for increasing demand for energy, particularly in developing nations. Both of these plans factor in massive increases in wind, solar, and other renewables. Despite its dark side, nuclear, perhaps even new nuclear, could be important to mitigating climate change. But clearly, both camps of belief here are on the side of the angels.
