Growing an Economy without spewing out CO2

View 775 Thursday, May 23, 2013

Talk continues on carbon taxes, and there are political claims that Oklahoma deserved destruction since it produces oil and contributes to global warming and global warming causes extreme weather. Some of the rhetoric is frantic: we cannot continue spewing out CO2 into the atmosphere. We summed up what we know for sure a couple of days ago: CO2 levels in 1800 were about 280 ppm. In 1900 they were about 300 parts per million. Current levels are about 400. The error rates are in the order of 10% for the earliest estimates, and about 3% now.

This is a pretty dramatic rise in CO2. Up to now there is little evidence that the higher levels have caused harm, and considerable evidence that they have aided plant growth. If the growth rate slowed to a stop time would erase much of the growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration from the last century. While there may be benefits to the higher CO2 levels, I think few would regret a halt in their growth.

The problem with that is energy: there can’t be any economic growth without increases in the availability of energy, and the cost of energy is a very large part of the cost of economic growth. For the most part, any increase in low cost energy availability means an increase in production of atmospheric CO2.

All of this should be obvious although many of the AGW True Believers seem to be ignoring it.

There is, of course, an economical energy source that produces no CO2 whatever. The Believers will instantly say “Green Energy!” and their usual example is ground based solar energy. It’s true enough that it’s “green” in the sense that it doesn’t produce CO2 while it is producing electricity, although one could quibble over the CO2 produced in the production of solar panels. The problem is that except in special cases ground based solar is not an economical way of producing energy for economic growth. Indeed, most of the reason for its demand is tied to government subsidies. Ground based solar suffers from physical limitations: the Sun doesn’t shine at night, not much energy gets to the ground during bad weather, and the solar constant limits the maximum amount of power you can get per square meter even at noon on a clear day. There are inherent limits on electrical energy storage. Again no surprises.

A much “Greener” energy source is nuclear power. We keep hoping for lost cost high efficiency nuclear fusion power, but for the last forty years the estimate of the time needed to produce economically useful fusion power given major capital investment and a priority override to regulatory red tape has been thirty years. That is, we needed thirty years to get fusion-originated power into our houses back in 1970 (and I wrote stories based on that assumption). Came 1980 and we still needed thirty years to get there. And now in 2013 the last time I checked with the experts, the estimate is that we can do it with current science in about thirty years.

On the other hand we have plenty of experience with fusion based nuclear power. A recent Wall Street Journal article by environmentalists summarizes what’s known.

Going Green? Then Go Nuclear

We’re environmentalists, but pretending that solar power is ready for prime time is delusional.

By TED NORDHAUS And MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER

Over the last several decades, the cost of electricity from solar panels has declined dramatically, while the cost of building new nuclear plants has risen steadily. This has reaffirmed the long-standing view of many environmentalists that it will be cheaper and easier to reduce global warming emissions through solar electricity than with new nuclear plants. But while continuing price declines might someday make solar cheaper than nuclear, it’s not true today. Yet the mythmaking persists.

. . .

The cost of building and operating the Finnish nuclear plant over the next 20 years will be $15 billion. Over that time period, the plant will generate 225 terawatt-hours (twh) of electricity at a cost of 7 cents per kilowatt hour.

Since 2000, Germany has heavily subsidized electricity production from solar panels—offering long-term contracts to producers to purchase electricity at prices substantially above wholesale rates. The resulting solar installations are expected to generate 400 twh electricity over the 20 years that the panels will receive the subsidy, at a total cost to German ratepayers of $130 billion, or 32 cents per kwh.

In short, solar electricity in Germany will cost almost five times more for every kilowatt hour of electricity it provides than Finland’s new nuclear plant.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323716304578482663491426312.html

This is pretty much in line with what every other honest analyst comes up with. Nuclear is cheap compared to most other forms of energy generation. Its only real competition is from oil and coal.

If we want to continue economic growth while reducing the amounts of CO2 blown into the atmosphere, nuclear power is the way to go – at least until we get serious about space solar power satellites. I know, I know – I said all this in A Step Farther Out more than thirty years ago. It was true then and it remains true today. But so far as I can see, those who promise hope and change do so by subsidizing ground based solar, and hate boths pace and nuclear fission. And here we are.

Regarding the cold fusion report, I’m still waiting for input from some of our more expert readers, and I admit I have not been following this particular story very closely. We do have this:

Regarding Rossi and his E-Cat…

This report, taken in isolation, sounds impressive. But Rossi’s history and behavior are considerably less than impressive. He has a long criminal history in Italy, and has been caught in numerous lies about his current activities. Both the University of Bologna (on two separate occasions) and National Instruments have had to issue statements denying Rossi’s claims of a working relationship with them. His primary "expert" (Domenico Fioravanti) is a supposed retired NATO Colonel who seems not to have existed until Rossi presented him to the public (in 18 months, no one has been able to find any signs that such a person actually exists).

Rossi claims to have sold somewhere between 2 and 14 1-Megawatt devices, but they were all sold to "secret" customers. He has been selling "franchises" and claiming to have a factory in Florida to mass-produce the devices. But, when the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control investigated his public claims, he denied doing any manufacturing or selling in the United States.

I’ve been watching Rossi’s activities for over 2 years now, and it certainly seems to me that he is running an investment scam. I would love for his invention to be true, but if it is, then it will be the most extreme example of an "eccentric" inventor the world has ever seen. However, his behavior fits right in with several established con men (starting with John Worrell Keely, in the 1880s).

J

Which leaves unexplained the enthusiasm that Forbes has for the story; and I do not mean more than I say in that statement. I truly don’t know. I have seen no real explication of the fusion theory involved, and I have certainly seen no demonstration of a system that produces more energy than it consumes, or even a device whose output is a megawatt. A one-megawatt electrical device would not be small, and the cables to carry a megawatt of electric power would be difficult to hide. One would think that if several of them exist, it would not be that hard to get one of them to do a public demonstration.

As Descartes said (and Sagan made famous), extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In the case of a cold fusion plant the claim is more than extraordinary: it’s a civilization changer. The upside of it being true is enormous; but it does need at least one existence identification.