By Michael Shellenberger. Has anyone read it? Just getting started. From a review
“Solar and wind energy, he notes, are far less efficient and take 100 to 1,000 times the land space of fossil fuel plants. The book also decries the deforestation necessary to expand wind, solar and bio-fuels, which threaten wildlife habitats.”
Read the critiques and criticisms of the book by other people in the field. A lot of interesting information, and a lot of ideas that should be explored, but his ego does not allow him to present these as such. Instead, he has to present them as the New Truth.
For example, that sentence ignores a central issue of fossil fuels - there are maybe 50 years of oil left, probably less, as technology spreads. So he is joining the ranks of the anti-environmental politicians who are in the pockets of the Fossil Fuel industry, by focusing on maintaining his own way of life, and leaving his kids or grandkids a world without fuel, and without any alternative sources of energy.
He is more for nuclear power rather than fossil fuel. So far, he seems to put more blame on population growth for environmental issues. His thesis is industrialization will reduce population growth and lesson the toll on environment even if it means using fossil fuels to get there. He is making the point progress reduces the land mass needed to support population. Less land needed means less damage to the environment. Nuclear power requires the least amount of land. If you look at it that way, solar and wind could be regressive. Of course, technology could be developed to reduce land mass solar and wind energy requires. I may have to change my mind about nuclear power. I never liked wind turbines and was looking at ginormous fields of solar panels wondering what all that could mean. If we need so much land to produce energy we need, they aren’t solutions.
ETA, Interestingly, Elon Musk is suggesting neclear power for Europe’s current energy crisis this morning.
I have not heard of this book (though I’ve read a few on climate change). Recently I’ve begun to wonder about nuclear energy potential. As a child of the Three Mile Island era, living in an adjacent state, I’ve been leery. But maybe it is time to get back into it more in US.
My city has a goal of **100% renewable energy by 2030. I like their spirit, but not sure it can really work especially since the are also pushing for more electric usage (electric stoves, heat pumps, electric cars). The local utilities are on a path to close down the coal plants.
The disposal of nuclear waste also takes land out of other uses. But good points about the land use issues of other energy sources.
I tend to feel that too much attention is given to solutions for the supply of energy, and not enough to the problem of demand. Bottom line, we can’t use as much, for as much. All of the consuming end has to be drastically reduced for any suite of production concepts to be viable.
40 years ago there were 30 years of oil reserves left. Today there are 50 years of oil reserves left (despite production being higher). We have even greater reserves of natural gas that have been unlocked by new technology (fracking).
By all means let’s discuss how we can best reduce carbon emissions to address climate change in forthcoming decades, but let’s not pretend that current and predicted lack of energy supply and high prices are anything to do with running out of fossil fuels. This is an artificial shortage created by incompetent and corrupt politicians, most notably Germany phasing out nuclear and becoming dependent on Russian gas.
I live in a frack-happy state, and it is no solution. It is just as damaging as any other energy production, if not moreso. Largely unregulated here – and I think our children will rue the day it was deemed harmless.
A fossil fuel plant’s land use is not the only land use of fossil fuel, since there is significant land use mining the fossil fuel.
Fracking is an excellent solution to the problem of high energy costs. If the US avoids the deep recession that Europe is going to experience this winter it will be because fracking has allowed our gas prices to remain at one tenth the levels in Europe.
Of course, fracking and other newer oil extraction technologies are more expensive (both economically and environmentally) than getting the easy to extract oil. 50 years from now, there may be another 50 years of oil reserves – but much more expensive to get to than what there is available today.
I.e. it may not be oil overall that is running out, but cheap oil is more likely to be running out.
I’m happy places are starting to restrict new gas appliances. Climate change is real, even if many still want to deny it in spite of effects happening all over the planet for years now, getting worse in intensity as time progresses (not any one storm per se, but in congregate).
Rooftop solar and gardens help reduce land use. Large solar fields don’t bother me in the least. I enjoy seeing them. I’m not nearly as fond of wind power due to its damage to birds, etc. I despise the pollutants fossil fuels cause us all to breathe. If not careful, waterways can be polluted too, but at least that is getting better now that some care about environmental concerns.
Nuclear showed promise, but at what risk? Chernobyl and now the one in Ukraine show us it only takes one mistake (or idiot).
The big picture needs to be looked at and solar shows the most promise IMO. Research is helping technology get better with it. Fossil fuels will probably never be eliminated, but having them used much, much less will help our planet and its people considerably.
Onshore fracking (especially as the technology has become better understood) is vastly cheaper than offshore production which was the main focus of new exploration efforts 15-20 years ago. Only cheap onshore legacy fields (in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc) can compete.
That’s why the oil and especially gas prices fell dramatically after 2010. But now these companies are less willing to make long term investments, which is hardly surprising when governments, including parts of the current US administration, say that they intend to put them out of business in the next decade.
Every type of generation comes with problems. Pick your poison.
Chernobyl was a nuclear reactor never used in the United States and the nuclear power industry in the US is extremely regulated.
My personal opinion is that the nuclear power industry is the best option of a bunch of not great options. The bad press has effectively killed it and that’s too bad.
That and Three Mile Island - which is relatively local to me.
Nuclear is great, but there are some bad cons like where to store leftover fuel and “what if” with accidents or intentional sabotage/war, etc.
Oil prices dropped in 2014-2015, not 2010: U.S. Crude Oil First Purchase Price (Dollars per Barrel)
A better descriptor would be “less bad” than some other things like coal.
Of course, NIMBY applies – as long as extraction, generation, etc. are in someone else’s back yard, it’s great. But not so much if it is in your own back yard.
My understanding is that the limiting factor of renewables currently is energy storage or battery technology. And batteries are not the most eco-friendly technology we’ve ever come up with.
My generation’s green warriors were against nuclear power. They were pretty successful but shortsighted. Germany is re-looking at its nuclear energy production right now and can you blame them?
No complex problem has one unique solution.
True but like I said nuclear power generation is very very regulated in the US so that there is never a Three Mile Island again. It happened 43 years ago.
I don’t disagree with what is said.
If only they knew that fly ash from burning coal puts out a lot more radioactive materials into the air than nuclear power plants…
This is what I’ve been watching:
An amazing feat of engineering design. Fingers crossed.
