Great piece Hannah. I’ve found the IEA’s forecasting (and particularly their inability to learn from their mistakes) particularly amusing over the years. We humans really struggle with non-linearity don’t we?
All we need is more reliable and affordable electricity production and we will be on our way. The main barrier to that is that we have no cheap scalable way of dealing with intermittency that does not involve fossil fuels. This is where nuclear is essential, as only with nuclear do we know we can have zero emission reliable and cheap electricity, which is obviously essential for electrifying transport and heating.
Without nuclear we will have to pray for revolutions in storage and/or carbon capture.
EVs are exactly a revolution in storage. When we have built a 100% EV fleet, we will already have battery production capacity to get to 99+% renewables. Nuclear is not even in the running at this point.
Anton, great point, but do you think "revolution" in energy storage is really necessary? We've already got pumped hydro and ideas for how to do that with seawater, and about two years ago serious money started flowing into getting more battery chemistries out of the labs and into mass manufacturing. What are your views on sodium ion and iron flow batteries?
Pumped hydro is effective but it is only available at the required scale in countries with appropriate geography plus plenty of water. As it requires two large bodies of water that continuously change levels, it has a large negative impact on the local environment, worse than ordinary dams, and their utility for recreation is limited. Hydro is also susceptible to drought and extreme weather. The worlds largest ever energy related disasters, in terms of people kills and property destroyed, have involved collapse of large hydro dams - for example the Banqiao Dam in China in 1975. 150,000-200,000 were killed and 10 million made homeless. That is vastly more that Chornobyl, which killed only 50-200 people.
Batteries are orders of magnitude too expensive and also incredibly energy and material intense to make. They will improve but the huge material requirements for grid backup make their environmental impact very high. Frankly they can only ever be niche products.
Thanks for sharing your views. About 150 countries have direct access to seawater, which would allow them to consider seawater pumped storage like the Okinawa Yanbaru facility. That plant's operating history I believe showed the technical feasibility of using the ocean as a source of water, although the plant wasn't economically profitable due to a lack of electricity demand in the local area. Good point that large hydropower has a poor record of safety.
I can see how your views of pumped hydro and battery storage would lead you to believe that nuclear power is necessary. But seems more likely to me that you're being overly pessimistic about the potential of those two storage technologies. In that case, solar power can scale up much faster than nuclear power and it will be cost-effective to retire all of the fission reactors we have built.
The expectation that solar PV plus pumped storage using sea water may become cheaper than nuclear power is encouraging, but until it happens we should not be prioritising installing solar PV over building nuclear power, especially in high altitude countries (see below). At the moment solar PV, when including the other, often hidden, costs associated with dealing with intermittancy, is more expensive that nuclear fission. That is evident in the fact that electricity costs have always increased in countries where solar PV and wind has been installed and nuclear reactors retired.
Nuclear fission has a MUCH lower material requirement and environmental footprint and produces less C02 per unit energy produced that any other form of clean energy.
Solar PV has a important role, but in my view, current solar PV should be confined to low latitude countries. Given the enormous energy requirements for manufacturing polysilicone, and the ~11% capacity factor in countries like Germany, solar PV north of the Alps is likely to be an energy sink.
As an aside, nuclear fission is unnecessarily expensive because of the onerous regulatory regime, which values a life lost to radioactivity from nuclear power 100-1,000 time more than a life lost to air pollution. Given that nuclear fission is clearly the safest form of reliable energy generation, and we urgently need to phase out fossil fuels, this regulatory regime needs to be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. It remains the biggest barrier to abundant clean energy and is self imposed and entirely irrational.
Perhaps we're not on the same page about the relative costs of nuclear power and solar power. My background includes working for Pacific Gas & Electric in the 1990s, which operated (and continues to operate) a fleet of nuclear power stations. I now own a mechanical contracting company which installs community solar projects in Maine. The ongoing operating cost for a solar power array are very close to zero. The ongoing operating cost for a nuclear power plant is much greater per kWh. The cost to build a new solar power plant is much lower than the cost to build a new nuclear fission power plant. For example, see Georgia Power's experience with their Vogtle power plant. According an AP new article from February 2023, "The total cost of the project to build a third and fourth reactor at Vogtle will cost all its owners more than $30 billion."
PG&E used pumped hydro storage to allow us to operate our nuclear power plants at full capacity 24/7. Perhaps new designs could be pushed through the regulatory process that allow better output moderation of nuclear fission reactors, but all of the nuclear power plants I'm familiar with try to operate as close to 100% output as possible all the time, and use pumped storage or other means to compensate for any discrepancies with load profiles in their operating territories.
The only way I could see nuclear power becoming cheaper than solar plus storage is if Helion works.
Thank you again for sharing your perspective and knowledge of this topic.
It is wholly misleading to compare the cost of a first build nuclear power plant under absurdly onerous regulations with the cost of building a solar PV plant. The cost of solar PV plant does not include the costs of dealing with intermittancy, the cost of expanding the grid, and the cost of dealing the the vastly greater amount of toxic waste.
As medical doctor trained I disease mechanisms I am in a good position to understand the real risks of radioactivity. As noted in a previous post, current regulations value a love lost to radioactivity from nuclear power to be at least 100 times more valuable than a life lost to air pollution or other common environmental risks.
This irrational regulatory regime has done terrible harm.
Historical experience has shown that by the fastest way to reduce green house gas emissions associated with electricity generation was building nuclear energy.
The reason nuclear subsequently became so slow and expensive it entirely the result of costly regulatory mistakes driven by excessive fear of radioactivity. These mistakes ultimately ended the expansion of nuclear power. Coal fired power was built instead, despite being objectively 1000 times more lethal.
This irrational regulatory regime has:
(1) Accelerated climate change by increasing our use of fossil fuels
(2) Killed millions of people every years from avoidable air pollution
(3) Made us reliant on forms of clean energy which are more expensive and more damaging to the environment.
Reducing the regulations governing nuclear power would costs almost nothing. It is irrational and morally indefensible to have regulations that value lives so differently.
Having owned two plug in hybrid Mercedes over the last six years I am not at all surprised. I was happy to invest ahead of the curve to help the
Planet and drive innovation. Early adopters are different to the late majority, beware the long tail. Plenty of books on both these subjects tell us what is happening.
While initially expensive to buy the price and competitive offers have all expanded the market and created the economies of scale that a proper functioning market always does.
That acts to lower price and improve performance.
I’ve found over six years the cost of
Ownership and knowing the reduced engine emissions helps my carbon footprint and all other drivers and pedestrians.
Charging at home over night for me is easy and cheap. What needs to happen now is to ensure that everyone can afford one, that charging is easy for everyone in their location and lifestyle and that the grid provides massively more electricity cleanly and cheaply to replace all the petrol and diesel miles.
Like all technology be that washing machines, tv, phones, pc, mobiles, the benefits to the individual and communities pulls through the supply and demand. That needs to be delivered by engineers and industry with some controlled support of govt.
Let’s keep going with cleaner more
Sustainable options and keep a check on the reality through science moderating politics.
Progress is sweet especially when it is inclusive. We need to see these trends at home help the poorest people and countries and not loose sight of that as Market failures apply around the word.
With many things predictions are made by drawing lines through points. For EVs they need to factor in the new mines that need to be opened. New mines can't be opened quickly and EVs need plenty of new mines. With PV, the mineral constraints aren't as tight.
But the even bigger issue is that BMW (for one) estimate that their EV lifecycle emissions are about 40% lower than the ICE version. That means we can't decarbonise transport just be switching to EVs. We need more public transport and fewer cars. Public transport is slow to both plan and build. Can EVs reduce their lifecycle emissions to the kind of level we need ? (ie., 5% of current ... offset the rest?). That doesn't look remotely possible.
If you decarbonise steel production (hard but the tech exists), battery production (easy), and your grid (currently happening), then it's possible. BMW (along with most car manufacturers outside of China & Tesla) have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo.
Geoff, can you elaborate on the assumptions behind the idea that new mines will be required to increase the share of EVs in new vehicle sales? If you have any sources on the mix of battery chemistries I would really appreciate it. The recent announcements from CATL and other manufacturers regarding sodium ion batteries caught me off guard. I didn't realize that chemistry was ready for mass manufacturing already, and I wonder what other chemistries besides LFP and sodium ion are about to be introduced. I know all virtually all battery manufacturers are looking to eliminate cobalt and reduce nickel content, and the silicon anode technology appears on the verge of being manufacturable, which will improve material efficiency by increasing gravimetric energy density. Thanks for any insight into mineral requirements you have!
Incorrect, on two counts. A) PV hasn't taken off, not in any meaningful sense, and event today provides very little overall amount of power (compared to aggregate demand) and B) EVs are not functionally equivalent to ICE cars, for the one car middle class. The middle class is not buying EVs en masse, because to do so would represent a decline in their standard of living.
Not to mention that the stats this advocate uses are IEA data, for the world. Some places, in temperate climates, with short distances for travel (like Europe) are easier sells. Not so for Canada and the USA, very different animal. And these kinds of EV ra ra stories have been going on for at least a full decade at this point. Its rich people with several cars that buying EVs, in North America.
Hi Steven, I think you raise a valid point, that one-car families probably are going to be the laggards in EV adoption. However, given the fact that there are 290 million registered vehicles for a population of 332 million in the United States, there are a lot of two-car (or more) families. In my social circle, almost every family has more than one car and is considering a PHEV or EV for their next vehicle purchase. Do you think adoption rates will increase once EVs become more affordable and capable (i.e., have a longer range)? Or do you think there will be peer pressure among some groups not to buy EVs as long as ICE vehicles are available?
@Fred Horch The basic problem with these kinds of projections and assertions by technology promoters is that they usually don't look at the lowest common denominator or basic user needs and behavior. Not just for EVs, but all energy systems. I am an experienced energy engineer and analyst, been dong this >40 years, so I know the field. With regards to EVs, for two car citizens, having an EV can make a lot of sense, especially in temperate climates, and in urban areas, for local travel and errands. Absolutely. For one car citizens, you have to consider their practical needs. A harried single mother who needs to move her kids around in all weather, say, in Canada, simply cant live with an EV. If you get stuck in a traffic jam in a -30 C winter storm taking your kid somewhere, and you run out of juice, you simply cannot afford to get stranded, lives are at stake.
@steven lightfoot, we share a similar background. I own a mechanical contracting firm and spent a summer working for Pacific Gas & Electric (as a summer clerk in their corporate legal department) where I got a great overview of what happens if energy engineers don't do their jobs well. ;-) We are at the point where the serious questions you raise about depending on a BEV for your personal mobility are being considered and answered. My family has been driving BEVs in Maine since 2012 so I can answer the cold climate performance questions from personal experience. Did you know that AAA will give you a quick boost if you run out of charge in your BEV? Check out their "Mobile Charging Wherever You Need It" service https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/used-ev-buyers-guide
OK thanks for your comments. I don't doubt that the EV market is growing, however this article which I have criticized is typical of the kind of ra ra lack-of-critical-thinking stuff that is typical of the VRE promotional crowd. Magical thinking and poor analysis doesn't solve problems. Empiricism and reality does. Thanks for your comments.
The fundamental question with technology replacement is whether or not a new something is functionally equivalent or better. If its demonstrably better in practice, it will be adopted. If it looks the same or better, but users find that it is isn't in day to day life, it wont be adopted. That is the only measure you need to keep in mind. Unless EVs have same range and the same convenience factor as ICEs, then they aren't yet functionally equivalent overall (even if they already do have some other benefits).
A plea for data, Ms. H: perspectives on how to get the most renewable E on line ASAP. Options of what kinds of in-the-meantime duct-tape-and-string imperfect things can be done to maximize increased use of intermittent wind/solar/etc. Thanks.
Agreed. With clean electricity, BEVs are great. With dirty electricity, they are almost as bad as ICE. Tesla's model of selling cars, solar PV, and batteries seems reasonable. What do you think?
I honestly do not know. Sometimes it seems so counter productive to be arguing about nuclear/battery/gas-peaker/more-power-lines .. trying to always & only do the One Right Thing. Meanwhile Rome burns..
I gather the two main counterarguments are that electric motors turn more of the energy into motion and that even dirty large scale power plants are more efficient/environmentally friendly than the small portable ones in automobiles.
Supposedly, electric motors are twice as efficient, joule for joule, of converting their input energy into motion than ICE engines. I know internal combustion engines are much more efficient than they used to be, especially with modern transmissions, but you can heat the interior of a car with the waste heat from an ICE but not from an electric motor.
Meanwhile, power generation is getting cleaner and more efficient. Maybe solar and wind power are intermittent, but that just changes the scheduling for gas and other fossil fuel plants. Even with no storage, unless people stop using energy when the sun shines and the window blows, that energy offsets the need to burn fossil fuels.
I think that argument miss an important point: the fact that the cost of an addition can increase with the penetration of the resource, even if the cost of production decreases.
For the "political side" i think subsidies are more important thing than general "policy", especially for the time factor.
That is a common talking point without much in the way of facts. The Oil industry is heavily taxed and regulated. Some tax incentives exist but not taking money from someone is a long way from taking money from someone else to pay to make another product cheaper.
Yes this is all true. But it WON’T reduce emissions because same amount (roughly) of oil will need to be extracted for non-gasoline products. EVs well and good but won’t improve environment or global social issues.
How would the same amount of oil be necessary for non-gasoline products? Over the course of its useful life, a fuel-burning vehicle consumes several tons of petroleum that ends up dispersed in our atmosphere and ocean primarily as H2O and CO2 molecules. BEVs consumer far less oil, and all the plastics, metals and minerals in them can be recycled at their end of their useful lives. Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
Fred- Gasoline only comprises about 40-45% of a barrel of oil -from the other 55-60% come about 6,000 other products used in global economy - mostly heating oil, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt (to make roads) but also eg medicines, plastics, etc. IF - for whatever reason including 'doing the right thing for climate' we swap out ALL of our internal combustion engines for EVs, yes that would significantly reduce demand for GASOLINE, but it wouldn't reduce the demand for OIL at all - or very slightly - (I'll explain below**). IOW, we need each barrel of oil in current system for all the things, gasoline being one of them. If we suddenly no longer need gasoline we will still extract and refine the same amount of barrels of oil - thus either needing to flare/dispose of gasoline OR also reduce demand for all the other non-gasoline oil products. **It is possible to change the refinery processes to switch some (a low %) of the middle distillates to make other products thus reducing demand for oil a bit, but its at the margin and very costly. This is a point I've made for years -our cultural discussions on these things are 'systems blind' - they only look at top level cause and effect 'gasoline cars bad for climate' without looking at how the solutions (EVs) would actually reduce emissions SYSTEM WIDE. You might see my podcasts w Art Berman on this topic for more info.
Is the argument that we'll be using a lot more bunker and other products to compensate for the fuel savings of electric vehicles?
Electric vehicles aren't about eliminating the need for fossil fuels. They use less energy overall for the same travel, so there is some savings right there. Large scale power plants are more efficient than small portable ones, so that's more savings. We also get flexibility for further improvements. There are lots of ways of making electricity, so cars could run on fossil fuels or solar or geothermal or nuclear power with no alteration or replacement. Like money, electricity is implicitly fungible.
The efficiency gain alone would cut the need for fossil fuels unless we come up with a new excuse to burn more of them. The ability to take advantage of a broad range of energy sources would allow for flexibility and further improvements.
EVs are heavily subsidized. If that were not the case the sales would plummet. Not to mention EV's increase our dependence on china and do nothing for the environment.
Gasoline powered vehicles are also heavily subsidized. It's not like the oil industry doesn't get its subsidies and tax breaks. Texas is one big welfare state for fossil fuel energy producers.
I can see solar powered transportation becoming ubiquitous in India and tropical areas within a decade. In India the possibilities of cheap solar panels when combined with human ingenuity are endless.
Also behind the curve on this - the British government (and no doubt many governments across the world, regardless of left-right placement or commitment to democracy). I'd dearly love for them to be ahead of this curve and installing tons of charging stations right now - but they clearly aren't.
The US market is still dominated by Tesla, they sell most of the EVs here. The model 3 and model Y together make up most Tesla sales. So to me it seems like, there are two very popular EVs in the US. Will any company other than Tesla break into this top tier? What's the key issue here, does Ford just need to produce enough EV F-150s and then they'll start selling?
It used to be just Teslas, but lately I've been seeing a lot more Leafs and a few others. I saw a Rivian, of all things, just the other day. The Safeway and Walmart both have public charging stations, and they're putting in another at the county courthouse. About ten years ago, our local dry cleaner had an extension cord running out the window to charge a VW Beetle like electric car that belonged to his daughter. We've come a ways since then, even out here.
I think affordability, and then availability, and then the charging network. We leased a Nissan Leaf, then a VW e-Golf, bought a used Volt, and then reluctantly bought a Tesla because we need to take long trips and were tired of having to burn fossil fuel to do that. Once longer ranges or a better charging network become available, then people will be able to consider other brands besides Tesla. For now, though, there is a world of difference (at least in New England) between driving a Tesla and any other BEV. If you don't have a Tesla, you do need to think carefully about your trip and charging plan. With a Tesla, you can count on convenient access to a fast, affordable and dependable charging network that spans North America.
I appreciate that you are a "Climate Optimist" and want to tell an optimistic upbeat story. I also appreciate the reality that decarbonizing our electrical system and our transportation systems are an absolute necessity. But you are being wildly optimistic here and wildly unrealistic.
You are making the same assumption that most Climate Optimists and Techno Optimists make, over and over again. You assume future stability and look at only one aspect of the developing Climate Crisis in isolation.
I have no doubt that if "everything else stayed the same" for the next twenty years, your predictions about solar panels and EV's could come to pass. That's not going to happen Hannah. You know that, or you should. You are selling a story of "false hope" here.
This is Climate Disinformation.
Because things are RAPIDLY getting worse now. You should know by now that a MONSTER EL NINO is starting. Just like I predicted last year.
The next 4-6 years are going to be catastrophically bad. I am forecasting deaths in the 800 million to 1.2 billion range. Things are not "going to stay the same".
By clinging to the delusion that we can "buy our way to salvation" by installing solar panels and getting an EV. You and the other "Climate Optimists" create the false hope in people that life is going to go on the way it is now. You convince them that they won't have to sacrifice anything and that we won't have to make any real social changes.
You prevent the change we need from happening by selling the idea that people can keep the life they have. Just with everything electrified.
Individual cars should be banned. An EV for everyone is insane. You can make 40 e-bikes with the resources of one EV. You can transport the same amount of people on Electric buses and streetcars for about 1/20th the resources. We don't need more EV's, we need better public transit and mandated retirement and removal of gasoline cars.
As long as you keep selling "false hope" people will keep eating it up and refuse to start on the hard work of real change. Salvation without effort is always an easier sell than 'repent sinner, the hour of judgement is at hand'.
What is the factual basis for you prediction? We have had ~1.2 C of warming and the impact has been trivial. No increase in storms or floods or deaths from extreme weather. There has been an Increase in deaths from extreme heat, but there has been a much larger decrease in deaths from extreme cold, which is far more dangerous.
The current mid range prediction is a further warming of 1-2 C with food production increasing because of longer growing seasons, the fertiliser effect of CO2 and improved farming methods.
How these billion people going to die? The only scenario I can think of a global war which is made more likely by your doomster misinformation.
Killer floods, droughts and heat waves hit around the world, costing many billions of dollars. Global ocean heat and acidity levels hit record highs and Antarctic sea ice and European Alps glaciers reached record low amounts, according to the United Nations’ climate agency’s State of Global Climate 2022 report released Friday.
El Niño is coming, and ocean temps are already at record highs — that can spell disaster for fish and corals -April 2023
It’s coming. Winds are weakening along the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Heat is building beneath the ocean surface. By July, most forecast models agree that the climate system’s biggest player — El Niño — will return for the first time in nearly four years.
World could face record temperatures in 2023 as El Nino returns — April 2023
“Climate models suggest that after three years of the La Nina weather pattern in the Pacific Ocean, which generally lowers global temperatures slightly, the world will experience a return to El Nino, the warmer counterpart, later this year.
El Nino is normally associated with record breaking temperatures at the global level. Whether this will happen in 2023 or 2024 is not yet known, but it is, I think, more likely than not,”
- Carlo Buontempo, director of the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.
With the heat, will come HEATWAVES.
‘Record smashing’ heatwaves: Research reveals which countries are most at risk.
Scientists used climate data and modelling to pinpoint where in the world temperature records are most likely to be broken and the communities in the greatest danger from extreme heat.
They found that “statistically implausible extremes” occurred in 31 per cent of the regions they analyzed between 1959 and 2021.
There was no particular pattern to where these temperature abnormalities were happening. This means these extremes, where current records are broken by margins that seem impossible until they occur, could happen anywhere.
"In this study, we show that such record-smashing events could occur anywhere. “We have seen some of the most unexpected heatwaves around the world lead to heat-related deaths in the tens of thousands.”
Dann Mitchell - study co-author Professor in Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Bristol Cabot Institute for the Environment.
A LOT of people are going to die from heat in the next few years.
While the increase in extreme heat events will undoubtedly kill more people, the decrease in extreme cold events will save lives. Since far more people are killed every year by extreme cold event than extreme heat events, the number of lives lost to temperature extremes is more likely to go down that go up with warming. A recent global studies have found that fewer people have died from extreme temperature events in the past 20 year as a result of warming.
Given the absence of such increase it is wrong to attribute storms or floods to global warming.
Incidentally, there has been a reduction in windspeed, especially in the northern hemisphere (global calming), but this is unlikely to be lethal!
The notion that coral reefs are under existential threat from warming is debatable. Coral survives in a wide range of temperatures, and the most diverse coral reefs are in warmer seas. The famously threatened Great Barrier Reef is doing very well despite warming - it covers a greater extent than in the past 36 years.
The impact of climate change on agriculture is a plausible case for pessimism and may lead to mass starvation and death. But like Anton, I question the basis for predicting this outcome. Is it really helpful to be preaching gloom and doom that might prevent people from taking effective action to optimize their efficiency, electrify their homes and vehicles, and solarize their power supply? Why is encouraging people to adopt the best technology and apply it to solving real problems a bad idea?
That's the point. When Ehrlich and others published their population doom predictions back in the 1960s and 1970s, the idea was to goad people into taking the problem seriously, encourage and subsidize family planning, improve agriculture, stop desertification and whatever else it took. They weren't writing about how to make big bucks off the coming apocalypse, survive by hoarding ice cubes and gold or simply arguing that we had to accept living in a wretched world. Sure, we can just give up, but there are things we can do to make things better even if we never achieve an earthly paradise.
Absolutely. I understand what's happening so I know things are about to get a lot worse. I also read the UN reports on world hunger and know that "right now" 1 Billion are living in a state of food insecurity. Over 400 million are in a state of constant hunger, "right now".
We are starting a MASSIVE HEAT SPIKE.
It's going to make the 30's Dust Bowl look mild. We are starting this spike a full 1.2C of "observable" warming (it's actually worse, up to 0.9C of warming is being masked by SOx particulate) higher than in the 30's. Global famines are coming, starting by the end of this year and intensifying in 24'.
Why do you think Xi, went on a spending spree in late 21' and bought up 50% of the Global grain reserves. China is sitting on enough food to feed its people for 18 months. Xi and Putin know what's about to happen.
Great piece Hannah. I’ve found the IEA’s forecasting (and particularly their inability to learn from their mistakes) particularly amusing over the years. We humans really struggle with non-linearity don’t we?
All we need is more reliable and affordable electricity production and we will be on our way. The main barrier to that is that we have no cheap scalable way of dealing with intermittency that does not involve fossil fuels. This is where nuclear is essential, as only with nuclear do we know we can have zero emission reliable and cheap electricity, which is obviously essential for electrifying transport and heating.
Without nuclear we will have to pray for revolutions in storage and/or carbon capture.
EVs are exactly a revolution in storage. When we have built a 100% EV fleet, we will already have battery production capacity to get to 99+% renewables. Nuclear is not even in the running at this point.
Anton, great point, but do you think "revolution" in energy storage is really necessary? We've already got pumped hydro and ideas for how to do that with seawater, and about two years ago serious money started flowing into getting more battery chemistries out of the labs and into mass manufacturing. What are your views on sodium ion and iron flow batteries?
Pumped hydro is effective but it is only available at the required scale in countries with appropriate geography plus plenty of water. As it requires two large bodies of water that continuously change levels, it has a large negative impact on the local environment, worse than ordinary dams, and their utility for recreation is limited. Hydro is also susceptible to drought and extreme weather. The worlds largest ever energy related disasters, in terms of people kills and property destroyed, have involved collapse of large hydro dams - for example the Banqiao Dam in China in 1975. 150,000-200,000 were killed and 10 million made homeless. That is vastly more that Chornobyl, which killed only 50-200 people.
Batteries are orders of magnitude too expensive and also incredibly energy and material intense to make. They will improve but the huge material requirements for grid backup make their environmental impact very high. Frankly they can only ever be niche products.
Thanks for sharing your views. About 150 countries have direct access to seawater, which would allow them to consider seawater pumped storage like the Okinawa Yanbaru facility. That plant's operating history I believe showed the technical feasibility of using the ocean as a source of water, although the plant wasn't economically profitable due to a lack of electricity demand in the local area. Good point that large hydropower has a poor record of safety.
I can see how your views of pumped hydro and battery storage would lead you to believe that nuclear power is necessary. But seems more likely to me that you're being overly pessimistic about the potential of those two storage technologies. In that case, solar power can scale up much faster than nuclear power and it will be cost-effective to retire all of the fission reactors we have built.
The expectation that solar PV plus pumped storage using sea water may become cheaper than nuclear power is encouraging, but until it happens we should not be prioritising installing solar PV over building nuclear power, especially in high altitude countries (see below). At the moment solar PV, when including the other, often hidden, costs associated with dealing with intermittancy, is more expensive that nuclear fission. That is evident in the fact that electricity costs have always increased in countries where solar PV and wind has been installed and nuclear reactors retired.
Nuclear fission has a MUCH lower material requirement and environmental footprint and produces less C02 per unit energy produced that any other form of clean energy.
Solar PV has a important role, but in my view, current solar PV should be confined to low latitude countries. Given the enormous energy requirements for manufacturing polysilicone, and the ~11% capacity factor in countries like Germany, solar PV north of the Alps is likely to be an energy sink.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
As an aside, nuclear fission is unnecessarily expensive because of the onerous regulatory regime, which values a life lost to radioactivity from nuclear power 100-1,000 time more than a life lost to air pollution. Given that nuclear fission is clearly the safest form of reliable energy generation, and we urgently need to phase out fossil fuels, this regulatory regime needs to be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. It remains the biggest barrier to abundant clean energy and is self imposed and entirely irrational.
Perhaps we're not on the same page about the relative costs of nuclear power and solar power. My background includes working for Pacific Gas & Electric in the 1990s, which operated (and continues to operate) a fleet of nuclear power stations. I now own a mechanical contracting company which installs community solar projects in Maine. The ongoing operating cost for a solar power array are very close to zero. The ongoing operating cost for a nuclear power plant is much greater per kWh. The cost to build a new solar power plant is much lower than the cost to build a new nuclear fission power plant. For example, see Georgia Power's experience with their Vogtle power plant. According an AP new article from February 2023, "The total cost of the project to build a third and fourth reactor at Vogtle will cost all its owners more than $30 billion."
PG&E used pumped hydro storage to allow us to operate our nuclear power plants at full capacity 24/7. Perhaps new designs could be pushed through the regulatory process that allow better output moderation of nuclear fission reactors, but all of the nuclear power plants I'm familiar with try to operate as close to 100% output as possible all the time, and use pumped storage or other means to compensate for any discrepancies with load profiles in their operating territories.
The only way I could see nuclear power becoming cheaper than solar plus storage is if Helion works.
Thank you again for sharing your perspective and knowledge of this topic.
You are comparing apples with oranges.
It is wholly misleading to compare the cost of a first build nuclear power plant under absurdly onerous regulations with the cost of building a solar PV plant. The cost of solar PV plant does not include the costs of dealing with intermittancy, the cost of expanding the grid, and the cost of dealing the the vastly greater amount of toxic waste.
As medical doctor trained I disease mechanisms I am in a good position to understand the real risks of radioactivity. As noted in a previous post, current regulations value a love lost to radioactivity from nuclear power to be at least 100 times more valuable than a life lost to air pollution or other common environmental risks.
This irrational regulatory regime has done terrible harm.
Historical experience has shown that by the fastest way to reduce green house gas emissions associated with electricity generation was building nuclear energy.
The reason nuclear subsequently became so slow and expensive it entirely the result of costly regulatory mistakes driven by excessive fear of radioactivity. These mistakes ultimately ended the expansion of nuclear power. Coal fired power was built instead, despite being objectively 1000 times more lethal.
This irrational regulatory regime has:
(1) Accelerated climate change by increasing our use of fossil fuels
(2) Killed millions of people every years from avoidable air pollution
(3) Made us reliant on forms of clean energy which are more expensive and more damaging to the environment.
Reducing the regulations governing nuclear power would costs almost nothing. It is irrational and morally indefensible to have regulations that value lives so differently.
I believe the smartest option is to use cars in general as little as possible. It’s quite doable, just build more housing in urban areas.
+1 for nuclear. But we also need storage and carbon capture. But mostly adaptation and development.
Matt, carbon capture is a scam made up by the fossil fuel industry.
Having owned two plug in hybrid Mercedes over the last six years I am not at all surprised. I was happy to invest ahead of the curve to help the
Planet and drive innovation. Early adopters are different to the late majority, beware the long tail. Plenty of books on both these subjects tell us what is happening.
While initially expensive to buy the price and competitive offers have all expanded the market and created the economies of scale that a proper functioning market always does.
That acts to lower price and improve performance.
I’ve found over six years the cost of
Ownership and knowing the reduced engine emissions helps my carbon footprint and all other drivers and pedestrians.
Charging at home over night for me is easy and cheap. What needs to happen now is to ensure that everyone can afford one, that charging is easy for everyone in their location and lifestyle and that the grid provides massively more electricity cleanly and cheaply to replace all the petrol and diesel miles.
Like all technology be that washing machines, tv, phones, pc, mobiles, the benefits to the individual and communities pulls through the supply and demand. That needs to be delivered by engineers and industry with some controlled support of govt.
Let’s keep going with cleaner more
Sustainable options and keep a check on the reality through science moderating politics.
Progress is sweet especially when it is inclusive. We need to see these trends at home help the poorest people and countries and not loose sight of that as Market failures apply around the word.
With many things predictions are made by drawing lines through points. For EVs they need to factor in the new mines that need to be opened. New mines can't be opened quickly and EVs need plenty of new mines. With PV, the mineral constraints aren't as tight.
But the even bigger issue is that BMW (for one) estimate that their EV lifecycle emissions are about 40% lower than the ICE version. That means we can't decarbonise transport just be switching to EVs. We need more public transport and fewer cars. Public transport is slow to both plan and build. Can EVs reduce their lifecycle emissions to the kind of level we need ? (ie., 5% of current ... offset the rest?). That doesn't look remotely possible.
If you decarbonise steel production (hard but the tech exists), battery production (easy), and your grid (currently happening), then it's possible. BMW (along with most car manufacturers outside of China & Tesla) have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo.
Geoff, can you elaborate on the assumptions behind the idea that new mines will be required to increase the share of EVs in new vehicle sales? If you have any sources on the mix of battery chemistries I would really appreciate it. The recent announcements from CATL and other manufacturers regarding sodium ion batteries caught me off guard. I didn't realize that chemistry was ready for mass manufacturing already, and I wonder what other chemistries besides LFP and sodium ion are about to be introduced. I know all virtually all battery manufacturers are looking to eliminate cobalt and reduce nickel content, and the silicon anode technology appears on the verge of being manufacturable, which will improve material efficiency by increasing gravimetric energy density. Thanks for any insight into mineral requirements you have!
Even though electric cars are mildly better for the environment, USA still needs to be moving away from car-dependency as much as possible.
We need bike lanes, bus lanes, rail expansion, and urban infill housing that is located in pedestrian-friendly areas.
Developers are happy to build pedestrian-oriented housing, we just need more upzoning to allow it.
Excellent work, as always.
Incorrect, on two counts. A) PV hasn't taken off, not in any meaningful sense, and event today provides very little overall amount of power (compared to aggregate demand) and B) EVs are not functionally equivalent to ICE cars, for the one car middle class. The middle class is not buying EVs en masse, because to do so would represent a decline in their standard of living.
Steven, you should try reading the article before commenting.
Not to mention that the stats this advocate uses are IEA data, for the world. Some places, in temperate climates, with short distances for travel (like Europe) are easier sells. Not so for Canada and the USA, very different animal. And these kinds of EV ra ra stories have been going on for at least a full decade at this point. Its rich people with several cars that buying EVs, in North America.
My comments wouldn't change. The one car family middle class is not buying EVs.
Hi Steven, I think you raise a valid point, that one-car families probably are going to be the laggards in EV adoption. However, given the fact that there are 290 million registered vehicles for a population of 332 million in the United States, there are a lot of two-car (or more) families. In my social circle, almost every family has more than one car and is considering a PHEV or EV for their next vehicle purchase. Do you think adoption rates will increase once EVs become more affordable and capable (i.e., have a longer range)? Or do you think there will be peer pressure among some groups not to buy EVs as long as ICE vehicles are available?
@Fred Horch The basic problem with these kinds of projections and assertions by technology promoters is that they usually don't look at the lowest common denominator or basic user needs and behavior. Not just for EVs, but all energy systems. I am an experienced energy engineer and analyst, been dong this >40 years, so I know the field. With regards to EVs, for two car citizens, having an EV can make a lot of sense, especially in temperate climates, and in urban areas, for local travel and errands. Absolutely. For one car citizens, you have to consider their practical needs. A harried single mother who needs to move her kids around in all weather, say, in Canada, simply cant live with an EV. If you get stuck in a traffic jam in a -30 C winter storm taking your kid somewhere, and you run out of juice, you simply cannot afford to get stranded, lives are at stake.
@steven lightfoot, we share a similar background. I own a mechanical contracting firm and spent a summer working for Pacific Gas & Electric (as a summer clerk in their corporate legal department) where I got a great overview of what happens if energy engineers don't do their jobs well. ;-) We are at the point where the serious questions you raise about depending on a BEV for your personal mobility are being considered and answered. My family has been driving BEVs in Maine since 2012 so I can answer the cold climate performance questions from personal experience. Did you know that AAA will give you a quick boost if you run out of charge in your BEV? Check out their "Mobile Charging Wherever You Need It" service https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/used-ev-buyers-guide
OK thanks for your comments. I don't doubt that the EV market is growing, however this article which I have criticized is typical of the kind of ra ra lack-of-critical-thinking stuff that is typical of the VRE promotional crowd. Magical thinking and poor analysis doesn't solve problems. Empiricism and reality does. Thanks for your comments.
The fundamental question with technology replacement is whether or not a new something is functionally equivalent or better. If its demonstrably better in practice, it will be adopted. If it looks the same or better, but users find that it is isn't in day to day life, it wont be adopted. That is the only measure you need to keep in mind. Unless EVs have same range and the same convenience factor as ICEs, then they aren't yet functionally equivalent overall (even if they already do have some other benefits).
A plea for data, Ms. H: perspectives on how to get the most renewable E on line ASAP. Options of what kinds of in-the-meantime duct-tape-and-string imperfect things can be done to maximize increased use of intermittent wind/solar/etc. Thanks.
Agreed. With clean electricity, BEVs are great. With dirty electricity, they are almost as bad as ICE. Tesla's model of selling cars, solar PV, and batteries seems reasonable. What do you think?
Sir.
I honestly do not know. Sometimes it seems so counter productive to be arguing about nuclear/battery/gas-peaker/more-power-lines .. trying to always & only do the One Right Thing. Meanwhile Rome burns..
I gather the two main counterarguments are that electric motors turn more of the energy into motion and that even dirty large scale power plants are more efficient/environmentally friendly than the small portable ones in automobiles.
Supposedly, electric motors are twice as efficient, joule for joule, of converting their input energy into motion than ICE engines. I know internal combustion engines are much more efficient than they used to be, especially with modern transmissions, but you can heat the interior of a car with the waste heat from an ICE but not from an electric motor.
Meanwhile, power generation is getting cleaner and more efficient. Maybe solar and wind power are intermittent, but that just changes the scheduling for gas and other fossil fuel plants. Even with no storage, unless people stop using energy when the sun shines and the window blows, that energy offsets the need to burn fossil fuels.
I think that argument miss an important point: the fact that the cost of an addition can increase with the penetration of the resource, even if the cost of production decreases.
For the "political side" i think subsidies are more important thing than general "policy", especially for the time factor.
That is a common talking point without much in the way of facts. The Oil industry is heavily taxed and regulated. Some tax incentives exist but not taking money from someone is a long way from taking money from someone else to pay to make another product cheaper.
Yes this is all true. But it WON’T reduce emissions because same amount (roughly) of oil will need to be extracted for non-gasoline products. EVs well and good but won’t improve environment or global social issues.
How would the same amount of oil be necessary for non-gasoline products? Over the course of its useful life, a fuel-burning vehicle consumes several tons of petroleum that ends up dispersed in our atmosphere and ocean primarily as H2O and CO2 molecules. BEVs consumer far less oil, and all the plastics, metals and minerals in them can be recycled at their end of their useful lives. Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
Fred- Gasoline only comprises about 40-45% of a barrel of oil -from the other 55-60% come about 6,000 other products used in global economy - mostly heating oil, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt (to make roads) but also eg medicines, plastics, etc. IF - for whatever reason including 'doing the right thing for climate' we swap out ALL of our internal combustion engines for EVs, yes that would significantly reduce demand for GASOLINE, but it wouldn't reduce the demand for OIL at all - or very slightly - (I'll explain below**). IOW, we need each barrel of oil in current system for all the things, gasoline being one of them. If we suddenly no longer need gasoline we will still extract and refine the same amount of barrels of oil - thus either needing to flare/dispose of gasoline OR also reduce demand for all the other non-gasoline oil products. **It is possible to change the refinery processes to switch some (a low %) of the middle distillates to make other products thus reducing demand for oil a bit, but its at the margin and very costly. This is a point I've made for years -our cultural discussions on these things are 'systems blind' - they only look at top level cause and effect 'gasoline cars bad for climate' without looking at how the solutions (EVs) would actually reduce emissions SYSTEM WIDE. You might see my podcasts w Art Berman on this topic for more info.
Thank you! I'll check out your podcasts with Art Berman to check out your assumptions and conclusions. Appreciate the thoughtful response.
Is the argument that we'll be using a lot more bunker and other products to compensate for the fuel savings of electric vehicles?
Electric vehicles aren't about eliminating the need for fossil fuels. They use less energy overall for the same travel, so there is some savings right there. Large scale power plants are more efficient than small portable ones, so that's more savings. We also get flexibility for further improvements. There are lots of ways of making electricity, so cars could run on fossil fuels or solar or geothermal or nuclear power with no alteration or replacement. Like money, electricity is implicitly fungible.
The efficiency gain alone would cut the need for fossil fuels unless we come up with a new excuse to burn more of them. The ability to take advantage of a broad range of energy sources would allow for flexibility and further improvements.
EVs are heavily subsidized. If that were not the case the sales would plummet. Not to mention EV's increase our dependence on china and do nothing for the environment.
Gasoline powered vehicles are also heavily subsidized. It's not like the oil industry doesn't get its subsidies and tax breaks. Texas is one big welfare state for fossil fuel energy producers.
I can see solar powered transportation becoming ubiquitous in India and tropical areas within a decade. In India the possibilities of cheap solar panels when combined with human ingenuity are endless.
Also behind the curve on this - the British government (and no doubt many governments across the world, regardless of left-right placement or commitment to democracy). I'd dearly love for them to be ahead of this curve and installing tons of charging stations right now - but they clearly aren't.
The US market is still dominated by Tesla, they sell most of the EVs here. The model 3 and model Y together make up most Tesla sales. So to me it seems like, there are two very popular EVs in the US. Will any company other than Tesla break into this top tier? What's the key issue here, does Ford just need to produce enough EV F-150s and then they'll start selling?
It used to be just Teslas, but lately I've been seeing a lot more Leafs and a few others. I saw a Rivian, of all things, just the other day. The Safeway and Walmart both have public charging stations, and they're putting in another at the county courthouse. About ten years ago, our local dry cleaner had an extension cord running out the window to charge a VW Beetle like electric car that belonged to his daughter. We've come a ways since then, even out here.
I think affordability, and then availability, and then the charging network. We leased a Nissan Leaf, then a VW e-Golf, bought a used Volt, and then reluctantly bought a Tesla because we need to take long trips and were tired of having to burn fossil fuel to do that. Once longer ranges or a better charging network become available, then people will be able to consider other brands besides Tesla. For now, though, there is a world of difference (at least in New England) between driving a Tesla and any other BEV. If you don't have a Tesla, you do need to think carefully about your trip and charging plan. With a Tesla, you can count on convenient access to a fast, affordable and dependable charging network that spans North America.
I appreciate that you are a "Climate Optimist" and want to tell an optimistic upbeat story. I also appreciate the reality that decarbonizing our electrical system and our transportation systems are an absolute necessity. But you are being wildly optimistic here and wildly unrealistic.
You are making the same assumption that most Climate Optimists and Techno Optimists make, over and over again. You assume future stability and look at only one aspect of the developing Climate Crisis in isolation.
I have no doubt that if "everything else stayed the same" for the next twenty years, your predictions about solar panels and EV's could come to pass. That's not going to happen Hannah. You know that, or you should. You are selling a story of "false hope" here.
This is Climate Disinformation.
Because things are RAPIDLY getting worse now. You should know by now that a MONSTER EL NINO is starting. Just like I predicted last year.
The next 4-6 years are going to be catastrophically bad. I am forecasting deaths in the 800 million to 1.2 billion range. Things are not "going to stay the same".
By clinging to the delusion that we can "buy our way to salvation" by installing solar panels and getting an EV. You and the other "Climate Optimists" create the false hope in people that life is going to go on the way it is now. You convince them that they won't have to sacrifice anything and that we won't have to make any real social changes.
You prevent the change we need from happening by selling the idea that people can keep the life they have. Just with everything electrified.
Individual cars should be banned. An EV for everyone is insane. You can make 40 e-bikes with the resources of one EV. You can transport the same amount of people on Electric buses and streetcars for about 1/20th the resources. We don't need more EV's, we need better public transit and mandated retirement and removal of gasoline cars.
As long as you keep selling "false hope" people will keep eating it up and refuse to start on the hard work of real change. Salvation without effort is always an easier sell than 'repent sinner, the hour of judgement is at hand'.
What is the factual basis for you prediction? We have had ~1.2 C of warming and the impact has been trivial. No increase in storms or floods or deaths from extreme weather. There has been an Increase in deaths from extreme heat, but there has been a much larger decrease in deaths from extreme cold, which is far more dangerous.
The current mid range prediction is a further warming of 1-2 C with food production increasing because of longer growing seasons, the fertiliser effect of CO2 and improved farming methods.
How these billion people going to die? The only scenario I can think of a global war which is made more likely by your doomster misinformation.
After 2022’s devastating heat waves and wildfires, scientists warn of even hotter year Jan 2023
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/after-2022-s-devastating-heat-waves-and-wildfires-scientists-warn-of-even-hotter-year/2781302
Mercury soared above 40C across many parts of Europe in 2022, leading to many deadly wildfires and heat-related deaths.
UN’s weather agency: 2022 was nasty, deadly, costly and hot — April 2023
https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-heat-drought-flood-ice-9ecec0bbb5970e82db27716d5a73c840?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=255241810&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_Go-gq_YCmlL1g9Cstc1sveuxMbpdeCFHgftzWdiNhttl-MlsjJMIF1DDeSEwBxloMnbL00Daip9Y5xxsnUpbXTLRyJQ&utm_content=255241810&utm_source=hs_email
Killer floods, droughts and heat waves hit around the world, costing many billions of dollars. Global ocean heat and acidity levels hit record highs and Antarctic sea ice and European Alps glaciers reached record low amounts, according to the United Nations’ climate agency’s State of Global Climate 2022 report released Friday.
El Niño is coming, and ocean temps are already at record highs — that can spell disaster for fish and corals -April 2023
https://theconversation.com/el-nino-is-coming-and-ocean-temps-are-already-at-record-highs-that-can-spell-disaster-for-fish-and-corals-202424?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2019%202023%20-%202604226194&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20April%2019%202023%20-%202604226194+CID_afb913cad3779e1a39dad5bf8b557e7a&utm_source=campaign_monitor_global&utm_term=El%20Nio%20is%20coming%20and%20ocean%20temps%20are%20already%20at%20record%20highs%20%20that%20can%20spell%20disaster%20for%20fish%20and%20corals
It’s coming. Winds are weakening along the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Heat is building beneath the ocean surface. By July, most forecast models agree that the climate system’s biggest player — El Niño — will return for the first time in nearly four years.
World could face record temperatures in 2023 as El Nino returns — April 2023
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/world-could-face-record-temperatures-2023-el-nino-returns-2023-04-20/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily-Briefing&utm_term=042023
“Climate models suggest that after three years of the La Nina weather pattern in the Pacific Ocean, which generally lowers global temperatures slightly, the world will experience a return to El Nino, the warmer counterpart, later this year.
El Nino is normally associated with record breaking temperatures at the global level. Whether this will happen in 2023 or 2024 is not yet known, but it is, I think, more likely than not,”
- Carlo Buontempo, director of the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.
With the heat, will come HEATWAVES.
‘Record smashing’ heatwaves: Research reveals which countries are most at risk.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/26/record-smashing-heatwaves-research-reveals-which-countries-are-most-at-risk
Global research reveals countries where record-breaking heatwaves are likely to cause most harm - SciDaily April 25, 2023
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230425111140.htm
Scientists used climate data and modelling to pinpoint where in the world temperature records are most likely to be broken and the communities in the greatest danger from extreme heat.
They found that “statistically implausible extremes” occurred in 31 per cent of the regions they analyzed between 1959 and 2021.
There was no particular pattern to where these temperature abnormalities were happening. This means these extremes, where current records are broken by margins that seem impossible until they occur, could happen anywhere.
"In this study, we show that such record-smashing events could occur anywhere. “We have seen some of the most unexpected heatwaves around the world lead to heat-related deaths in the tens of thousands.”
Dann Mitchell - study co-author Professor in Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Bristol Cabot Institute for the Environment.
A LOT of people are going to die from heat in the next few years.
While the increase in extreme heat events will undoubtedly kill more people, the decrease in extreme cold events will save lives. Since far more people are killed every year by extreme cold event than extreme heat events, the number of lives lost to temperature extremes is more likely to go down that go up with warming. A recent global studies have found that fewer people have died from extreme temperature events in the past 20 year as a result of warming.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
In the UK an ONS study estimated that 500,000 FEWER people died in the period 200O-2019 as a result of warming.
The latest IPCC report found that there was no evidence that the incidence of storms of any kind or floods has increased in recent decades.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-new-ipcc-report-1e3
Given the absence of such increase it is wrong to attribute storms or floods to global warming.
Incidentally, there has been a reduction in windspeed, especially in the northern hemisphere (global calming), but this is unlikely to be lethal!
The notion that coral reefs are under existential threat from warming is debatable. Coral survives in a wide range of temperatures, and the most diverse coral reefs are in warmer seas. The famously threatened Great Barrier Reef is doing very well despite warming - it covers a greater extent than in the past 36 years.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/08/04/australias-great-barrier-reef-shows-best-signs-of-coral-recovery-in-36-years
If you believe that, you should advocate for coal generation with better scrubbers.
The impact of climate change on agriculture is a plausible case for pessimism and may lead to mass starvation and death. But like Anton, I question the basis for predicting this outcome. Is it really helpful to be preaching gloom and doom that might prevent people from taking effective action to optimize their efficiency, electrify their homes and vehicles, and solarize their power supply? Why is encouraging people to adopt the best technology and apply it to solving real problems a bad idea?
That's the point. When Ehrlich and others published their population doom predictions back in the 1960s and 1970s, the idea was to goad people into taking the problem seriously, encourage and subsidize family planning, improve agriculture, stop desertification and whatever else it took. They weren't writing about how to make big bucks off the coming apocalypse, survive by hoarding ice cubes and gold or simply arguing that we had to accept living in a wretched world. Sure, we can just give up, but there are things we can do to make things better even if we never achieve an earthly paradise.
Care to bet on this? https://manifold.markets/a/will-at-least-800-million-people-di?r=YQ
Absolutely. I understand what's happening so I know things are about to get a lot worse. I also read the UN reports on world hunger and know that "right now" 1 Billion are living in a state of food insecurity. Over 400 million are in a state of constant hunger, "right now".
We are starting a MASSIVE HEAT SPIKE.
It's going to make the 30's Dust Bowl look mild. We are starting this spike a full 1.2C of "observable" warming (it's actually worse, up to 0.9C of warming is being masked by SOx particulate) higher than in the 30's. Global famines are coming, starting by the end of this year and intensifying in 24'.
Why do you think Xi, went on a spending spree in late 21' and bought up 50% of the Global grain reserves. China is sitting on enough food to feed its people for 18 months. Xi and Putin know what's about to happen.
That's right. US agriculture never recovered from the 1930s Dust Bowl. I remember that now.