People are looking for perfect solutions, but they’re not going to find them. Waiting for the perfect fix is the same as doing nothing. Let's not wait.
>There were slim pickings for ‘meat substitutes’, and those that existed tasted like rubber.
Hey! They weren't all that bad! We had different friends who substituted Gimme Lean Ground Beef for their family's taco night, and no one ever noticed!
:-)
But thanks so very, very much for this article and for all your work. <3
THANK YOU for writing this. There always seems to be counter-arguments and roadblocks for solutions that we know will improve the way we live and alleviate the big problems ahead of us. “Waiting for the perfect solution is the same as doing nothing”, you put it perfectly.
While some of the folks on the left are waiting for the perfect solution, which is fast becoming a Samuel Beckett play, the right cynically uses imperfection as a way to slow down the transition to a decarbonized world. As you point out, all the environmental issues need to be dealt with in a sustainable way in parallel to the main goal of moving to a carbonless world. There will be mistakes and problems. The press loves to pick up on any problems as they perceive that there is an audience for negativity regarding clean energy options. For example, if a Tesla catches fire it goes viral. Having once driven a Pinto (young people will have to look this up) I am well aware of the dangers of gasoline powered vehicles. Whenever you have a dense source of energy you have the potential for a fire or explosion.
I fully agree with the article with respect to nuclear power. However using intermittent renewables like solar and wind for grid electricity is a terrible way to reduce emissions. Apart from their huge environmental footprint, far greater than natural gas, they impose huge costs on electricity consumers because balancing them is so costly. That is why electricity prices ALWAYS rise when connecting renewables to the grid. This problem would remain even if they cost nothing to install. Batteries are still at least 100 times to expensive to be a viable way of dealing with intermittency. Hydrogen synthesis may be feasible but remains very expensive and unproven. So while we install more solar and wind we are forced to maintain the same level of dispatch-able generating capacity because solar and wind can provide no electricity for weeks at a time. Ramping up dispatch-able power sources forces them to function in a far less efficient way. So it is irrational to use solar and wind to power the grid. At best it allows a modest reduction in emission at an enormous cost to consumers and the environment.
Increasing the cost of electricity creates energy poverty which kills people.
It seems that Intermittent production from solar and wind will be supplemented by nuclear quite well. We need to commit to it. And perhaps smart grid tech and electric cars in every garage will smooth the loads on the grid. Regarding raising power prices, many economists from both ends of the political spectrum have argued for a carbon tax that would be fully refunded to all and more than make up for the cost for people with low incomes. It seems like we should embrace what we know works to decrease ghg emissions, and move as fast as we can.
We need a ton of energy that is not used as electricity as a final product. As long as the economics for disptchable demand and product storage are there (say H2 for industrial use) then the issues of how to integrate grid supply are greatly reduced.
Solar panels are mostly (> 80% ) made in China from polysilicon wafers using coal power and slave labor in Xinjiang. https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains. Solar “farms” cover much more land area than the combined power generating stations and gas fields, since with fracking most of the infrastructure is under ground. Also the panels have a limited lifespan and there is currently no working recycling method for the panels. Doesn’t seem very doubtful to me.
Nuclear power arguably may be safe. But the power produced is simply not affordable. Furthermore, the plants take a decade or more to build, and cost overruns are huge and common. For example, the Financial Times' Lex column, Nov. 5, 2022. notes that UK nuclear power in 2040 is projected to cost L96/ MWh , while offshore wind plus storage at that date will be at L68/MHw (29% lower cost). See Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle, Finland's Olkiluoto 3 (12 years late and $11 billion vs $3 billion budgeted), and UK's Hinkley Point.
Yes, I think I could name a few: we can't have hydrogen passenger vehicles because they are 'inefficient'. We can't use blue hydrogen for industry, heating or power because >95% carbon capture rates are not good enough, and it sends 'the wrong signal'. We can't use curtailed renewables to produce hydrogen because there is a risk that electrolysers will use fossil power from the grid (there is no chance of this happening, because it makes no economic sense).
If we look at the situation for what it is, many people are unable to get out of the concept that 'electrifying everything' is a plausible and realistic ambition, despite the reality that electricity grid operators keep trying to explain it will never work.
Yes, different geographies have different priorities - but I think the wholesale assault on hydrogen that characterises our failing progress should be reconsidered and perhaps not put in the box of 'the perfect being the enemy of the good' but in fact just what it is: ideological bias, promoted by people with various agendas intent on stalling the real progress necessary.
My book, 'Planet Zero Carbon - A Policy Playbook for the Energy Transition' is available on Amazon
If what Environmentalists say seems pivotal and addressing the climate problem looks like requiring appeasing THEM (by doing it all their way) that looks more like deep failures of the rest of politics (with media complicity) to step up on climate and emissions and lead than of intrinsic failures and wrongness of Environmentalism.
But slowing down our policy actions by holding up a bar too high is hardly unique to Environmentalists (by mistake); much of the insincere 'promotion' of nuclear is by doubt, deny, delay politickers (on purpose) for whom doing emissions reductions better is not the point. Saving fossil fuels from global warming and Renewable Energy is the point. Upending what policies are in play now (RE) and putting decarbonising efforts into limbo is the point. Which is the point of framing the climate problem as 'Environmentalist' instead of non-partisan front and centre, where it should be.
When it comes to use of alarmist fear it looks to me more like the doubt, deny, delay opponents are the real doomists in this, using false and exaggerated economic fears and fake fears of extremist political tyranny to undermine support for decarbonising. Global warming actually presents real (not alarmist) reasons for fear, however facing up to them (eg with RE) is the solution for both the problem and the fears; it is the failures to face up to it head on with eyes open that is far more fear inducing to me.
If what Environmentalists say seems pivotal and addressing the climate problem looks like requiring appeasing THEM (by doing it all their way) that looks more like deep failures of the rest of politics (with media complicity) to step up on climate and emissions and lead than of intrinsic failures and wrongness of Environmentalism.
But slowing down our policy actions by holding up a bar too high is hardly unique to Environmentalists (by mistake); much of the insincere 'promotion' of nuclear is by doubt, deny, delay politickers (on purpose) for whom doing emissions reductions better is not the point. Saving fossil fuels from global warming and Renewable Energy is the point. Upending what policies are in play now (RE) and putting decarbonising efforts into limbo is the point. Which is the point of framing the climate problem as 'Environmentalist' instead of non-partisan front and centre, where it should be.
When it comes to use of alarmist fear it looks to me more like the doubt, deny, delay opponents are the real doomists in this, using false and exaggerated economic fears and fake fears of extremist political tyranny to undermine support for decarbonising. Global warming actually presents real (not alarmist) reasons for fear, however facing up to them (eg with RE) is the solution for both the problem and the fears; it is the failures to face up to it head on with eyes open that is far more fear inducing to me.
Your main point that waiting for the perfect solution is the same as doing nothing is spot on.
Spectacular article!
>There were slim pickings for ‘meat substitutes’, and those that existed tasted like rubber.
Hey! They weren't all that bad! We had different friends who substituted Gimme Lean Ground Beef for their family's taco night, and no one ever noticed!
:-)
But thanks so very, very much for this article and for all your work. <3
I love how you put links to the sources of your claims. Its super helpful and shows a lot of professionalism
THANK YOU for writing this. There always seems to be counter-arguments and roadblocks for solutions that we know will improve the way we live and alleviate the big problems ahead of us. “Waiting for the perfect solution is the same as doing nothing”, you put it perfectly.
Just quoted you in my weekly newsletter :) https://breakingwhitesilence.substack.com/p/breaking-white-silence-newsletter-158?sd=pf
Thank you very much, Matt :)
Wonderful piece. Resonates so much with what we’re seeing in Europe sometimes. Thanks for putting this out!
While some of the folks on the left are waiting for the perfect solution, which is fast becoming a Samuel Beckett play, the right cynically uses imperfection as a way to slow down the transition to a decarbonized world. As you point out, all the environmental issues need to be dealt with in a sustainable way in parallel to the main goal of moving to a carbonless world. There will be mistakes and problems. The press loves to pick up on any problems as they perceive that there is an audience for negativity regarding clean energy options. For example, if a Tesla catches fire it goes viral. Having once driven a Pinto (young people will have to look this up) I am well aware of the dangers of gasoline powered vehicles. Whenever you have a dense source of energy you have the potential for a fire or explosion.
Typo: "This emits CO₂ unless it doesn’t come from low-carbon sources"
Fixed. Thank you very much.
Great article! Thank you for laying out a moving argument for action now and reminding readers not to wait for perfection.
I fully agree with the article with respect to nuclear power. However using intermittent renewables like solar and wind for grid electricity is a terrible way to reduce emissions. Apart from their huge environmental footprint, far greater than natural gas, they impose huge costs on electricity consumers because balancing them is so costly. That is why electricity prices ALWAYS rise when connecting renewables to the grid. This problem would remain even if they cost nothing to install. Batteries are still at least 100 times to expensive to be a viable way of dealing with intermittency. Hydrogen synthesis may be feasible but remains very expensive and unproven. So while we install more solar and wind we are forced to maintain the same level of dispatch-able generating capacity because solar and wind can provide no electricity for weeks at a time. Ramping up dispatch-able power sources forces them to function in a far less efficient way. So it is irrational to use solar and wind to power the grid. At best it allows a modest reduction in emission at an enormous cost to consumers and the environment.
Increasing the cost of electricity creates energy poverty which kills people.
It seems that Intermittent production from solar and wind will be supplemented by nuclear quite well. We need to commit to it. And perhaps smart grid tech and electric cars in every garage will smooth the loads on the grid. Regarding raising power prices, many economists from both ends of the political spectrum have argued for a carbon tax that would be fully refunded to all and more than make up for the cost for people with low incomes. It seems like we should embrace what we know works to decrease ghg emissions, and move as fast as we can.
We need a ton of energy that is not used as electricity as a final product. As long as the economics for disptchable demand and product storage are there (say H2 for industrial use) then the issues of how to integrate grid supply are greatly reduced.
2 and a half years later, these things no longer hold true for anyone coming to this article late.
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68957d5fa2088191ab785ac5a1b07df7
Very well said, Anton.
Your last sentence is why we exist.....
https://envmental.substack.com/p/sacrificing-humanity-on-the-green-766
"Apart from their huge environmental footprint, far greater than natural gas,"
Doubt
Solar panels are mostly (> 80% ) made in China from polysilicon wafers using coal power and slave labor in Xinjiang. https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains. Solar “farms” cover much more land area than the combined power generating stations and gas fields, since with fracking most of the infrastructure is under ground. Also the panels have a limited lifespan and there is currently no working recycling method for the panels. Doesn’t seem very doubtful to me.
Nuclear power arguably may be safe. But the power produced is simply not affordable. Furthermore, the plants take a decade or more to build, and cost overruns are huge and common. For example, the Financial Times' Lex column, Nov. 5, 2022. notes that UK nuclear power in 2040 is projected to cost L96/ MWh , while offshore wind plus storage at that date will be at L68/MHw (29% lower cost). See Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle, Finland's Olkiluoto 3 (12 years late and $11 billion vs $3 billion budgeted), and UK's Hinkley Point.
Yes, I think I could name a few: we can't have hydrogen passenger vehicles because they are 'inefficient'. We can't use blue hydrogen for industry, heating or power because >95% carbon capture rates are not good enough, and it sends 'the wrong signal'. We can't use curtailed renewables to produce hydrogen because there is a risk that electrolysers will use fossil power from the grid (there is no chance of this happening, because it makes no economic sense).
If we look at the situation for what it is, many people are unable to get out of the concept that 'electrifying everything' is a plausible and realistic ambition, despite the reality that electricity grid operators keep trying to explain it will never work.
Yes, different geographies have different priorities - but I think the wholesale assault on hydrogen that characterises our failing progress should be reconsidered and perhaps not put in the box of 'the perfect being the enemy of the good' but in fact just what it is: ideological bias, promoted by people with various agendas intent on stalling the real progress necessary.
My book, 'Planet Zero Carbon - A Policy Playbook for the Energy Transition' is available on Amazon
The 80/20 rule. If you are 80 percent of the way there, get going. The rest you figure out on the way.
If what Environmentalists say seems pivotal and addressing the climate problem looks like requiring appeasing THEM (by doing it all their way) that looks more like deep failures of the rest of politics (with media complicity) to step up on climate and emissions and lead than of intrinsic failures and wrongness of Environmentalism.
But slowing down our policy actions by holding up a bar too high is hardly unique to Environmentalists (by mistake); much of the insincere 'promotion' of nuclear is by doubt, deny, delay politickers (on purpose) for whom doing emissions reductions better is not the point. Saving fossil fuels from global warming and Renewable Energy is the point. Upending what policies are in play now (RE) and putting decarbonising efforts into limbo is the point. Which is the point of framing the climate problem as 'Environmentalist' instead of non-partisan front and centre, where it should be.
When it comes to use of alarmist fear it looks to me more like the doubt, deny, delay opponents are the real doomists in this, using false and exaggerated economic fears and fake fears of extremist political tyranny to undermine support for decarbonising. Global warming actually presents real (not alarmist) reasons for fear, however facing up to them (eg with RE) is the solution for both the problem and the fears; it is the failures to face up to it head on with eyes open that is far more fear inducing to me.
If what Environmentalists say seems pivotal and addressing the climate problem looks like requiring appeasing THEM (by doing it all their way) that looks more like deep failures of the rest of politics (with media complicity) to step up on climate and emissions and lead than of intrinsic failures and wrongness of Environmentalism.
But slowing down our policy actions by holding up a bar too high is hardly unique to Environmentalists (by mistake); much of the insincere 'promotion' of nuclear is by doubt, deny, delay politickers (on purpose) for whom doing emissions reductions better is not the point. Saving fossil fuels from global warming and Renewable Energy is the point. Upending what policies are in play now (RE) and putting decarbonising efforts into limbo is the point. Which is the point of framing the climate problem as 'Environmentalist' instead of non-partisan front and centre, where it should be.
When it comes to use of alarmist fear it looks to me more like the doubt, deny, delay opponents are the real doomists in this, using false and exaggerated economic fears and fake fears of extremist political tyranny to undermine support for decarbonising. Global warming actually presents real (not alarmist) reasons for fear, however facing up to them (eg with RE) is the solution for both the problem and the fears; it is the failures to face up to it head on with eyes open that is far more fear inducing to me.