Energy

The next episode of my readings from and reflections upon Chiara Marletto’s “The Science of Can and Can’t” - chapter 6 Work and Heat - is well on the way. Work and heat are the two primary forms of “fundamental energy” so it has been on my mind of late. Hence this particular substack article today devoted to energy. I will leave remarks about the physics of thermodynamics given Chiara’s work in Constructor Theory to the next episode of ToKCast. For today I wanted to try to bridge the gap between those timeless concerns about energy  - the fundamentals of work and heat - and the more timely contemporary and pressing concerns that occupy us at this point in history: how energy is used to power civilisation and therefore problem solving and knowledge production. We want the lights to the be on, we want the indoors of our homes and offices to be not too warm and not too cool (so we need adequate technology for air conditioning) and we want our computers and factories to help realise our creative aspirations. But all of this takes energy because so much requires electricity and that electricity production comes with side effects.

The solution of one set of problems - heating or cooling, energy for cooking or computing - leads to another set of better problems like: waste and pollution. This is a necessary by-product imposed by the physical laws governing these processes. There simply must be waste - nothing is perfectly efficient. And some of that pollution is in the form of a chemical - carbon dioxide - that it has been explained captures infrared radiation as it leaves the surface of the planet and redirects it back towards the surface of the earth in a process known as the greenhouse effect. And this greenhouse effect gradually warms the planet raising its overall average temperature when it is “enhanced”. With or without people this is known to happen because volcanoes produce carbon dioxide but with people burning fossil fuels this leads to the enhanced greenhouse effect which has been explained to cause various runaway processes like the melting of ice caps and even the melting of solid methane deposits on ocean floors which themselves could accelerate the entire process of heating even more (for more on that look up the so-called Clathrate Gun hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis So given these changes that are happening and are predicted to continue to happen without our intervention, people have proposed policies to transition away from fossil fuels. And this has begun to happen. In some places much faster than others.

But in lock step with this transition to non-fossil fuel burning energy sources, or renewables - there exists an argument that says the movement to renewable energy is happening too fast. Eg: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/is-the-energy-transition-moving-too-quickly-1031173039?op=1

The argument is that reducing to the point of eliminating our society’s dependence on fossil fuels is happening at such a rate the amount of so-called “baseload” energy available in the electricity network will soon become, if it is not already, too limited to actually keep the lights on.

That article linked to above speaks about the transition from wood to coal and then from coal to oil and how it took many decades and I might add to the article: it did not in general require top down coercion (certainly not from supra-national “authorities”). People moved from wood to coal because it was a clearly better, cheaper, healthier alternative. Better in almost every conceivable way. No one needed much persuading. No one needs persuading by others when it is clear they are saving money and their homes are not filled with smoke and their children not sick so often. It was better by their own lights. This is not so today. People need persuading (or “educating” as it is called).

It seems only conservative politicians and perhaps spokespeople or lobbyists for energy companies or outliers like Bjorn Lomborg (an environmentalist who is skeptical of the present solutions for global warming) and Alex Epstein (a philosopher who is a proponent of fossil fuels) argue that this transition is happening too fast. Some seem to be arguing it need not happen at all.

Meanwhile opponents of that seemingly pessimistic view argue renewables like wind and solar and green storage options like batteries and perhaps pumped storage (building dams which can be used as sources of hydroelectricity during times of need) are coming on line already. So it’s happening apace. Technology invariably improves and if we aim for a target of reducing carbon emissions and decommissioning coal fired power stations and all other fossil fuel usage for the production of electricity - by the time this is all accomplished - the technology will be there to power a green energy grid. We can aim for the decommissioning of all coal fired power stations by 2030 because by then we will have the technology available to take up the shortfall. By these arguments Australia should be able to keep 95% of the coal it has available in the ground and never used. It is the only hope of stopping the warming of the planet beyond the crucial limit of 1.5 C (Ref: https://theconversation.com/yes-it-is-entirely-possible-for-australia-to-phase-out-thermal-coal-within-a-decade-167366) That article contains modelling done by a group who published in nature and which said that although Australia needs to move to renewables entirely by 2030, other countries should aim for 2050 by which time 90% of the coal in the ground on Earth will remain forever after this untouched. Because it will never need to be.

Now that argument seems “optimistic”. One might even say it is blindly optimistic because although it says the problem of how to replace carbon dioxide producing, atmosphere heat retaining, climate changing energy sources is soluble - it does not say “here is the solution now” but rather “the solution is coming - have faith in progress and technology”. All we need is a policy change and then solar panels put on rooftops everywhere will do the job that coal presently does when it comes to electricity generation.

What this argument may ignore is a couple of things. The first is that it assumes no other problems requiring an increase in electricity production will arise over the next few years as we decommission the base-load fossil fuel power stations. It assumes a rather constant amount of use and that use can be met by gradual replacement of coal with (say) wind, solar and batteries. So we must assume that, for whatever reason the resources required to manufacture those things remain unaffected by global conflicts, extended bad weather (like weeks of cloudy, cold and windless weather in winter where the sun is already low on the horizon in many places) or supply chain issues or the discovery of some hitherto unknown problems that a yet-to-be environmental movement will decide (and campaign) on as being just as damaging as coal after all.

Already some noises are made about the chemicals in batteries and solar panels: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21/why-everything-they-said-about-solar---including-that-its-clean-and-cheap---was-wrong/?sh=31da31605fe5

So there is that: the solution requires minimal disruption which requires a certain degree of prophesy - presuming we can know what the future holds.

It also assumes that the problems that are said to be with the burning of coal really do require a reasonably rapid transition to so-called renewable energy sources and that this transition will lead to better, preferable problems than the problems created by the burning of fossil fuels. So, for example, the cost of renewables will easily be met by not only the people of poorer nations, but also the least wealthy residents of the most wealthy nations and that all of this can be done at a level of decision making that is supra-national and beyond the capacity of local governance to affect. The curious thing about all this is that historically almost every other transition that has happened - whether in energy from wood to coal to oil as already mentioned - or technology from horse and buggy to automobile to, perhaps today electric car, or from candle to incandescent light bulb to LED today or from transistor radio to black and white television to colour Cathode Ray tube to plasma screen to 1080 flat screen LCD to 4K backlit LED LCD or from transnational ocean liner to airbus 380 transcontinental flight and so on and on and on it goes - for all of those individuals by their own lights chose the preferred option because it was objectively better and cheaper and their standard of living went up. They saw with their own eyes and in their own bank accounts and the smiles on the faces of their children that each of those things was an objective improvement and no government had to mandate a policy from a black and white screen to a 4K LCD flatscreen. But with the transition from coal to solar, it is not like this. There was a time on my electricity bill where it was actually made explicit. There was a box one could tick to buy the renewable option. And for a premium - for paying more - you could choose to invest in, which is to say purchase, the electricity coming from renewable sources. Or you could buy the cheaper coal option. Then that option disappeared. But it’s clearly possible for companies to do this at the retail level. To bundle up all those who tick the box for solar and renewables and then purchase electricity from the wholesaler or provider based on what the consumer wants. Why is that not an option? As time goes on, if solar really is cheaper because more and more solar panels are manufactured then the price would presumably come down and more and more people would presumably sign up for it. Of course if that’s not happening but some authority demands it does, easy. Take away the option. Move entirely to renewables anyway - regardless of what people want. Regardless of what those people think about the cost. Regardless of whether they understand that the transition is inevitable and is best for everyone and for the planet. Technology improves and will continue to improve. We can literally cover vast areas of the centre of Australia where the skies are clear with solar panels and wind farms. Yes, there will be a cost of transmission. Yes, there will be some difficulty with maintenance. Yes, environmentalists of a different kind may be concerned about the vast areas being covered and transformed by these technologies and this may slow things down as it always does. But problems are soluble after all.

And there is something else to be said for the “optimistic” idea that replacing coal, oil and gas and transitioning to renewables by a particular date even if it is not yet known precisely how renewable technology can exactly fill in the gaps today - all on the assumption that it will be known then. By the time the last coal fired power station shuts down we will have enough renewable energy in the grid. We will know how to make up the shortfall because there will be no shortfall then - there will be wind and solar and batteries enough even in the winter months when people need to heat their homes but the sun is not shining much and the wind is not blowing much and perhaps there has been little rain for a while so the pumped storage dams are running low. Never mind. By then we will know: we will have solutions then. Be optimistic. 

That other thing to be said for all this hope and optimism is: it works precisely in the other direction as well.

If the argument is: we do not have the technology right now to transition to an entirely or almost entirely renewable electricity grid in a way we know will be reliable even in winter months when energy use is highest but energy production from renewables is at its lowest - but we know in theory how it could be done or at least we know that it could be done. We know about scaling solar and wind and batteries - those technologies really do exist today and it is merely a manufacturing problem - a problem of scaling - of taking what some nations already do on a large scale and in the limit having all nations do this to the same extent so that 90% or 100% of their energy comes from wind and solar - this argument that it can be done, it is just a matter of doing it - applies equally to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and generating all electricity using fusion power too. Indeed it could very well apply to using the existing fossil fuel technology to power the technology that sequesters carbon dioxide directly out of the atmosphere.

It is clear in some places now that the so-called transition to a green economy is not pain free. Some think this pain is just part of the process: (https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2017/07/13/can-the-world-thrive-on-100-renewable-energy) People may see their energy bills increase - but that is part of the process. People may see blackouts or be told there are risks of blackouts - that is part of the process. There may be social division where to be vocally pro-green is virtuous but to question it is to be reckless and uncaring. There may be fear where children are in tears concerned about a planet that is endangered - but that is part of the process of persuasion. But why do people need to be persuaded of an emergency we are told is already here and has been here for decades? It may be that carbon sequestration is possible and not merely possible but we know exactly how to do it - but saying it is too slow is also part of the process. Being optimistic about renewables is the one form of optimism that is permitted. On every other technology like the promise of fusion power or the promise of carbon sequestration - we must be pessimistic. That is part of the process of transitioning to a green economy. It’s almost as if there are competing financial interests at play motivating reasoning in one direction more than in the other.

If the argument is that technology will save the day tomorrow when it comes to climate change and this is why beginning the transition now by decommissioning coal fired power stations today then why does that same argument not apply with respect to any other solution to climate change: that technology will save the day tomorrow - if we just keep using coal fired power stations (and any other cheap energy available) given that technology already exists that can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and/or fusion power is known to be possible which will make every debate over electricity generation that has been had for decades completely redundant once it has been scaled to the level of every nation relying on fusion reactors for their baseload generation?

We know that generating heat from fusion reactions is possible. The sun does it. Hydrogen bombs do it. In terms of controlling that reaction so that the heat production can be regulated in order to spin turbines connected to generators, it has been said it has been done in the lab efficiently in a “proof of concept” kind of way. It seems that if anything in this space is inevitable - then fusion is. Small, cheap, safe fusion power reactors which produce no waste products except for helium gas which floats harmlessly off into the atmosphere. It may happen within 10 years. Or within 100 years. But even without fusion, we have fission. We already have a means of producing electricity at scale, with next to zero carbon dioxide emissions and which in theory could also be connected to carbon-dioxide sequestering technology: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/31/carbon-capture-technology.html And why no one takes the notion of planting more trees more seriously or even the notion that as the concentration of carbon dioxide rises in the atmosphere by whatever means - anthropogenic or naturally - the amount of plants both aquatic and on the land rises in response too: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops.

See also https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/ and https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00821/full

In short: it is not at all clear that as carbon dioxide concentration increases in the atmosphere that in response plants - especially marine plants - simply “significantly (increase) the growth of small-sized phytoplankton” - and we might well think this “significant growth” happens largely across the board when it comes to plants. Namely plants act as a natural example of La Chatelier’s principle. For those who don’t know the chemistry: La Chatelier’s principle is the idea in the study of chemical equilibrium where if a system which exists in an equilibrium changes, then when the conditions change (such as the concentration of a reactant say) the system itself reacts to counteract that change. So here the idea is: increases the carbon dioxide in the system (i.e: in the atmosphere) and in response photosynthesis (which consumes carbon dioxide) is pushed more strongly in favour of the products - namely the production of oxygen and glucose. Or in other words: plant growth…in order to counteract the change that is occurring (namely to reduce the concentration of the increased quantity of carbon dioxide). Now whether and to what extent the plant growth increases enough or at a rate sufficient to counteract all of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in response to the burning of fossil fuels by humans is an open question but it is the case plant growth has increased over the decades: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ For those who want radical change to the ways in which electricity is generated this “the earth is becoming greener” fact is a very uncomfortable one which is rarely mentioned or mentioned only to be dismissed as a talking point of the climate change denialist.

But aside from plants it is also known that there exist ways of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere directly. This so called “direct air capture” technology exists today but the problem is it is expensive. And why? Because electricity is expensive and the relevant technology needs to be powered - hooked up to the grid itself. But in a world powered by, for example, fusion power, we could literally have entire fusion reactors devoted to nothing but capturing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and placing it back into the ground into rocks which is where it came from as coal in the first place.

And this possibility raises an interesting question. In such a world where electricity is so cheap because the only cost is the manufacture and maintenance of the power station itself (the raw material is literally hydrogen taken from the electrolysis of water) - how much carbon dioxide would or should we remove from the atmosphere? Would we lower it to 1800s levels? Pre-industrial revolution? Why then? We are, after all, now the 2020s and by the time we have fusion power it could be, say, 2070 and with or without people the climate changes naturally. So should we project what the levels of carbon dioxide would have been in 2070 absent the existence of humans on the planet? Why would that necessarily be ideal? What does “ideal” mean in a world without humans? Ideal for what? The buffalo the bear or the beaver? And what if a volcano goes off spewing vast quantities of carbon dioxide “naturally” into the atmosphere? Does the fact it’s not a man-made climate change event mean we suck that carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere or not? If we do, do we stop once it upsets the carbon cycle itself and rain patterns around the world. But, again, what amount of intervention would not “upset the carbon cycle”? Would it be better to intervene so that deserts receive more rain or not? Should the tropics receive less in some places so that floods are a reduced risk? Or is flooding a part of the natural environment necessary for providing adaptive advantages for some organisms? What about forest fires? Do we use our carbon sequestration technology to neutralise the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from those events? But haven’t we already admitted - because we’ve learned - that increased carbon dioxide is good for plants?

If the argument in the first place with respect to climate change is that we humans caused it - it is anthropogenic climate change - and humans by their very nature are unnatural -  what they do is damaging - then how can a situation where we do more of that - of controlling the environment by removing carbon dioxide and deciding how much there should be in the atmosphere be a possible solution to that? But then simply doing nothing is also not a solution because we’ve already done so much, we are told, to the environment to change it. So we should change it back. But to what? What is the pristine state of things? What is the ideal we should aim for? Is it where water and air is unfiltered? Clearly not. But should we let the carbon dioxide from forest fires, volcanoes and underwater eruptions occur without our intervention because they are natural? Or should we let them occur just in those places where there are no people? But what about the purported suffering of the animal life there? Should we stop natural disasters where we can or is our intervention itself a priori a disaster? And what about plants that benefit from the occasional fire and the entire ecosystem that, in the long run, benefits from big changes in the global environment as has happened over geological history?

It is clear there are many more questions than answers here. What is unusual is that in a complex space of possibilities there have been a few purported solutions that powerful business and political leaders have become fixated upon. Hitherto only a small number of corporations and nations have found themselves fortunate enough to be in possession - in the right place at the right time - to have the natural resources literally beneath their feet to power the economy of the last few decades. Fossil fuels have - by simple luck - been found only in some places on this planet and not others. They are an absolute boon to those who possess both the good fortune (those resources are near the surface) knowledge (both political, scientific and technological) and will to scale up, use and export them. Energy is a profitable business.

But imagine you found alternatives - you found you could manufacture solar and wind and batteries and so on. But for now it simply was not economically feasible to scale those to the level of coal, oil, gas or nuclear powered electricity generation? What to do? Well one thing would be to demonise the opposition. As has always happened in markets everywhere, anytime. Sometimes the demonisation might be warranted. Microsoft Windows PCs are far more prone to viruses. Get an Apple Mac. Apple Macs are far more expensive and less customisable. Get a Windows machine and really be in control of your operating system and apps. But there the consumer makes the choice. “Our competitor’s clothes detergent can leave your shirts dull and lifeless. Buy Breeze for bright and fragrant clothes after every wash. Make the smart decision. It’s environmentally friendly too!”

But here with energy production - a complicated area with as many unknowns as knowns - the individual is told there can no longer be a choice. Or if there is a choice it is a choice between the survival of the planet and death, destruction, decay and disease. Climate change is an emergency. Every flood, fire or heatwave, each drought and supply chain issue and cold snap, each time crops fail or a species is reported endangered - that is climate change. So you can have all of that - the death, destruction, decay and disease or you can choose life and renewables. If one did not know better it would not seem to be science speaking to you here but marketing of a kind. A choice is being offered of a better detergent - or rather better electricity for keeping the lights on and the heating running. The healthier choice, the more moral and virtuous, wise and indeed scientific choice. Who could possibly choose otherwise but an ignoramus who has been blinded by scientific illiteracy and a moustache twirling nefarious concern for profits above people? Never mind how much money there might be in renewable technologies for some investors. Never mind how truly renewable the technology is given that all those solar panels, wind farms and especially batteries need to be replaced. Ignore the fact your own mobile needs replacing every few years once the battery goes for good - these things too can be solved for much larger batteries that will be relied upon almost solely to power the grid on cold, still winters’ nights. At least we will be off coal.

———-

Here in Australia over the last week the news has been wall to wall about how in the Eastern states of NSW, Victoria and Queensland - but especially NSW - have been at risk of blackouts in the major cities. Now Australia, it should be known, has some of the largest coal, gas and uranium reserves on the planet but we contribute something like only 1.16% of global carbon dioxide emissions https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ . How can a nation so rich in natural resources - specifically the natural resources used for producing electricity be in a position that countries with almost no natural resources of the same kind (like South Korea) are in? In terms of coal Australia is 3rd in the world with 14% of all coal on the planet while South Korea is ranked 46th in terms of coal deposits with less than 0.1% of all coal: https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-reserves-by-country/  and yet electricity in South Korea (where most of the resources for producing it are imported) is far cheaper. Astonishingly given those statistics - the sheer amount of resources literally under our feet in Australia, extracted as it is, and then exported, the cost of electricity in Australia is around $0.216USD/kWh - placing us 26th on a list of 147 nations.

The United Kingdom is 8th at $0.265USD/kWh and Germany is 4th at $0.330USD/kWh. The USA is 56th at $0.159USD/kWh. South Korea is 90th at $0.097USD/kWh. China is 101st at $0.083USD/kWh and perversely they import much coal from Australia. So even with the transport costs (loading the stuff onto ships and then ferrying it all thousands of kilometres north) - they still pay far less than us for electricity and when I last checked Beijing was not at risk of blackouts just now. It is policy and not resources that makes the difference. And that policy is bad policy by the measure it creates worse problems. If the best we can do is mitigate 1.16% of global emissions here in Australia yet we are in an electricity production situation as precarious as some barely industrialised nations, something has gone terribly wrong and it is not a lack of investment in renewables. It is a shift far too quickly from reliable, cheap and effcicient coal which is beneath our feet and which could make us more wealthy to technologies that are unreliable most especially in winter. And yet people continue to vote for those policies because they are told again and again it is the scientific, virtuous and good thing to do to save the planet.