Manufacturing solar and wind requires fossil fuels. Extraction and assembly of materials like cobalt and requires by child/slave labor in Congo/China. They also cause environmental damage like killing whales and birds. Public and Doomberg provide much more rational takes on the energy transition than people who are captured by dogma and financial interests.
Another brilliant and concise piece, Bill, laying out the progress and obstacles to progress in the energy transition. I'm happy too that you noted that the tragic uselessness of growing corn for ethanol could be reimagined as enough land for solar panels to power the entire U.S. grid. I'd like to push back a bit, though, on valuing forests too much by their CO2 sequestration. Any climate solution that's a hard hit to biodiversity, like deforestation for panels, isn't much of a solution. Swapping intact habitat (whether forest or desert) for panels should be at the bottom of the to-do list. Here in Maine, for example, I'm seeing far too many solar projects cashing in on clearcuts when fields and other disturbed areas should have been prioritized. I know you know all this better than I do, but wanted to put in my two cents.
that's fair, and we should definitely stay away from big intact old growth; there's a lot of scrubby former fields slowly growing back into birch near us where the math makes more sense. habitat is always a tradeoff; if we can't slow the rise in temperature, it means far less. but all points well taken
Thanks, Bill. Well said. I would like to see policy (fed, state, local) set priorities for where to place arrays. It could be weaponized by opponents at times, but if we're not consciously/publicly protecting habitat in the scramble to reduce emissions, then I think we're missing a larger point.
I agree that rare high-value habitat like intact old growth should be spared, but I think we should prioritize building solar panels even when there are small local negative impacts. A climate solution like deforestation for panels....is in fact still a valuable climate solution, especially when we're already in unprecedentedly warm times. I'm worried that due to this kind of too-local "not seeing the planet for the trees" framing that many environmentalists, good people who care deeply about the Earth and the living creatures on it, may soon become one of the biggest remaining obstacles slowing down the renewables revolution and speeding up climate change. In the 21st century, I think that opposing a solar development is pretty prima facie evidence that you're making the climate problem worse. There are already *way* too many ways for opponents to weaponize environmental policies to oppose renewable energy (often astroturfed by fossil fuel lobbies). We should be stripping away those barriers to the renewables revolution, not adding more. Honestly, if I could wave a magic policy wand, I'd go as far as giving all solar and wind projects a blanket categorical exclusion from NEPA at this point.
I get where you're coming from, Jason-Maine forests are amazing! I personally loved hiking in everything from the small PRLT parcels in Cumberland County to the great Hundred Mile Wilderness. But we're in a climate emergency, and we need to prioritize clean electrons.
Bill, I live in a rural county in NYS. Everyone wants to send the garbage dumps, solar fields and windmill farms here. Where is the discussion on outfitting all buildings and homes with solar panels? Why do we need to destroy ecosystems and farmlands? I hate it.
Fully agree, Jason, and I'll even fo further. Well, first of all, of course, let me congratulate and thanks Bill deeply for all he does, for keeping the flame of hope alive for so many of us. Back to the matter under discussion. The tunnel vision (i.e. focusing only on climate) is super dangerous, as other intertwined crises such as biodiversity's are just as bad, meaning there we shouldn't have to choose because we really can't afford that. If to save the climate we destroy ecosystems we'll fall with them as well, as we are a part. Forests, as other wildlife habitats, provide us with invaluable ecosystem services, including climate regulation, water retention, erosion prevention... Besides, they harbor so much biodiversity (which deserve a home like we do), and on top of it all, they're embedded in our cultural identity, with many indigenous peoples and local communities intricately linked to them. In this regard, forests provide immense benefits to our physical and mental health, as well as for the cognitive development of children... and their imagination!
In our so-called "developed" nations, we tend to forget a key part of the conversation, one that should come first actually: reducing our energy consumption, through energy efficiency, but first and foremost reducing consumption altogether. We consume far more than we need. The cleanest energy is the want we don't use. This we've learned in Europe (a dude from Spain here) the hard way due to the war in Ukraine, but it's a vital lesson. And then and only then of course come renewables, via collective approaches if possible (e.g. community solar).
In "developing" countries however, where energy consumption per capita is still below poverty levels, then of course renewables are the go-to solution straigh off the bat, but here there is a lot more to consider before that, and it has a lot to do with cultural change, and what we consider progress and quality of life. It's all complex of course, but at the same time simple. Many thanks to Bill and all of you here, and let's do this together ;-)
Well said, Jesus. It's the "flat tire and dead battery" problem, where tending only to one isn't enough to get you back on the (right) road. Also, I'm learning that the intense focus on emissions-related heating is missing a big piece of the puzzle: the loss of so much forest and other vegetation has ruptured the water cycle that also controls climate. (Rob Lewis at The Climate According to Life is on top of that topic.) As for decreasing consumption, it's funny that what is in effect the easiest thing to do - less - is the hardest thing to bring about. One more reminder that we're dealing with cultural problems, not tech ones. By the way, I'm coming at this from another angle at my Substack, Field Guide to the Anthropocene. Thanks very much for chiming in here.
What a terrible thing to do to a golf course. Some of us prefer grass to silicon. Put the PV in the ocean and leave the land alone.
Bill, I saw your photo and note that everything you're wearing is probably made using natural gas. Cotten is grown using natural gas based fertilizer. There may be some polyester in there as well. We all know that without fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro there would be world-wide famine and frozen humans. Indeed, doing without conventional energy resources could reduce the world population to that point that surviving on wind and solar would be possible -- like we did a few centuries ago. Let's not do that.
Attacking oil and gas is ridiculously easy and may provide a brief endorphin rush, but doesn't move us forward. Creating a wind and solar industry the size of the oil and gas industry is only possible if it's cheaper. Wind and solar are only productive for about 6 hours per day so the production capacity needs to be 4x oil and gas, assuming energy storage capacity coverage large enough for 75% of the day. The productivity challenges of contemporary solar, wind and storage make it difficult to compete economically with prehistoric solar stored in oil and gas that's available 24x365.
Eventually, scientists, engineers and capitalists will overcome these thermodynamic and economic barriers using electrochemical process intensification and economies of hardware mass production.
Paving over golf courses with silicon really won't help.
Placing solar farms on open land is extremely short-sighted and furthers the idea that energy production must occur at great environmental cost. Viewing scrub and desert as expendable habitats aligns with the exploitative perspective that land is expendable, and undervalues biodiversity and the life-sustaining functions of the Earth.
There are many opportunities to install solar on the built environment: buildings, parking lots, roadways, etc.
yes, there are those opportunities (and they've been on my roof for twenty-some years). but as the articles i linked to pointed out, there aren't enough of them, so we're going to have to use some other land as well. And the point I was trying to make is that current farming practices often come at great ecological cost as well; replacing some of the acreage used to grow corn for ethanol with solar panels seems to me a sensible choice.
Bill, just to fortify your very on target and pithy note that we should "point out, over and over, the sheer wonder of the replacements we have on hand," we can reference some comprehensive studies that show renewable technologies are ready now to completely replace fossil fuels, in the U.S. and worldwide, and at low to zero net cost without even considering the saved cost from climate damage. Here are some links:
Jacobsen, M.Z. et al, 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World, Joule, August 23, 2017 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.07.005)
Great info! The one critique I have heard of solar energy discusses the supply chain for the actual parts. E.g., Where are the metals sourced from? Where are panels manufactured, and what are the emissions of that process?
Or, we could define our job as mobilizing tens of trillions in society’s shared savings aggregated into social superfunds for social purposes pegged to security in our future to take control of the Exxons of the world by financing their exit from share price trading, placing them into stewardship where they can be directed to become and supported in being part of a rapid REPLACE to RETIRE strategy for habitat security (without which there can be no financial security).
More words. Not such an emotional campaign slogan.
EVIL! #Exxonknew! Sue them all to Hell for trillions and use the money to help pay for rapid transition to cleaner energies! Many states are going court to sue for their roles in sabotaging their own science proving worst scenarios of global warming from fossil fuel CO2 releases via mass media manipulation and weak greedy pathetic puppet politicians - surely there are a few intelligent and sane judges/juries left in the USA to bring down these evil insane oil corporations once and for all! FED UP!
While living in Lapryor TX about 45mi from Eagle Pass I met a project engineer for Aramco (Saudi Royal Oil Company) that told me the Bush family gave most of the crude drilling rights in TX away decades ago.
Most Texans have no idea that the natural resources, they brag about having, don't belong to them anymore.
In Texas, like in most states, the mineral rights belong to the owner of an estate, unless such rights were previously severed from the estate. In other words, the state can’t sell them away.
Yeah, agreed. There really needs to be more investment and expansion of the solar power industry, in order to generate sufficient amounts of energy from the Sun.
Appreciating you and the breath of hope you bring for the future. Thank you Bill.
Manufacturing solar and wind requires fossil fuels. Extraction and assembly of materials like cobalt and requires by child/slave labor in Congo/China. They also cause environmental damage like killing whales and birds. Public and Doomberg provide much more rational takes on the energy transition than people who are captured by dogma and financial interests.
Well said. Thank you
Another brilliant and concise piece, Bill, laying out the progress and obstacles to progress in the energy transition. I'm happy too that you noted that the tragic uselessness of growing corn for ethanol could be reimagined as enough land for solar panels to power the entire U.S. grid. I'd like to push back a bit, though, on valuing forests too much by their CO2 sequestration. Any climate solution that's a hard hit to biodiversity, like deforestation for panels, isn't much of a solution. Swapping intact habitat (whether forest or desert) for panels should be at the bottom of the to-do list. Here in Maine, for example, I'm seeing far too many solar projects cashing in on clearcuts when fields and other disturbed areas should have been prioritized. I know you know all this better than I do, but wanted to put in my two cents.
that's fair, and we should definitely stay away from big intact old growth; there's a lot of scrubby former fields slowly growing back into birch near us where the math makes more sense. habitat is always a tradeoff; if we can't slow the rise in temperature, it means far less. but all points well taken
Thanks, Bill. Well said. I would like to see policy (fed, state, local) set priorities for where to place arrays. It could be weaponized by opponents at times, but if we're not consciously/publicly protecting habitat in the scramble to reduce emissions, then I think we're missing a larger point.
I agree that rare high-value habitat like intact old growth should be spared, but I think we should prioritize building solar panels even when there are small local negative impacts. A climate solution like deforestation for panels....is in fact still a valuable climate solution, especially when we're already in unprecedentedly warm times. I'm worried that due to this kind of too-local "not seeing the planet for the trees" framing that many environmentalists, good people who care deeply about the Earth and the living creatures on it, may soon become one of the biggest remaining obstacles slowing down the renewables revolution and speeding up climate change. In the 21st century, I think that opposing a solar development is pretty prima facie evidence that you're making the climate problem worse. There are already *way* too many ways for opponents to weaponize environmental policies to oppose renewable energy (often astroturfed by fossil fuel lobbies). We should be stripping away those barriers to the renewables revolution, not adding more. Honestly, if I could wave a magic policy wand, I'd go as far as giving all solar and wind projects a blanket categorical exclusion from NEPA at this point.
I get where you're coming from, Jason-Maine forests are amazing! I personally loved hiking in everything from the small PRLT parcels in Cumberland County to the great Hundred Mile Wilderness. But we're in a climate emergency, and we need to prioritize clean electrons.
Bill, I live in a rural county in NYS. Everyone wants to send the garbage dumps, solar fields and windmill farms here. Where is the discussion on outfitting all buildings and homes with solar panels? Why do we need to destroy ecosystems and farmlands? I hate it.
Fully agree, Jason, and I'll even fo further. Well, first of all, of course, let me congratulate and thanks Bill deeply for all he does, for keeping the flame of hope alive for so many of us. Back to the matter under discussion. The tunnel vision (i.e. focusing only on climate) is super dangerous, as other intertwined crises such as biodiversity's are just as bad, meaning there we shouldn't have to choose because we really can't afford that. If to save the climate we destroy ecosystems we'll fall with them as well, as we are a part. Forests, as other wildlife habitats, provide us with invaluable ecosystem services, including climate regulation, water retention, erosion prevention... Besides, they harbor so much biodiversity (which deserve a home like we do), and on top of it all, they're embedded in our cultural identity, with many indigenous peoples and local communities intricately linked to them. In this regard, forests provide immense benefits to our physical and mental health, as well as for the cognitive development of children... and their imagination!
In our so-called "developed" nations, we tend to forget a key part of the conversation, one that should come first actually: reducing our energy consumption, through energy efficiency, but first and foremost reducing consumption altogether. We consume far more than we need. The cleanest energy is the want we don't use. This we've learned in Europe (a dude from Spain here) the hard way due to the war in Ukraine, but it's a vital lesson. And then and only then of course come renewables, via collective approaches if possible (e.g. community solar).
In "developing" countries however, where energy consumption per capita is still below poverty levels, then of course renewables are the go-to solution straigh off the bat, but here there is a lot more to consider before that, and it has a lot to do with cultural change, and what we consider progress and quality of life. It's all complex of course, but at the same time simple. Many thanks to Bill and all of you here, and let's do this together ;-)
Well said, Jesus. It's the "flat tire and dead battery" problem, where tending only to one isn't enough to get you back on the (right) road. Also, I'm learning that the intense focus on emissions-related heating is missing a big piece of the puzzle: the loss of so much forest and other vegetation has ruptured the water cycle that also controls climate. (Rob Lewis at The Climate According to Life is on top of that topic.) As for decreasing consumption, it's funny that what is in effect the easiest thing to do - less - is the hardest thing to bring about. One more reminder that we're dealing with cultural problems, not tech ones. By the way, I'm coming at this from another angle at my Substack, Field Guide to the Anthropocene. Thanks very much for chiming in here.
What a terrible thing to do to a golf course. Some of us prefer grass to silicon. Put the PV in the ocean and leave the land alone.
Bill, I saw your photo and note that everything you're wearing is probably made using natural gas. Cotten is grown using natural gas based fertilizer. There may be some polyester in there as well. We all know that without fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro there would be world-wide famine and frozen humans. Indeed, doing without conventional energy resources could reduce the world population to that point that surviving on wind and solar would be possible -- like we did a few centuries ago. Let's not do that.
Attacking oil and gas is ridiculously easy and may provide a brief endorphin rush, but doesn't move us forward. Creating a wind and solar industry the size of the oil and gas industry is only possible if it's cheaper. Wind and solar are only productive for about 6 hours per day so the production capacity needs to be 4x oil and gas, assuming energy storage capacity coverage large enough for 75% of the day. The productivity challenges of contemporary solar, wind and storage make it difficult to compete economically with prehistoric solar stored in oil and gas that's available 24x365.
Eventually, scientists, engineers and capitalists will overcome these thermodynamic and economic barriers using electrochemical process intensification and economies of hardware mass production.
Paving over golf courses with silicon really won't help.
Placing solar farms on open land is extremely short-sighted and furthers the idea that energy production must occur at great environmental cost. Viewing scrub and desert as expendable habitats aligns with the exploitative perspective that land is expendable, and undervalues biodiversity and the life-sustaining functions of the Earth.
There are many opportunities to install solar on the built environment: buildings, parking lots, roadways, etc.
yes, there are those opportunities (and they've been on my roof for twenty-some years). but as the articles i linked to pointed out, there aren't enough of them, so we're going to have to use some other land as well. And the point I was trying to make is that current farming practices often come at great ecological cost as well; replacing some of the acreage used to grow corn for ethanol with solar panels seems to me a sensible choice.
Bill, just to fortify your very on target and pithy note that we should "point out, over and over, the sheer wonder of the replacements we have on hand," we can reference some comprehensive studies that show renewable technologies are ready now to completely replace fossil fuels, in the U.S. and worldwide, and at low to zero net cost without even considering the saved cost from climate damage. Here are some links:
William, J.H. et. al., Carbon-Neutral Pathways for the United States, AGU Advances 2(1), January 14, 2021. (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020AV000284)
The International Energy Agency, Net Zero by 2050 - Flagship Report, May 2021 (https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050)
Jacobsen, M.Z. et al, 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World, Joule, August 23, 2017 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2017.07.005)
Jacobsen, M.Z. et al, Zero air pollution and zero carbon from all energy at low cost and without blackouts in variable weather throughout the U.S. with 100% wind-water-solar and storage, Renewable Energy 184: 430-442, January 2022. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148121016499?via%3Dihub
thank you!
Great info! The one critique I have heard of solar energy discusses the supply chain for the actual parts. E.g., Where are the metals sourced from? Where are panels manufactured, and what are the emissions of that process?
Would love more info on this! Thanks!
Bill and Matte
Touché for the Great Articles.
To bolster your point , in fact , Nail It!
No more arguing from the other side, please , I implore everyone to visit a site called WorldoMeter?
Scroll down to Energy.
Read it and it will open your eyes , it should Frighten you, Enlighten You, and at the sane time Inspire you to make changes.
“Our job is to stop them”
Or, we could define our job as mobilizing tens of trillions in society’s shared savings aggregated into social superfunds for social purposes pegged to security in our future to take control of the Exxons of the world by financing their exit from share price trading, placing them into stewardship where they can be directed to become and supported in being part of a rapid REPLACE to RETIRE strategy for habitat security (without which there can be no financial security).
More words. Not such an emotional campaign slogan.
But maybe an actual solution.
EVIL! #Exxonknew! Sue them all to Hell for trillions and use the money to help pay for rapid transition to cleaner energies! Many states are going court to sue for their roles in sabotaging their own science proving worst scenarios of global warming from fossil fuel CO2 releases via mass media manipulation and weak greedy pathetic puppet politicians - surely there are a few intelligent and sane judges/juries left in the USA to bring down these evil insane oil corporations once and for all! FED UP!
Thank you for this article! It really lifted up my spirits today.
But we have surpassed 1.5 now.
Thank you. As always. For research and writing.
Thank you, Bill, for all your work! Some good news.
Thank you Bill for your faithfulness to this work and to keeping us informed
While living in Lapryor TX about 45mi from Eagle Pass I met a project engineer for Aramco (Saudi Royal Oil Company) that told me the Bush family gave most of the crude drilling rights in TX away decades ago.
Most Texans have no idea that the natural resources, they brag about having, don't belong to them anymore.
Which drilling rights?
In Texas, like in most states, the mineral rights belong to the owner of an estate, unless such rights were previously severed from the estate. In other words, the state can’t sell them away.
I want to read this.
Yeah, agreed. There really needs to be more investment and expansion of the solar power industry, in order to generate sufficient amounts of energy from the Sun.