Perspective: Bill Gates Takes on Climate Change

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the November issue of the Atlantic magazine, Bill Gates is interviewed by James Bennet who quotes Gates as saying that “we need an energy miracle” to propel the world beyond fossil fuels fast enough to outpace potentially cataclysmic climate change. This is a cogent piece with a new perspective on what realistically can be done to deal with Climate Change keyed to carbon dioxide formed from the combustion of fossil fuels. The essence of Bill Gates position is that we need an energy miracle to accomplish the CO2 reduction goals the government is setting. The immensity of our use of CO2 producing fuels, the growing demand for energy, the low cost and plentiful supply of fossil fuels and our reluctance to build nuclear electrical plants, makes moving to a new energy paradigm big a hill to climb. Gates recommends that we invest in R& D to release the Country’s entrepreneurial energy to solve some of these complex issues. That the clean energy goal the environmentalists insist on is so gigantic is why Bill Gates says it will take a miracle to achieve it.

 Here is a summary of the points Gates makes.

• It is unprecedented to change an infrastructure this large this quickly. Moreover, it is not clear to Gates that there is anything in sight that could significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

• Clean energy enthusiasts make unrealistic claims such as that solar energy has the same cost as hydrocarbon based energy. When the sun shines solar energy can compete with hydrocarbon energy, but when it doesn’t, hydrocarbons have to be on standby. It is expensive to have a huge hydrocarbon energy infrastructure on standby to be used intermittently, and battery technology is not cheep.

 

• To get to clean energy is a global challenge. Carbon dioxide is not a local pollutant. It mixes in the global atmosphere. It doesn’t matter where the hydrocarbon energy is produced in China, India or elsewhere. 

• Heating levels have not exactly tracked the climate models. This gives the skeptics reason to wait and see, thus not providing a political will to drop everything to tackle this goal.

Let’s examine what is involved. A century ago our energy came from the combustion of biomass and coal with a smidgeon from hydroelectricity. Today more than 90% of our energy comes from biomass, coal, oil, and natural gas, all of which produce CO2 when combusted. The remaining energy comes from hydroelectric and nuclear with only a smidgeon coming from renewables such as solar and wind.  

The amount of CO2 produced relates to the amount of carbon in the fuel being burned. The highest carbon is in coal, the next is oil and biomass with natural gas having the least. The amount of heat produced relates to both the carbon and hydrogen content. Here again natural gas is the best of the fossil fuels. Its chemical formula is one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms per molecule, CH4.Moreover, natural gas contains no sulfur or other toxic substances released when biomass, coal or oil are combusted. 

This chart shows the source of the US energy 100 years ago versus today and forecasts what it probably will be in 2030.The “amount” column reflects the increased energy used and how energy demand has grown and will probably grow with population growth. Thus, for example, 2015 has four times the population of 1915, and population in 2030 will be about 30% greater than 2015. This chart also shows the amount of CO2 created from the combustion of the various energy sources.

 

		ENERGY SOURCE VERSUS CO2 PRODUCTION
										Projected Energy to 2030
		1915	1915		2015	2015				No    Change			Change
Source	CO2*	Energy	CO2		Energy	CO2				Energy	CO2		Energy	CO2
		Amount			Amount					Amount			Amount
Renewable	0	0	0		4	0				5	0		60	0
Nuclear	0	0	0		8	0				10	0		10	0
Hydroelectric	0	0	0		4	0				5	0		5	0
Natural Gas	117	0	0		60	68				77	90		100	117
Oil	161	6	7		184	312				236	350		200	322
Biomass	200	44	88		20	4				26	52		20	4
Coal	228	50	114		120	272				157	354		121	276
*
		100	209		400	656				516	846		516	719
*	Pounds of CO2 Produced
	Per Million Pounds of BTU					Total Energy Demand					in 2030
	(British Thermal Units)					30% above total energy of 2015

Note these highlights from the chart.  

• The chart shows a 4 fold increase in energy consumption in the hundred years from 1915 to 2015, and a 30% forecast increase from 2015 to 2030 due to population growth.
• Renewables, nuclear and hydroelectric produce zero CO2, and natural gas produces significantly less CO2 than the other carbonaceous sources of energy.
• In 2030 even when we assume that penetration from wind and solar will grow from 1 to 11% of total energy along with a healthy growth of natural gas at the expense of oil and coal, the total CO2 reduction is only 15%.

                                               (846-719)/846= 15%   

This is substantially short of the 30% the government’s goal, thus supporting Gate’s premise of the magnitude of the challenge.                                                                                        

On the positive side, Gates believes we should unleash the creative and entrepreneurial human spirit by funding research for the better ideas. The funding should come from private sources, such as the Gates Foundation is doing, as well as government sources. These goals would include using fossil fuel more efficiently as well as developing solar and other renewables that are more competitive with fossil fuel without the need for economic subsidies.  

Obviously a short term approach could come from the conversion of coal and oil to natural gas. Natural gas is economically competitive with oil and coal, produces significantly less CO2 and needs no financial subsidy as do the renewables. Nuclear produces no CO2, but the fact that nuclear has waste disposal problems makes it unattractive. Nevertheless, research should be devoted to solving that problem. 

Taxing fossil fuel and subsidizing non-competitive renewables simply increases the cost of fuels for automotive, factory operation and home electric and heating. All of these ideas penalize the poor while having little impact on the wealthy, thus causing the poor to become poorer.

It is to be hoped that politicians and environmentalists listen to what Gates is telling us so we don’t do something stupid.