By NOLAN WILLIS
In my previous article, “Emissions Reduction or Self Flagellation,” I explained how the modern environmental movement, particularly the climate change hysteria, amounts to a religion where nature is god, and greenhouse gas emission are essentially sin that is begging for nature to punish humanity for its corrupt use of fossil fuels. I also explained how most efforts to curb or reduce emissions, particularly the popular or politically correct efforts, essentially amount to making very little progress while inflicting great pain and suffering. As a sequel to this line of thinking, I wish to bring something else to light, and it is how we define the concept of sustainability.
Sustainability, by definition, is a state that can be continued indefinitely. If a situation cannot be continued indefinitely, it is, by definition, unsustainable. When people normally talk about sustainable environmental practices, they generally mean to suggest that the alternatives that they are proposing can be continued into the foreseeable future. When they say that a particular practice is unsustainable, they are suggesting that if a particular practice is continued, bad things will eventually ensue that prevent that practice from continuing or otherwise coerce people into changing their ways.
Case and point: about two decades ago, most people believed that fossil fuels were going to run out within a few decades, and the concern over sustainability largely centered around finding alternative energy resources that could be used indefinitely. Climate change was a concern then, but now that we have access to a lot more fossil fuels than we thought we had, the concern has mostly shifted toward exhausting the world’s carbon budget—an arbitrary figure that has been selected to theoretically limit global warming to around 1.5 deg C above pre-industrial levels. The idea is that fossil fuels should not be widely used beyond that point, thus rendering the practice of using them to be unsustainable.
The problem is that the “sustainable” practices that are being proposed to mitigate climate change are not what they seem. To replace the energy production of fossil fuels with renewable energy resources will require extensive mining; build-out of infrastructure; right-of-way procurement; bulldozing of the environment for solar and wind farms; and manufacturing of solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines that has its own large environmental footprint.
Then, after about two and a half decades of service, everything will need to be replaced; thus, there will be a constant replacing of aging renewable energy infrastructure and the associated disposal or recycling efforts. If recycling is the chosen path forward, that will require even more energy than the initial manufacturing of renewable energy systems, and that energy will need to come from somewhere, to say nothing of the associated chemicals and various byproducts that have their own problems.
Realistically, if we choose a renewable-only future, energy usage will need to decrease by a lot, and most people who are serious about going all-in for renewables will agree with this statement. Indeed, I have heard highly educated people (college professors) argue that energy should be scarce and expensive to discourage people from using too much of it. This is their ideology talking, and in a sick, twisted way, it reminds me of the mindset of rigid Christian fundamentalists who insist that life must be tough and miserable with lots of rules, lest people sin. These are the types of parents who bred rebellious, apostate teenagers. I know because I saw this first-hand.
Now, let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose that we can successfully convince an entire generation to mostly give up fossil fuels and commit to an energy-scarce lifestyle for the sake of preventing harm to the planet. How long will that last? When that generation has children who see that people are dying of preventable diseases because medical interventions are scarce, that clean water is a luxury, that they are at the mercy of the weather because they cannot keep their homes climate-controlled, and that they have highly restricted access to technology that their parents once took for granted, how long will that next generation tolerate the bondage that has been forced onto them without their consent?
Bear in mind that they will know, full well, where to get oil, gas, coal, and anything else that has been restricted or banned. How long do you think that the next generation will tolerate this burden before they say, “SCREW IT!” and become climate apostates? If my observation of teenagers who rebelled against their overly religious parents is any clue, we can expect the ban on fossil fuels to last less than three decades, and that is not sustainable.
As we can see, the renewables-only option is unsustainable 1) because the environmental footprint of wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries is too high to sustain long-term and 2) because human nature will not permit that sort of restrictive energy-poor lifestyle to continue indefinitely. If we consider how much difficulty we are having in convincing people to give up their modern conveniences today, what makes us think that we can sustain this sort of puritanical lifestyle for generations—the scale of time that most climatologists believe to be necessary to let the atmosphere return to preindustrial levels?
The bottom line is that we need to stop fooling ourselves. Burning fossil fuels may not be sustainable in the strict sense of the word’s definition, but the practice can be sustained far longer than the practice of relying on renewables alone. In fact, this is exactly what people who are concerned about climate change worry about most—the idea that people are going to continue burning fossil fuels for the next three or four generations until we run out and the climate supposedly turns into a hell-house earth scenario. How the climate ends up in the end is subject to speculation, but we can be certain that as long as fossil fuels exist on the same planet as humans, humans will be inclined toward using them because they are convenient, useful, and (most importantly) cheap.
What is the solution then? If we want humans to stop using fossil fuels, we need solutions that are truly better—energy resources that are more energy dense than fossil fuels and that produce far less pollution when utilized. Renewable resources, in the classic sense, do not come anywhere near meeting those requirements, and they probably never well.
We do have one energy resource that does, however, and it’s the one energy resource that gives many people great hope while frightening many others. If all the Uranium on planet earth were converted to energy via advanced fission, there would be enough energy to power about ten billion people at Western levels of energy consumption for seven to ten billion years. Fusion is a probably a couple of decades out (and probably always will be, as the joke goes), but if it ever does become reality, that will be another energy resource that will outlast humanity at any conceivable rate of energy usage.
If we are concerned about greenhouse gases, we need to focus on advance nuclear power and make a long-term commitment toward that end instead of trying to do something that is going to backfire.
Nolan Willis is a lifelong Alaskan, a Bristol Bay Commercial Fisherman, a licensed Professional Electrical Engineer, and the current Chair of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Alaska Section. His work experience spans the worlds of utilities, energy, communications, and naval nuclear propulsion.
Yes, nuclear!
Despite that fact that historically, over millions of years, temp swings precede CO2 emmisions; and if (big IF) CO2 continues to rise at 2PPM per year, we will not get to the EPA recommended MAX CO2 for 275 years. And in that time the temp will rise, regardless of what we do, 3 degrees. So we are punishing oursleves by spending trillions of dollars to NOT move the temp needle downward even a degree.
There is historical data saying that the climate has been this warm before, just as there is historical data on the CO2 levels being even higher than the EPA reommended max for continuous exposure. CO2 is plant fertilizer. The climate cultists are not only wrong, they are driving inflation and driving us back to third world levels of burning dung for heat and fuel.
Unless it is hydro power, which the cult followers claim in not in the renewable category, renewables will never replace fossil fuels as the cause for not only our longevity but our ability to live on this harsh planet.
Worship the creator, not the creation.
Thank you, tommy!!
A hoax is a widely publicised falsehood so fashioned as to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance by the greatest number of people of the most varied social identities and of the highest possible social pretensions to gull its victims into putting up the highest possible social currency in support of the hoax.
“essentially amount to making very little progress while inflicting great pain and suffering – hoax (Great pain and suffering is a feature, not a bug.)
“but now that we have access to a lot more fossil fuels than we thought we had” = hoax
“The problem is that the “sustainable” practices that are being proposed to mitigate climate change are not what they seem” – hoax
Quit dancing around, Pastor Willis.
“We” (lotta ‘we’s’ in this article) think climate change is a hoax. Anybody that tries to acquiesce to a hoax that was created to advance global Marxism is dangerous.
‘
I don’t think it is a complete hoax. There is the scientific study of climate change, and there is the religious obsession with climate change. The science is a lot more complex than the simple idea that more CO2 means more warming. There are lots of other factors.
The religious obsession that people have concerning climate change prompts them to ignore all other factors and focus on the singular human factor, assume that it is the worst, and that we are all gonna die. That isn’t science. Speculation about temperature increases isn’t science either. That is a hypothesis that is subject to a live experiment.
The point is that we cannot prove one thing or another when we have not tested it. We cannot prove that human contributions are negligible, nor can we prove that they are catastrophic. I like to reference the potential for “atmospheric ignition” that some physicists theorized about before testing the first nuclear devices. They didn’t have all the data to predict anything with certainty, so they predicted in terms of probabilities. Most people are not comfortable with this, and just because something CAN technically happen doesn’t mean it will happen. There is no point in ruining people’s lives over the most catastrophic predictions when they are not likely outcomes and when we cannot control them anyway.
hide the decline
You cited 3 ways “we” have been hoaxed. I can cite you 100 more plus the original document stating that environmental issues will be used to further the Marxist agenda but evidently you aren’t ready to abandon your ‘faith’.
“not likely outcomes”-hoax? “when we cannot control them anyway” -saying we can is a hoax? It’s not a question of bad science, it’s a reality of people lying to you.
Oh, and there is a “point in ruining people’s lives over the most catastrophic predictions”. care to guess what it is? But at least I agree with the first three words of your reply.
And finally, did you ever find out what happened to the raw HADCRUT data?
How many more climate apologist/electrical engineers can you muster, Suzanne? I’m losing track of who’s who.
Jay, you clearly do not understand what I wrote or the point of it. You might want to make sure that you understand what I wrote before making an utter moron out of yourself.
The point of my articles is to encourage people to NOT do something rash, stupid, or counterproductive because of rampant climate hysteria. That should be the most important area where we can agree, but people like you evidently want to look smart and contrarian by missing the point and arguing with an engineer (an intellectually risky activity, by the way) to show him who really knows better. You have the right to free speech, but I suggest using that right responsibly. Ultimately, we should have enough common ground to be on the same side, but you are causing unnecessary trouble for the two of us.
Regarding the HADCRUT data, I don’t have an answer for you. I did not compile that data, nor did I alter it, so I have no answer that will satisfy your question. There is lots of data that indicates a modern warming trend. That may not be a problem. What is a problem is the effort to upend everything that is good about modern life to serve the climate god. If you had read my last article and actually understood it, you would understand the fact that I have been repudiating the religious nature of climate change hysteria, yet you have accused me of this idolatrous practice.
I honestly can’t tell if you are just really bad at reading comprehension or if you are a troll. Either way, you have a problem, and it’s not my problem.
Jay you had not be using fossil fuels now if you are then you’re just another believer in space Aliens.
Ultimately, nothing.
The problem today with nuclear is the same problem it will be 100 years from now and the same problem it’s been since day one with nuclear, when it goes bad it goes really bad for a really really long time. While we are told it’s safe and the next gen nukes will be safe the problem remains, if and when they fail large swaths of habitable land instantly become uninhabitable. While natural gas and coal might cause some problems even the most extreme environmentalists acknowledge that the effects are not as immediate or catastrophic, nor are they near as long lasting. Maybe we should be more concerned with securing the natural gas supplies that we need to ensure we will have heat and power in Southcentral in the next few years.
Steve, your comment demonstrates a load of ignorance about nuclear power and a resolute disbelief that any improvements in safety have been made or ever could be made in nuclear engineering. I do not understand this mindset. I just know that it’s pessimistic, wrong, and needs to be addressed.
Of all the reactors that have ever been built, only one incident remotely comes close to what you have described, and it is a nearly irrelevant example as Chernobyl did not render the area completely uninhabitable, as that place became an unintended wildlife sanctuary when the people evacuated. Furthermore, nobody is building reactors with positive void coefficients anymore because of what happened at Chernobyl.
There are indeed reactor designs that have been tested and shown that they are incredibly resistant to any sort of meltdown. The EBR II reactor is one such example, and the test was actually filmed for your viewing pleasure on YouTube, assuming you are interested in learning and not simply speaking out of ignorance.
You know, people like you make these blanket ignorant statements to everyone, including the engineers who worked on this stuff, and you remind me of the scene in Interstellar where Murph’s dad is speaking to Murph’s teacher who is insisting that the lunar landing was faked when the principal, about thirty seconds earlier, acknowledged that the dad was a trained pilot and an engineer. In fact, he was an astronaut.
Nolan,
Thanks for the response. If we are celebrating the “unintended wildlife sanctuary” that is the exclusion zone caused by Chernobyl instead of acknowledging the failure of engineering and human hubris that took place then we are no better off. How many conventional power plants have the ability to make unintended wildlife sanctuaries that span 1,000 square miles, and effect countries thousands of miles away for decades? And let’s not forget Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, Kyshtym, Windscale, Tokaimura, and of course the countless processing and reprocessing accidents over the years. But nothing to worry about, I’m just spouting ignorance.
The problem so many engineers make is they believe they are infallible because engineering is science and math and they fail to include the human factor at play, just as you’ve done so here. It’s not your fault, you were trained as an engineer to do so. You and all engineers are fallible humans, the sooner you accept that the better engineer and human you will be.
I’d be curious to see how many Bristol Bay fishermen would sign up for and sign off on having a nex-gen nuke reactor placed at the headwaters of a small tributary of one of the river systems let alone anywhere near the region of Bristol Bay, we know many already won’t abide a mine and it’s worse case scenario that pales in comparison to the worst case scenario of a nuke.