The Sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not carbon dioxide.

If Greta Had Her Way – Part 2

Contributed by Robert Lyman 2019. Lyman’s bio can be read here.

In October, 2019, I posted an article on the Friends of Science blog discussing the consequences if, by an unfortunate miracle, some all-powerful world government were to heed the demand of Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg and order the immediate decarbonization of the world economy. By “decarbonization”, I mean ending the use of the fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) upon which the world now depends for 84% of its primary energy needs.

The previous article can be read here:

The results would be, in a word, catastrophic. Among other things, the elimination of modern farming techniques and motorized equipment would so reduce global food supply as to likely result in the starvation of over six billion people.

Some of those who commented on the article took issue with it because it did not consider the ability of non-carbon energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels and it did not acknowledge the role that, in their view, electricity storage will play in assuring reliable energy supply in the face of intermittent production by wind and solar energy.

Fortunately, a few well-informed writers on climate and energy issues have already plowed this ground, so we can take advantage of their analysis. One is Roger Pielke Jr., a frequent writer on science and innovation subjects with the University of Colorado.

Pielke examined what would be required if the world tried to reduce carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions by 45% (from 2010 levels) by 2030, and completely eliminate them by 2050. These are the targets increasingly being advocated by those who believe that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. Note that these goals are considerably less demanding than Greta Thunberg’s demand that we all stop emitting immediately.

Considering 2018 global emissions and likely emissions growth to 2030, Pielke calculated that to meet the 2030 target, new carbon dioxide-free energy consumption would have to reach about 10,000 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). That means the world would have to add about 1,000 mtoe of carbon-dioxide-free energy every year over the next decade. Over the past decade, the world added about 64 mtoe of carbon dioxide-free energy per year on average. So, over the next ten years, the world would have to increase the deployment of new energy sources about 15 times faster than over the past decade.

Reaching the 2050 target would mean the replacement of almost 20,000 mtoe of projected energy consumption, which equates to the deployment of about 1.6 mtoe per day between now and 2050.

As the concept of an mtoe is difficult to grasp, one can view this in terms of the needed additions of carbon-dioxide free energy production sources, like nuclear power plants or industrial wind turbines. Pielke uses the production of a modern nuclear plant in the United States, the Turkey Point Generating Station in Homestead, Florida, which produces about one mtoe of energy per year. To achieve zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy three new nuclear power plants every two days for 20 years. For comparison, the United States has deployed about one new nuclear plant per year over the last 40 years.

It is an understatement that a few people might object to this option. Thus, Pielke considered how many more wind turbines the world would need to deploy. Zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of about 1500 wind turbines, with capacities of 2.5 MW each, every day until 2050. As 1500 wind turbines would occupy about 300 square miles of land, these turbines would cover about 3.3 million square miles (85% of the area of Canada).

These estimates ignore several other points:

• They assume that all current production of fossil fuels would have to be phased out starting immediately. The fuel-producing jurisdictions, faced with economic disaster, might “push back” a bit. Further, as the imposition of regulatory restraints on fossil fuel consumption would undoubtedly cause the price of existing production to decline sharply, governments would have to centrally plan (i.e. totally control) virtually all parts of the energy economies in all the countries of the world.
• Eliminating oil and natural gas use would end their availability as feedstocks for petrochemical production, including fertilizers, with very large impacts on food production;
• It would be necessary to replace most of the world’s existing industrial and transportation infrastructure that now depends on fossil fuels; the costs of this would be in the many trillions of dollars;
• It would require the electrification of all parts of the global economy. Currently, electricity supplies only about 20 % of the world’s energy needs, so the needed additions to transmission and distribution infrastructure would be many times what has been accomplished over the past century – all done in 30 years.
• The technological constraints are enormous. To take one example, electricity supply must be reliable, and wind and solar energy are intermittent (i.e. they produce only when the wind blows or the sun shines, not when electricity is needed). Bulk electricity storage is in its infancy. Recent estimates for utility scale storage show battery costs of around Cdn $650 per kilowatt for the system plus Cdn $250 per kilowatt for the actual batteries. The cost to provide enough storage for one cold winter day in Alberta would be $69 billion.
• It ignores the energy and carbon dioxide emissions “embedded” in the nuclear power plants and renewable energy generation equipment.

In other words, the claim that the world can and will reduce carbon dioxide emissions to attain either the proposed 2030 or 2050 targets is the product of politics and theatre, not serious analysis and understanding of the global energy system.

Greta is on a carbon fiber yacht. Carbon fiber is only possible through extremely high heat and a complex, energy intense manufacturing process.


  1. Andrew Roman

    Both the Biblical requirement to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and the moral philosophy of Kant equate morality with universalisability. Is chartering a yacht for transatlantic voyages or getting a free ride from a wealthy yacht owner to avoid much lest costly flying universalisable?

  2. Beth

    While I was watching Greta’s speech at the UN, the teenage girl who came to my mind was Anne Frank. And just like Greta’s yacht, Anne’s train car had a bucket for a toilet as well. Greta said that the $4 million race yacht wasn’t the most comfortable way to travel but neither was Anne’s train ride.

    We don’t live in a perfect world but then, we never have. There has never been a generation that has been able to live in a perfect world. So, this young generation has to learn to deal with not living in a perfect world, not blaming the generation before them, and learn to appreciate what they do have. . .

    My Mother would often say, “Count your blessings” and every year, my Father grew vegetables in our backyard. My Grandfather (who lived through both WWI and WWII), was know for saying,

    “Chin up, carry on”.

    And what does this young generation have? Cell phones, yachts, clothes to keep them dry and warm along their journey, plenty of food, clean water, social media and so on. . . Many things that previous generations never had. . .

    Both my parents taught me and my siblings, do what you can to leave this world a better place.

  3. Daniel

    Sure it is. If the entire world decided to travel in ways that had less environmental impact then travel would still exist.

    A better example of Kant’s universal law is lying: If everyone lied, then no one would trust anyone, which would mean that lying would be both useless and meaningless. This creates an almost paradoxical situation which is a symptom of an immoral act.

    If the entire world wanted to travel on boats, we would make more boats. Or if the entire world wanted to have less environmental impact, then we would do so.

    • fosadmin

      Why do you think boats have less environmental impact?

  4. Daniel

    Oh, I was meaning to respond to Andrew Roman’s comments about Kant.

    But to answer your question: Planes use a lot more carbon-fibre and other materials than a yacht does, and they also use a burn a lot more fossil fuels. Is this the question that you are asking?

Leave a Reply! Please be courteous and respectful; profanity will not be tolerated.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!