January 05, 2025

Horse Manure, Climate Change, and Nuclear Energy

The "Great Manure Crisis" of the late 19th century offers some serious lessons for those worried about the "existential threat" of global warming from CO2 emissions.   

A predicted crisis that never occurred because of new technology.

Just before the dawn of the 20th century, there was desperate talk about the huge accumulation of horse manure on the streets of major world cities.  Not only was rising levels of horse poop inhibiting travel, but it threatened to become a major health hazard.  For example, New York City had 150,000 horses, each producing 15-30 pounds of manure daily.  And yes, tens of thousands of gallons of urine.


Extrapolating the problem, not unlike current climate activists projecting the effects of global warming during the coming century, the Times of London in 1894 predicted: "in fifty years, every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure."  People were encouraged to travel less, avoid unnecessary trips, work at home, and collect the refuse their animals produced.   

Sounds familiar?

You can also imagine the stories in the Seattle Times (then known as the Seattle Daily Times) if some wealthy Seattle foundation had given them funds for a "Health Lab":


This terrible poop crisis never happened.  Why?  

Because of a new transportation technology, powered by the internal combustion engine.  

A good lesson for us today: it is problematic to extrapolate problems into the future assuming technologies will remain static.

Today we have a new crisis dominating the media, global warming resulting from increasing greenhouse gases. 

Yes, CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing due to human emissions, and the earth is slowly warming as a result.    

But it is silly to simply extrapolate rising greenhouse gas concentrations into the future because energy production technology will profoundly change during the next decades....and I am not talking about solar or wind power.

Nuclear power, starting with fission, but rapidly displaced by fusion power, will provide essentially limitless clean energy.


The False Hope of Wind and Solar

There is a lot of talk about wind and solar being the solution to the global warming problem, but the truth is that they will only make a minor contribution for many reasons, with their intermittency (only available during the day and during windy periods), environmental impacts, and low energy density being significant problems.   

Furthermore, the demand for energy, and particularly electricity, is going up much faster than renewables can be installed.  Why?   Because billions of people are moving out of poverty and the huge energy demands of data centers.  To name only a few.

Consider the U.S.  energy consumption statistics (below).   Energy use has increased rapidly during the past decades with fossil fuels still dominating (but more gas and less coal).  Wind and solar are very small in comparison.


The U.S. is actually one of the most renewable-friendly nations.  Considering the whole world (below), fossil fuels are even more dominant.


Solar and wind are not mankind's long-term energy solutions.  

Nuclear is.  Fission in the short term and fusion in the long term.  

Fission power is heavily used in some nations (such as in  France, where 70% of the electricity is from fission) and today about 9% of world energy is from fission.  No major safety issues and fission power is clean, with no air quality issues.   New designs of small modular fission reactors will make them much cheaper, more reliable, and make melt-downs impossible.


Major energy users, such as Amazon, are already committing to using such new technology fission reactors.

And there is fusion.   Fusion power is essentially limitless and does not produce nuclear waste.

The uninformed make jokes about fusion always being 20 years away.   They are wrong.  There are no theoretical reasons in the way of practical fusion reactors.  Dozens of private sector firms are working on prototypes, including Seattle's Helion.   

Break-even fusion has already been achieved.

Microsoft has agreed to purchase fusion-generated power from Helion starting in 2028
Folks...this going to happen.  Even if delayed a decade or two, fusion power will completely change the world's energy story in the same way the internal combustion engine ended the manure "crisis" over a century ago.

And one more thing.  With virtually unlimited energy from fusion, we can take CO2 out of the atmosphere, something called CO2 sequestration.  Several companies, such as Carbon Engineering of BC, are already working on prototypes.



So next time you hear end-of-the-world catastrophic predictions about global warming, think about horse waste.😀







19 comments:

  1. Brilliant! Thanks for the insight into the past, present and future.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So well explained and researched. This article isn't just the best of the year or the decade—it's the article of the century!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Betting the farm on fusion power solving all our climate issues seems like a HUGE risk. Progress in the tech has been exciting, but it is very far from a sure thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No betting the farm. Fission power is available today.

      Delete
  4. As a guy who has shoveled a fair amount of horse poop, I was immediately drawn to this article. When dealing with, thinking about, and teaching environmental issues, I live by, "we don't know what we don't know," which should serve as cautionary on one hand, but shouldn't prevent us from reaching ahead for the solutions-solving sustainable energy problems is huge and is right in front of us. The uncertainty with fission/fusion is the human element, i.e. the idea of Homer Simpson running a nuclear plant and can we ever count on an oversight that is dedicated to safety/environment protection over profit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Meanwhile, there's a massive cry from the left to remove hydroelectric dams. Of ALL the sources of energy in this part of the country, this is the cleanest and safest source we have. But NO, those days gotta come down. Hey, I'm all for better options, but often there are no better options even suggested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that massive cry is more coming from people who want the fish that the dams removed, and their supporters.

      Nothing says we couldn't build more nuclear plants to replace the dams though.

      Delete
  6. Along with city horse poop, the story of intra- & inter-urban electric lines in America is interesting history. See:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

    I dislike carbon credits that often seem like paid indulgences, and there have been many cases of fraud. I also dislike saying wood pellets are an environmentally friendly source of electricity: See - Drax Power Station

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nuclear energy sources have great promise. It is premature to rule out solar, as a recent (June 2024) Economist article, ’The Exponential Growth of Solar Power will Change the World’, suggests. No one has a monopoly on the sun. Solar will become a much bigger player in the next few years.

    ReplyDelete
  8. While it defaces the landscape, solar produces very little power in return. How many square miles should we cover in solar panels? All of them?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't share your rosy prediction for how close we are to having fusion...my,research suggests that despite the promising developments in fusion power, significant challenges remain. Achieving commercialization of fusion energy will require immense investment, innovation, and probably several decades of additional research to bring the technology from the laboratory to the grid.

    I hope you're right but it seems still decades away.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is a good post, Cliff. You make clear that our current energy technologies are warming the planet, and are problematic. A lot of your readers still need to hear that, it seems. I wish I shared your unbridled optimism about fusion energy. I don't claim to understand it, but exuberant claims like "essentially limitless clean energy" and "folks, this is going to happen", tend to trigger my skepticism.
    I agree that fission energy should be expanded with the caveat that there has been essentially no progress on the problem of waste disposal. That is not mentioned in your post but you implicitly acknowledge it by promoting fusion as a waste-free alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Deny a problem exists until it is inescapable, then claim someone else will fix the problem, never mind all the issues in the mean time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Makes sense, your promise of clean energy from nuclear-fusion, and I agree with that probability

    The comparison does not really hold up, of comparing solutions

    Comparing the automobile as a solution to their horse-manure problem and then extrapolating today's CO2 crisis being solved by nuclear power

    Perhaps nuclear-fusion is 20 years away from today, but there will be no Henry Ford of the personal atomic-reactor

    Every person today, with private property, can install solar-panels. Everyone can go out right now and purchase solar-panels. Those are fully available today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "there will be no Henry Ford of the personal atomic-reactor"

      Explain how you know that.

      Delete
  13. Should we also stop taking basic steps to stay healthy? With all the recent advancements in the medical field (immunotherapy, AI-assisted drug design etc), no need to be concerned about diseases that aren't likely to manifest themselves for another 10-20 years...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Excellent post Dr. Mass. The trend throughout human history has been from less energy dense fuels to the higher energy dense fuels and nuclear fuel is orders of magnitude greater than any other power source. Additionally, if we throw nuclear fast reactors into the mix can use our stored "spent" nuclear fuel to provide power for the several centuries and at the same reduce the volume of this material by about 98% with a half-life of 300 years. Seems like a win-win to me.



    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Cliff, thank you for the post. I'm wondering if you think a lot of climate scientists are either being completely deceptive, disingenuous, or are simply bad academics? I would characterize your tone as significantly more optimistic, so just trying to get a read on the delta between your interpretation and the prevailing tone of the climate science community.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nuclear will be part of the mix as we transition from fossil fuels, but it won't be the primary source moving forward. Why? Economics.

    https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/nuclear-vs-solar?r=28qpy&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

    ReplyDelete

Please make sure your comments are civil. Name calling and personal attacks are not appropriate.

The National Weather Service Warns of a Catastrophic Windstorm in Los Angeles. Massive Pre0mptive Power Outages Planned

Because of my research on western U.S. wildfires, I keep close tabs on the weather in southern California. So I was more than a little inter...