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.
Sounds familiar?
The False Hope of Wind and Solar
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.
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.
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.
So next time you hear end-of-the-world catastrophic predictions about global warming, think about horse waste.😀
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
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.😀
Brilliant! Thanks for the insight into the past, present and future.
ReplyDeleteSo well explained and researched. This article isn't just the best of the year or the decade—it's the article of the century!
ReplyDeleteBetting 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.
ReplyDeleteNo betting the farm. Fission power is available today.
DeleteThis is absolutely not true in any real sense -- there is literally nowhere in the world where anyone is using any power generation from fission. It's in no way "available".
DeleteThere have been lab settings where we've had promising results, but we're a long way from establishing that it scales to widespread use, much less the infrastructure buildout for commercialization.
It's very promising! But I would definitely not rely on it for mitigating climate change.
One further step you could take is to point out to readers that the past failures of fission reactors need not happen in our future. There are more modern fission reactor designs that avoid the dangers of past designs. There are also proposals to deal with radioactive waste that eliminate past risks. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Hanford occurred in the infancy of fission but need not be repeated.
DeleteJohn McBride, I think its plausible that fission reactors can now be run more safely than in the past. But I haven't heard of much progress on waste disposal. Can you provide some specifics? That topic always seems to be the elephant in the room in these discussions.
Delete@ChrisC - I think you meant Fusion is not available today. And you are right comerically. But as Cliff pointed out, they are producing net positive fusion energy reactions today in labs and prototype tokamak reactors. In addition he mentioned Helion. Everybody who is interested in Fusion should take a look at them. Did you not read what Cliff wrote - Helion has a commercial contract with Microsoft to deliver fusion energy in 2028. So while it's not here yet. It is very close. Helion did something brilliant. They ditched the paradigm of trying to sustain a fusion reaction and then using the thermal energy to create steam and drive a generator. Instead, Helion is directly harvesting the immense electromagnetic energy that is generated at the initiation of a fusion reaction. And their reactor and system is set to start hundreds of those reactions per second - thus generating commercially viable fusion power. Their 7th (and last) prototype is almost finished, if it meets expectations, their next model will be producing commerical power.
DeleteAlso regarding modern fission reactors. The new breeder reactors are self-quenching and virtually unable to have a runaway fission event. That said, the one part of the design of these reactors that concerns me is that they are using sodium instead of water as the thermal transfer / coolant mechanism. The really intresting part is that they can pump the 800 degree sodium into underground reservoirs that act as huge batteries. My concern is that sodium is highly (explosively) reactive to air and water (really water and water in the air) and it is corrosive. So while I don't worry about radiation. I do worry about proving out the long term viability of using sodioum in modern breeder reactors. I don't see how the plumbing can last more than a few years before needing to be replaced. I'm sure they are doing groundbreaking work on materials to try to solve that problem. Terrapower (Bill Gates company) is building a prototype now in Wyoming.
@YH, I don't know much about fusion energy but I'll point that after decades of R&D, "net positive reactions today in labs" doesn't really sound like something that's moving quickly. Overall I'm skeptical that it's just a years away from implementation. If it was then we wouldn't even need to talk about building new fission reactors.
Delete@Jerry - I agree we are still a long way off with respect to tokamak reactors trying to sustain fusion reactions. They (US / France / UK / Japan consortium) have been spending tremendous amounts of money and trying for 50+ years, and frankly seem 10-30 more years away from commercial viabililty. But per my comment, Helion is doing something completely different and much more viable. It's extremely telling that they have a contract with Microsoft for 2028 power generation. Check them out
DeleteFWIW: one of the main investors / drivers of Helion is Sam Altman (ChatGPT CEO).
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.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, 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.
ReplyDeleteI think that massive cry is more coming from people who want the fish that the dams removed, and their supporters.
DeleteNothing says we couldn't build more nuclear plants to replace the dams though.
Branden nuclear cannot barge goods up and down the rivers nor cannot it supply irrigation to all the farmers. So no nuclear cannot replace them. Interesting study (forgive me but you will just have to look it up), shows while food demand has gone up substantially the amount of acres farmed has not. There will come a time crop yield increases will not keep up. We need more irrigation more storage, need to not let Ecology shut down small farm water users ect.
DeleteAlong with city horse poop, the story of intra- & inter-urban electric lines in America is interesting history. See:
ReplyDeletehttps://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
Wholesale power prices dropping due to surge in renewables. From S& P Global:
Delete"Renewables as a whole strengthened its position as the second-largest source of electrical generation behind natural gas, whose lead continues to narrow, according to the SUN DAY Campaign.
Wholesale power prices appear to be affected by a surge in renewable generation. US wholesale on-peak day-ahead prices averaged nearly $38/MWh in H1 2024, almost 14% below the same period a year ago, according to pricing data from grid operators and Platts, part of S&P Global Commodity Insights.
"Wind and solar are growing because there is enormous demand for clean energy from states and corporate end-users," said Sam Huntington, director on the Commodity Insights North American power team. "The [Inflation Reduction Act] simply makes the economics of clean energy even more attractive."
Solar soars
"Most of the growth in solar generation is due to more solar installed capacity, which is on track for another record year," Huntington said.
Solar accounted for nearly 7% of total US electrical generation in H1 2024, as utility-scale and small-scale solar combined increased by 26.3% year on year, according to the SUN DAY Campaign. Small-scale solar, such as rooftop solar, accounted for almost 30% of all solar generation and provided 2% of US electricity supply in the first six months of this year.
"In fact, small-scale solar photovoltaic is now generating almost twice as much electricity as utility-scale biomass as well as over five times more electricity than either utility-scale geothermal or the mix of petroleum liquids and coke," the SUN DAY Campaign said in an Aug. 26 statement.
I love the idea of carbon credits, however my concern is that even when the market works properly, it is governments who administer these programs and skim money from them. And governments are notoriously inefficient, self-interested (a nice way of saying corrupt), and frankly stupid in how they allocate and manage capital to solve complex problems (See Washington State as a prime example - they are literally fraudulently spending the clean energy gas tax surcharge money on a bunch of stuff totally unrelated to clean energy). So if we could somehow ensure all the carbon credit programs efficiently feed that capital back into energy infrastructure ideally led by private sector companies, that would be much more encouraging.
DeleteNuclear 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.
ReplyDeleteWhile it defaces the landscape, solar produces very little power in return. How many square miles should we cover in solar panels? All of them?
ReplyDeleteRooftop solar does not deface the landscape. I know of more than one household here in gray seattle that can meet their electrical needs with help from storage systems. The key to success is taking a decentralized approach using multiple power sources along with improved efficiency.
DeleteJust cover freeways, roofs, and parking lots. No additional land. Do the math- that's plenty of power.
DeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteI hope you're right but it seems still decades away.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteWhy does no one ever talk about geothermal as an energy source? With the new drilling techniques developed when fracking and closed looped systems this seem to me to be a cheap, simple, quick system that would employ those already in the drilling industry that might be out of work with neck power plants. Not that job loss is a big concern.
ReplyDeleteFission safe, really? History does not support that statement! As far as the "safe" small reactors note that their passive safety systems are good for 72 hours at best without external power, think Fukushima when the power was interrupted. And, the economics are not competitive with renewable/battery systems and probably never will be. Several projects have been cancelled when costs exploded. Fusion? That would be great but scaling up lab systems to working systems is a long way off (no power has been generated yet). The other thing to consider is that technical advances will occur for the, probably faster than fusion.
ReplyDeleteYes....safe. How many deaths and injuries have occurred from fission reactors in the US. Can you name any?
DeleteMakes sense, your promise of clean energy from nuclear-fusion, and I agree with that probability
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
"there will be no Henry Ford of the personal atomic-reactor"
DeleteExplain how you know that.
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...
ReplyDeleteExcellent 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.
ReplyDeleteThe horse manure analogy has some correlation to fission power since one of the downsides of that power source is the spent fuel that will remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years, so must be safely stored or recycled. Granted that amount of spend fuel is relatively small now, but as we rely more on nuclear power it will increase. I think nuclear power is part of the equation, I just don't know how much. I really think we need a balanced approach.
ReplyDeleteHi 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.
ReplyDeleteNuclear will be part of the mix as we transition from fossil fuels, but it won't be the primary source moving forward. Why? Economics.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.noahpinion.blog/p/nuclear-vs-solar?r=28qpy&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
After I found out how bitcoin works, I decided I am totally against it. It's just an energy intensive way to gamble, and it does not do anything useful. A total waste. And if A.I. is energy intensive, I think it too should be curtailed. Folks may not agree with me but I think we have enough computing power. If a calculator can run on a solar panel of one square inch, why does A.I. need power measured in megawatts- or gigawatts?
ReplyDeleteWith all the effort that has been spent in developing the renewable energy supply in California, they still have a long way to go. I recommend anyone who really wants to see how renewable energy works, spend some time checking out the CAISO website and power generation and usage information. This has to be done over a long time and not just once or twice. The weather creates significant changes in the amount of renewable energy generated. During the day, charging the batteries can use between 25 to 50 percent of the generated solar energy. Also, California uses a significant amount of imported power. Anyway, check out https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/supply to see what is really happening in real time.
ReplyDeleteAs for taking carbon out of the air and sequestering it, would it not be cheaper and more efficient to preserve more forests, especially in the tropics, and let the trees do the job?
ReplyDeleteWhen CO2 is bound with something to essentially make rocks, and then buried. That is carbon that is permanently removed from the carbon cycle for plants. There can never be as many plants again.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that the present and future science is hopeful in terms of the safety of nuclear power as well as solutions for waste disposal. However, it will take too long and the cost per KWh is way above our current technologies which an be installed today without the lengthy permitting process. Fast tracking the permitting process by steamrolling is not so popular. We should as a society make these decisions and not be forced to let the oligarchs and technocrats to make these decisions for us because they "know better." Add this to all the military connections and the legacy of Hanford and various past meltdowns (and ones to happen) and this industry is basically dead in the water, especially as far as making any significant dent in slowing down climate change! And then there is the Price-Anderson Act...
ReplyDeleteGreat article - totally agree about fission and fusion. Also for those interested - take a look at the Thorium fission reactors being built by the Scandanavians - super interesting (much less and lower radioactive waste and extremely safe). And Terrapower is building next generation breeder reactors in the US. Also, I just wanted to confirm and support several others who have rightly, IMO, pushed back on Cliff's casual dismissal of the viability of solar and wind as scalable sources of green energy. Today in the US, adding solar capacity is equivalent or cheaper (per KWH) than gas-fired power plants. And there are several solar breakthroughs in labs that will reach the market in the next 5 years drastically increasing efficiency and reducing costs per KWH for solar power. It will become the cheapest source of energy generation (besides possibly hydroelectric if you ignore the initial capital outlay). And battery storage technology is advancing radically with major breakthroughs in the next 5 years in solid-state batteries and sodium ion batteries. I'm not conviced about wind power over the long term (environmental impacts, maintenance requirements, resiliency, etc), but solar seems to me to be a viable and worthwhile vector for clean energy generation when combined with battery storage.
ReplyDelete