I recently got an email wondering if switching from fossil fuels was being described accurately to the US public. I get this type of question or read it online with some regularity and thought I would attempt to answer the writer’s question (s) in a three-part blog post.
Read Part II here
Read part III here
Of course, answers to the question of “can we really switch from fossil fuels to something else?” include, “it depends what you read” and “what is possible now is constantly changing. “ That is, there isn’t a simple answer. However, there are a lot of misunderstandings out there that can be cleared up. Following is a series of questions from the email with my answers.
Hello Dr. Boorse,
Dear J.,
Thanks for reaching out, I’m happy to answer questions briefly; see my responses below.
J: I recently read the NAE publication, Loving the Least of These (something I had written- DB). Reduction of use of fossil fuels is a suggested means of reducing the impact on climate change. I’ve heard this from other sources and generally agree, but, all energy production requires use of another source of energy (if I have that right).
DB: Correct, although two of the biggest ways to reduce fossil fuel use without switching energy sources are to increase energy efficiency and engage less in highly energy-intensive activities.
J: Many have suggested converting everything to electric. But electricity often comes from coal plants. I know there are other sources, nuclear, hydro, wind and solar. But these base sources are not available or reliably available in many areas (i.e., political resistance/fear of nuclear power, northern states with clouds, variable/minimal winds in many areas and vast areas without water).
DB: You describe a real problem although you dismiss non-fossil fuel energy sources too easily, I think (Figure 1). Let’s look at a couple of other considerations that might change the way you think about energy sources.
- Electricity as a secondary energy source is extremely flexible. We can switch from one primary source to another without having to change the products we are powering on the receiving end.
- The efficiency and usability of novel technologies increase, and the cost decreases as a technology becomes mature. Comparing renewable technologies that are just being developed to coal fired power plants is like comparing apples and oranges. The comparison today may favor older technologies but may not in the future.
- The easiest or quickest ways to lessen our production of greenhouse gases lie in using less energy totally. Greater efficiency, less waste, and lower consumption are all important parts of climate change mitigation that do not necessarily involve switching to electricity.
J: In addition, electric vehicles need nickel for batteries, which destroys large tracts of land to mine for it, not to mention their eventual demise in a landfill, with a negative impact on the environment.
DB: Correct, there are many environmental costs to electric vehicles.
What you are describing is life-cycle analysis (Figure 2.). When people promote a potential solution as “green” or “environmentally friendly,” they need to consider not only the energy and its effects at point of use, but the whole process of raw materials sourcing, manufacture, transport, selling, using, upkeep, and disposal of the product.
DB (Con’t.) Because of this need for accounting, people talk about a circular economy (circularity), described here as, “The circular economy is a model of production and consumption, which involves sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products as long as possible. In this way, the life cycle of products is extended…. In practice, it implies reducing waste to a minimum. When a product reaches the end of its life, its materials are kept within the economy wherever possible. These can be productively used again and again, thereby creating further value.”
We have to change many aspects of our economy in order to solve our environmental problems. The way we use materials is certainly one of them.
Read Part II here
Read part III here
Figure 2