SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Climate Science: Revolution is Here
A host of innovations in energy technology is transforming the climate-change outlook – one of the world's three required paradigm shifts.
Aug 12, 2016
Heatwaves of more than 500C in Iraq and India in recent weeks are yet further indications that climate disruption is a present-day reality, not something for the future that the world can respond to at leisure. They come in the wake of many months of increasing global temperatures and successively escalating years: 2014 the warmest on record, 2015 exceeding that, and 2016 confidently expected to be even higher (see "The climate pioneers: look south", 22 June 2016)
None of this should come as any surprise, since climate scientists have been warning repeatedly that the global climate is starting to become unstable. That judgment was reflected in the decision at the Paris climate summit in December 2015 to revise its aim for global-temperature increases: a limit of 1.50C instead of the previous target of 2.00C.
Many states agreed to the new objective, which was seen as the major achievement of the Paris meeting. But it has now become clear that on present trends, there is very little chance of it being achieved (see "Scientists warn mankind will miss crucial climate change target - eight months after agreeing it", Independent, 7 August 2016). Indeed, figures for February-March 2016 showed an increase of 1.380C, already very near to the long-term target, even as all the indications suggest there will be major additional rises in the next few years.
In any case, many climate scientists and energy analysts argue that the current targets for reducing emissions are far too low. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a slow rate of circulation, meaning that - even if the rate of emissions is brought under control - there is a considerable 'lag' phase before concentrations are reduced.
Benjamin M Sanderson of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) puts it this way:
"If the world puts all its resources into finding ways to generate power without burning fossil fuels, and if there were international agreements that action must happen instantly, and if carbon emissions were brought down to zero before 2050, then a rise of no more than 1.5C might just be achieved."
Others argue that all coal-fired power-stations worldwide should be closed down by the early 2020s and all use of the internal combustion engine - in cars, trucks, buses and the rest - must end by 2030. This all mandates an almost unbelievable rate of transition, yet such is the growing impact of climate disruption that it is becoming uncomfortably necessary.
The natural reaction is to say that it cannot and therefore won't happen, or not at least until climate-related disasters become so extreme that even the most recalcitrant of governments accepts the need for change. The implication is that only huge catastrophes with loss of life in the millions will have the necessary impact.
A positive prognosis
Yet what is also becoming clear, almost by the week, is a much more positive prognosis based on the rapid advances being made in the development of renewable-energy resources and of energy storage.
A few prescient analysts, Jeremy Leggett for one, have long argued that this element of human futures is much brighter than appreciated. It is a view backed up by a series of technological developments. Many of these are covered in Chris Goodall's new book The Switch (Profile Books, 2016), which examines the potential forsolar power and the beginnings of a revolution in energy storage. The Switch - worth a few hours of anyone's time - focuses especially on recent and current improvements in efficiency, and consequent substantial decreases in costs.
Alongside increasing efficiency in existing systems comes the development of entirely new technologies, most significantly perovskite photovoltaics. Produced only in 2009, they moved from an initial efficiency of 3.8% to over 20% within five years. This extraordinary achivement makes perovskite photovoltaics a technology to watch.
Moreover, methods are now being designed to marry perovskite layers with the more traditional silicon-based sheets to produce tandem-layered hybrids. Marketing of these may start in 2017, only eight years after perovskites were first developed in a power-producing form (see Chelsea Harvey, "This technology may be the future of solar energy", Washington Post, 15 January 2016).
There have also been impressive innovations in wind-turbine research as well as the scaling-up of systems. Near where we live, the Royd Moor wind farm in south Yorkshire was one of the early UK wind farms - thirteen turbines constructed in the late 1990s, each of them rated at 650 kilowatts. Turbines five times that size are now routine and ten times that size are under construction, allowing for some offshore arrays similar in power output to large conventional coal- or oil-fired power-stations.
A further area of particularly rapid progress, also one dealt with at length by Chris Goodall, is energy storage. Most projects here focus on improvements in batteries and also the scaling up of battery factories, giving economies of scale unheard of even a decade ago. Some of the new approaches that are currently in an early state of development have huge potential in the longer term - and with luck that might translate to within a decade.
One such approach is to use surplus power from wind-turbine arrays - on windy nights, for example - to split water into its constituents of hydrogen and oxygen, then utilise micro-organisms that can combine the hydrogen with carbon from carbon dioxide to produce a range of hydrocarbons which can be stored for producing energy when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
If these and other systems can be developed - and the outlook is positive - then this meets head on the argument against most renewable-energy sources: that they are intermittent, whereas demand is constant.
A straw in the wind
If all of this sounds too pie in the sky, then the past week has seen one of the most fascinating indicators of the sheer rate of change - the decision of the Economist to oppose the construction of the UK's planned Hinkley Point nuclear-power station on the grounds that it "...would tie Britain into an energy system that is already out of date" (see "When the facts change...", Economist, 6 August 2016).
The magazine focuses on the current and projected improvements in the efficiency of renewable-energy resources compared with nuclear, focusing on the 2010-18 timespan with an emphasis on solar and onshore wind. As it says: "Since Hinkley became a serious proposal less than a decade ago, the cost of nuclear power has increased, that of renewable has fallen and the price of battery storage - which could one day disrupt the entire power system - has plummeted."
It is just possible that Hinkley will still go ahead, but only because of political pressure from co-funder China. It is more likely that it will be cancelled, or perhaps the project will stagger on for two or three years before succumbing to economic obsolescence.
This series of columns has long emphasised the critical need for three paradigm shifts - away from the dysfunctional neo-liberal world economy, away from a militaristic mindset of meeting threats with force, and away from unsustainable environmental impacts. These arguments are elaborated in a new book, Irregular War: ISIS and the New Threat from the Margins (IB Tauris, 2016). At long last a key element of one of those now really does seem possible, and that is surely cause for just a little celebration.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
Paul Rogers
Paul Rogers is professor in the department of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He is OpenDemocracy's international-security editor, and has been writing a weekly column on global security since 28 September 2001. His books include "Irregular War: The New Threat from the Margins" (2017) and "Why We're Losing the War on Terror" (2007).
Heatwaves of more than 500C in Iraq and India in recent weeks are yet further indications that climate disruption is a present-day reality, not something for the future that the world can respond to at leisure. They come in the wake of many months of increasing global temperatures and successively escalating years: 2014 the warmest on record, 2015 exceeding that, and 2016 confidently expected to be even higher (see "The climate pioneers: look south", 22 June 2016)
None of this should come as any surprise, since climate scientists have been warning repeatedly that the global climate is starting to become unstable. That judgment was reflected in the decision at the Paris climate summit in December 2015 to revise its aim for global-temperature increases: a limit of 1.50C instead of the previous target of 2.00C.
Many states agreed to the new objective, which was seen as the major achievement of the Paris meeting. But it has now become clear that on present trends, there is very little chance of it being achieved (see "Scientists warn mankind will miss crucial climate change target - eight months after agreeing it", Independent, 7 August 2016). Indeed, figures for February-March 2016 showed an increase of 1.380C, already very near to the long-term target, even as all the indications suggest there will be major additional rises in the next few years.
In any case, many climate scientists and energy analysts argue that the current targets for reducing emissions are far too low. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a slow rate of circulation, meaning that - even if the rate of emissions is brought under control - there is a considerable 'lag' phase before concentrations are reduced.
Benjamin M Sanderson of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) puts it this way:
"If the world puts all its resources into finding ways to generate power without burning fossil fuels, and if there were international agreements that action must happen instantly, and if carbon emissions were brought down to zero before 2050, then a rise of no more than 1.5C might just be achieved."
Others argue that all coal-fired power-stations worldwide should be closed down by the early 2020s and all use of the internal combustion engine - in cars, trucks, buses and the rest - must end by 2030. This all mandates an almost unbelievable rate of transition, yet such is the growing impact of climate disruption that it is becoming uncomfortably necessary.
The natural reaction is to say that it cannot and therefore won't happen, or not at least until climate-related disasters become so extreme that even the most recalcitrant of governments accepts the need for change. The implication is that only huge catastrophes with loss of life in the millions will have the necessary impact.
A positive prognosis
Yet what is also becoming clear, almost by the week, is a much more positive prognosis based on the rapid advances being made in the development of renewable-energy resources and of energy storage.
A few prescient analysts, Jeremy Leggett for one, have long argued that this element of human futures is much brighter than appreciated. It is a view backed up by a series of technological developments. Many of these are covered in Chris Goodall's new book The Switch (Profile Books, 2016), which examines the potential forsolar power and the beginnings of a revolution in energy storage. The Switch - worth a few hours of anyone's time - focuses especially on recent and current improvements in efficiency, and consequent substantial decreases in costs.
Alongside increasing efficiency in existing systems comes the development of entirely new technologies, most significantly perovskite photovoltaics. Produced only in 2009, they moved from an initial efficiency of 3.8% to over 20% within five years. This extraordinary achivement makes perovskite photovoltaics a technology to watch.
Moreover, methods are now being designed to marry perovskite layers with the more traditional silicon-based sheets to produce tandem-layered hybrids. Marketing of these may start in 2017, only eight years after perovskites were first developed in a power-producing form (see Chelsea Harvey, "This technology may be the future of solar energy", Washington Post, 15 January 2016).
There have also been impressive innovations in wind-turbine research as well as the scaling-up of systems. Near where we live, the Royd Moor wind farm in south Yorkshire was one of the early UK wind farms - thirteen turbines constructed in the late 1990s, each of them rated at 650 kilowatts. Turbines five times that size are now routine and ten times that size are under construction, allowing for some offshore arrays similar in power output to large conventional coal- or oil-fired power-stations.
A further area of particularly rapid progress, also one dealt with at length by Chris Goodall, is energy storage. Most projects here focus on improvements in batteries and also the scaling up of battery factories, giving economies of scale unheard of even a decade ago. Some of the new approaches that are currently in an early state of development have huge potential in the longer term - and with luck that might translate to within a decade.
One such approach is to use surplus power from wind-turbine arrays - on windy nights, for example - to split water into its constituents of hydrogen and oxygen, then utilise micro-organisms that can combine the hydrogen with carbon from carbon dioxide to produce a range of hydrocarbons which can be stored for producing energy when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
If these and other systems can be developed - and the outlook is positive - then this meets head on the argument against most renewable-energy sources: that they are intermittent, whereas demand is constant.
A straw in the wind
If all of this sounds too pie in the sky, then the past week has seen one of the most fascinating indicators of the sheer rate of change - the decision of the Economist to oppose the construction of the UK's planned Hinkley Point nuclear-power station on the grounds that it "...would tie Britain into an energy system that is already out of date" (see "When the facts change...", Economist, 6 August 2016).
The magazine focuses on the current and projected improvements in the efficiency of renewable-energy resources compared with nuclear, focusing on the 2010-18 timespan with an emphasis on solar and onshore wind. As it says: "Since Hinkley became a serious proposal less than a decade ago, the cost of nuclear power has increased, that of renewable has fallen and the price of battery storage - which could one day disrupt the entire power system - has plummeted."
It is just possible that Hinkley will still go ahead, but only because of political pressure from co-funder China. It is more likely that it will be cancelled, or perhaps the project will stagger on for two or three years before succumbing to economic obsolescence.
This series of columns has long emphasised the critical need for three paradigm shifts - away from the dysfunctional neo-liberal world economy, away from a militaristic mindset of meeting threats with force, and away from unsustainable environmental impacts. These arguments are elaborated in a new book, Irregular War: ISIS and the New Threat from the Margins (IB Tauris, 2016). At long last a key element of one of those now really does seem possible, and that is surely cause for just a little celebration.
Paul Rogers
Paul Rogers is professor in the department of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He is OpenDemocracy's international-security editor, and has been writing a weekly column on global security since 28 September 2001. His books include "Irregular War: The New Threat from the Margins" (2017) and "Why We're Losing the War on Terror" (2007).
Heatwaves of more than 500C in Iraq and India in recent weeks are yet further indications that climate disruption is a present-day reality, not something for the future that the world can respond to at leisure. They come in the wake of many months of increasing global temperatures and successively escalating years: 2014 the warmest on record, 2015 exceeding that, and 2016 confidently expected to be even higher (see "The climate pioneers: look south", 22 June 2016)
None of this should come as any surprise, since climate scientists have been warning repeatedly that the global climate is starting to become unstable. That judgment was reflected in the decision at the Paris climate summit in December 2015 to revise its aim for global-temperature increases: a limit of 1.50C instead of the previous target of 2.00C.
Many states agreed to the new objective, which was seen as the major achievement of the Paris meeting. But it has now become clear that on present trends, there is very little chance of it being achieved (see "Scientists warn mankind will miss crucial climate change target - eight months after agreeing it", Independent, 7 August 2016). Indeed, figures for February-March 2016 showed an increase of 1.380C, already very near to the long-term target, even as all the indications suggest there will be major additional rises in the next few years.
In any case, many climate scientists and energy analysts argue that the current targets for reducing emissions are far too low. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a slow rate of circulation, meaning that - even if the rate of emissions is brought under control - there is a considerable 'lag' phase before concentrations are reduced.
Benjamin M Sanderson of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) puts it this way:
"If the world puts all its resources into finding ways to generate power without burning fossil fuels, and if there were international agreements that action must happen instantly, and if carbon emissions were brought down to zero before 2050, then a rise of no more than 1.5C might just be achieved."
Others argue that all coal-fired power-stations worldwide should be closed down by the early 2020s and all use of the internal combustion engine - in cars, trucks, buses and the rest - must end by 2030. This all mandates an almost unbelievable rate of transition, yet such is the growing impact of climate disruption that it is becoming uncomfortably necessary.
The natural reaction is to say that it cannot and therefore won't happen, or not at least until climate-related disasters become so extreme that even the most recalcitrant of governments accepts the need for change. The implication is that only huge catastrophes with loss of life in the millions will have the necessary impact.
A positive prognosis
Yet what is also becoming clear, almost by the week, is a much more positive prognosis based on the rapid advances being made in the development of renewable-energy resources and of energy storage.
A few prescient analysts, Jeremy Leggett for one, have long argued that this element of human futures is much brighter than appreciated. It is a view backed up by a series of technological developments. Many of these are covered in Chris Goodall's new book The Switch (Profile Books, 2016), which examines the potential forsolar power and the beginnings of a revolution in energy storage. The Switch - worth a few hours of anyone's time - focuses especially on recent and current improvements in efficiency, and consequent substantial decreases in costs.
Alongside increasing efficiency in existing systems comes the development of entirely new technologies, most significantly perovskite photovoltaics. Produced only in 2009, they moved from an initial efficiency of 3.8% to over 20% within five years. This extraordinary achivement makes perovskite photovoltaics a technology to watch.
Moreover, methods are now being designed to marry perovskite layers with the more traditional silicon-based sheets to produce tandem-layered hybrids. Marketing of these may start in 2017, only eight years after perovskites were first developed in a power-producing form (see Chelsea Harvey, "This technology may be the future of solar energy", Washington Post, 15 January 2016).
There have also been impressive innovations in wind-turbine research as well as the scaling-up of systems. Near where we live, the Royd Moor wind farm in south Yorkshire was one of the early UK wind farms - thirteen turbines constructed in the late 1990s, each of them rated at 650 kilowatts. Turbines five times that size are now routine and ten times that size are under construction, allowing for some offshore arrays similar in power output to large conventional coal- or oil-fired power-stations.
A further area of particularly rapid progress, also one dealt with at length by Chris Goodall, is energy storage. Most projects here focus on improvements in batteries and also the scaling up of battery factories, giving economies of scale unheard of even a decade ago. Some of the new approaches that are currently in an early state of development have huge potential in the longer term - and with luck that might translate to within a decade.
One such approach is to use surplus power from wind-turbine arrays - on windy nights, for example - to split water into its constituents of hydrogen and oxygen, then utilise micro-organisms that can combine the hydrogen with carbon from carbon dioxide to produce a range of hydrocarbons which can be stored for producing energy when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
If these and other systems can be developed - and the outlook is positive - then this meets head on the argument against most renewable-energy sources: that they are intermittent, whereas demand is constant.
A straw in the wind
If all of this sounds too pie in the sky, then the past week has seen one of the most fascinating indicators of the sheer rate of change - the decision of the Economist to oppose the construction of the UK's planned Hinkley Point nuclear-power station on the grounds that it "...would tie Britain into an energy system that is already out of date" (see "When the facts change...", Economist, 6 August 2016).
The magazine focuses on the current and projected improvements in the efficiency of renewable-energy resources compared with nuclear, focusing on the 2010-18 timespan with an emphasis on solar and onshore wind. As it says: "Since Hinkley became a serious proposal less than a decade ago, the cost of nuclear power has increased, that of renewable has fallen and the price of battery storage - which could one day disrupt the entire power system - has plummeted."
It is just possible that Hinkley will still go ahead, but only because of political pressure from co-funder China. It is more likely that it will be cancelled, or perhaps the project will stagger on for two or three years before succumbing to economic obsolescence.
This series of columns has long emphasised the critical need for three paradigm shifts - away from the dysfunctional neo-liberal world economy, away from a militaristic mindset of meeting threats with force, and away from unsustainable environmental impacts. These arguments are elaborated in a new book, Irregular War: ISIS and the New Threat from the Margins (IB Tauris, 2016). At long last a key element of one of those now really does seem possible, and that is surely cause for just a little celebration.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.