The Victimization of Carbon Dioxide: William Happer’s Crusade to Rescue a Molecule’s Good Name

Claim: climate “alarmism” is a hoax, carbon dioxide is good—and the victim of a conspiracy

The climate change denier on President Trump’s Security Council who possesses the most conspicuously solid scientific credentials is one William Happer, who received a PhD in physics at Princeton in 1964, and attained high standing in the physics community for his work on optics and atomic physics—not, however, climate. His contrarian stance on climate change has some fellow physicists scratching their heads, muttering “who got to this guy?”

In fairness, one should note that Happer does not exactly dispute the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. What he disputes is that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and the resultant climate change will be as severe as “alarmists” claim . . .  and to the slight extent that CO2 does modify climate, it’s a good thing.  And that good thing, in his view, is under malicious assault. He is prone to such provocative catchphrases as “the demonization of CO2,” “we are in a CO2 famine,” and “if plants could vote, they’d vote for coal.”

Yes! Plants would vote for coal! Or not. Plants were thriving in the Carboniferous Period, which is when they were also dying en masse, piling up in peat which was eventually compressed into what we call fossil fuels today: coal, petroleum, and natural gas. It was also a time of heavy competition between plant species in what we might call the Survival of the Vegetative Fittest—so that for any individual plant or species, the Carboniferous might not have looked quite like Paradise on Earth. It might have seemed, to some light-starved, struggling seedling on the forest floor enshrouded in the gloom shed by a dense canopy of enormous trees, more like a dungeon.

Continue reading “The Victimization of Carbon Dioxide: William Happer’s Crusade to Rescue a Molecule’s Good Name”

Trump Nominees’ Climate Playbook

Fossil Fuel Advancement Playbook Employs the “Climate Change is Real” Admission

In the current week of Senate hearings for Trump’s nominations to head  the EPA, the Department of Interior, and the Department of Energy, we have heard variations on a seemingly surprising theme, to wit: Climate Change is real and human activity has something to do with it. Surprising coming from them anyway—Scott Pruitt (EPA), Ryan Zinke (Interior), and Rick Perry (Energy)—all of whom had not so long ago belonged to the Climate Change Denial faction of the Republican Party.

The three are following the same playbook, a series of moves that lead us from the concern that fossil fuels might be messing up our climate, to the conclusion that fossil fuels are the remedy for the potential ills of climate change.  Something along the lines of fighting fire with fire, a kind of global homeopathy. Here’s the play:

(1) Admit Climate Change science is not a hoax,

(2) Acknowledge Climate Change may actually be occurring.

(3) Acknowledge, that human activity might contribute in some way to Climate Change.

(4) Question whether the change is happening as quickly as most climate scientists fear.

(5) Question whether, even if it is happening quickly, is it all that dire.

– here between (5) and (6) is the move from hypotheses into policy –

(6) (a) if it is not dire, then other priorities such as economic development with fossil fuels should take precedence over costly efforts to minimize emissions; or (b) if it is dire, then we should move forward on adaptation, for which we will need the economic development made possible by fossil fuels.

Continue reading “Trump Nominees’ Climate Playbook”

What “Load Following” Means for Renewable Energy in California (hint: it means storage)

Here’s the bottom line of this post, for those who don’t want to wade into the weeds: major reliance on wind and solar electricity generation demands a lot of electrical energy storage—many times what is currently available. For reasons why, we look at “load following” in California in the summer of 2016.

California’s Energy Program

The state of California is pushing ahead rapidly to achieve a goal of 50% renewable electricity power production  by 2030.

This makes sense in California, since its terrain and climate are highly adaptable to both wind and solar generation.  In-state conventional hydroelectric—which in many places currently accounts for the largest fraction of renewable generation— is not included in California’s ambitious program. That also makes good sense, since worsening and recurring droughts make hydroelectric an iffy proposition in the state.

However, the 50% goal will only make sense with abundant energy storage capacity, little of which is currently available. The reason is the intermittency of wind and solar. Solar, obviously, does not generate power at night, and not much in cloudy conditions, and wind power depends on weather.

Continue reading “What “Load Following” Means for Renewable Energy in California (hint: it means storage)”