Replacing fossil fuel: finding the balance between global warming and destitution

An Engineer looks at Global Warming, part 2.

This is the second in a three part series. A longer, more detailed version is at gordianknotbook.com.

According to Part 1, we probably have some time to address global warming. But heating the planet will come with some extremely large costs. To avoid this, we are told we must be rid of fossil fuel and soon. The umbrella term for this crusade is Net Zero. But an engineer knows that everything is a trade off. The costs of global warming must be balanced against the cost of replacing fossil fuels. What are the costs of shunning fossil fuel?

Figure 1 show humanity's primary energy consumption for the last 220 years.

Figure 1. Human primary energy consumption, 1800-2021, TWh/year.

In 1850, humanity was almost entirely dependent on wood for its primary energy consumption. And in many places the forests were disappearing. Since then primary energy consumption has increased by a little more than a factor of 20. Almost all of this energy has been provided by fossil fuels. How has that affected humanity?

Figure 2. Life expectancy at birth, 1770 to 2019.

Prior to 1850, life expectancy at birth was stagnate at 30 to 35 years depending on region, Figure 2. But around 1850 it started climbing in Europe and the Americas and is now in high 70's. A similar increase took place in Asia from a lower level, but with a considerable lag. Africa is still catching up, but her life expectancy has doubled. One result of the increase in life expectancy was human population went from 1 billion to nearly 8 billion in the last 200 years. For Malthusians, Figure 2 is a disaster. One billion was about as many humans as lifeboat earth could support in 1800. Such a population explosion dooms all to destitution and starvation. So what happened?

Since 1850, real income per capita, Figure 3, has increased by a factor of 20, except in South and SE Asia, and sub-saharan Africa. In those regions, real income has risen by a factor of 10 and 5 respectively.

Figure 3. GDP per person, 1820-2018, 2011 dollars.

A key factor in this success is ammonia based fertilizer. At least half of our global harvest depends on ammonia based fertilizer.\cite{smil-2022}[p 68] Ammonia is one atom of nitrogen and three atoms of hydrogen. Combining these atoms is a high tech, energy intensive process. The hydrogen comes from natural gas, and the energy is supplied by fossil fuels. Take that fertilizer away and billions will starve.

We got a slight foretaste of this in Sri Lanka. In April 2021, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the autocratic president, banned all synthetic fertilizers. Rice production fell by 20% in 180 days. Sri Lanka was forced to import rice for the first time in decades. But tea, the main export earner was hit hard as well. Food prices soared. The ban was reversed in November, 2021. But it was too late. Protests escalated and the Rajapaksa family fled for its life.

In short, thanks to fossil fuel:

1) The number of humans on this planet has increased by a factor of ten.

2) The average well-being of each these people has increased by close to a factor of 20.

If we are going to take fossil fuel away from them, we had better have a replacement, that does not reimpoverish and then exterminate these people.

Net Zero Success to Date

The Net Zero campaign so far has been an abject failure. CO2 emissions, Figure 4, are higher than they have ever been.

Figure 4. CO2 emissions, 1900-2021. Preliminary 2022 numbers are up another 1%.

We picked the wrong tool. In an attempt to get rid of fossil fuels, the species has made an enormous bet on wind and solar. Despite gargantuan resources expended on wind/solar, fossil fuel usage, Figure 1, is as high as it has ever been. Wind and solar represent just 3.3% of energy production. By discouraging and sometimes preventing investment in fossil fuels, all we have done is doubled fossil fuel prices, enriching fossil fuel shareholders and impoverishing the poor.

California regards itself as a leader in reducing CO2 emissions. But the program is stalled. The CO2 intensity of the state's electricity has risen slightly since 2018, Figure 5.

Figure 5. Carbon intensity of California's electricity.

Germany has made the biggest commitment to wind and solar. The Energiewende is costing over 30 billion euros per year, about a thousand dollars per household annually. Few countries can afford such extravagance. The program started about 2010, and has resulted in a 25% reduction in CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, no better than the US, Figure 6. During that period, German CO2 emissions dropped from 809 to 675 million tons, much of which was due to offshoring and coal to gas switching. The former is phony. The latter is currently being reversed.

Figure 6. US and German Electricity CO2 intensity. 2022 is preliminary.

The German program is stalled. Onshore wind installation have dropped to a trickle due to local opposition. Offshore wind is both limited and prohibitively expensive even for Germans. Germany has discovered it must maintain two grids: an intermittent grid and a dispatchable grid, Table 1. Unfortunately, the dispatchable grid was dependent on Russian gas. The Germans are now scrambling to bring old coal plants on-line in the hopes of avoiding a disastrous winter.

Table 1. German Grid. Total 219 GW. 1993-2000 hourly peak is 101 GW.

To make matters worse, what the Germans have done so far is the easy part. As the penetration of intermittents increase, performance goes down and costs go up. Things get a lot worse from here on in. And we have not even started talking about electrifying markets that are currently off the grid.

To make matters still worse, CO2 represents only about 60% of all manmade greenhouse gases. CO2 emissons are running about 38 gigatons(GT) per year. Equivalent methane emissions are about 10 GT, nitrous oxide about 4, and hydrofluorocarbons about 2. All three non-CO2 emissions are growing; the last quite rapidly.

Finally, in a particularly ugly twist, not only is attempting Net Zero reducing the size of the pie, it is providing the wealthy with a larger share of the smaller pie. Investment tax credits, production tax credits, electric vehicle tax credits, are blatant in your face transfers from the poor to the rich. Net Zero in practice is a war on the poor. When super rich people fly to global warming conferences in private jets, we can shake our heads at the hypocrisy. When Germans refuse to fund African coal plants while reactivating their own, it is something closer to the holocaust.

So what can we do? We can face reality. Unless our replacement for fossil fuel is at least as cheap as fossil fuel, it won't happen. Progress only happens when things get cheaper. And when things get cheaper, it happens automatically. No international agreements are required.

As Germany has discovered, wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuel. Their energy density is atrocious. They require planet ravishing levels of minerals and land. Their intermittency means they can at best be supplemental sources. See Nuclear and Wind/Solar. The replacement for fossil fuel must have at least as good an energy density, at least the same dispatchability, and be no more expensive.

There is a source of electricity that has very low CO2 emissions, far better energy density than fossil fuel, the same dispatchability, and used to be no more expensive than fossil fuel, when fossil fuel was as cheap as it has ever been. This source is our only out.