ARTICLE
Nearly 46 years ago, I was an undergrad student at UCSB studying American Urban History and Environmental Studies. One course in my studies was the design and development of “The Modern American City of the Next Century” — dissecting the superhighways that lead to the grid-designed roadways of most American cities and creating movable communities with environmentally built housing and commercial projects for the next generation of city dwellers. The course outline took us from the late 1800s and early 1900s American east coast cities to the stretches of 1960 California beach communities. Of course, since Santa Barbara was 99 miles up the highway from Los Angeles, there was always discussion about the “City of Angels.” The heavy traffic congestion produced smog that hung over the San Fernando Valley and distorted the view of the sprawling Los Angeles basin. UCSB students marveled that our community was mostly absent of the unhealthy air to the south of us, except for the constant reminder of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill when we jogged on the beaches near the University and came home with thick black tar on our shoes or bare feet. At a minimum, I believe most UCSB students, faculty and residents had a strong emotional attachment to protecting our planet. Another college course was about the environmental challenges ahead of us as we approached the last twenty-five years of the 1900s (1975-2000). In a large university auditorium — two hundred-plus students sat in our seats awaiting a video presentation by three UCSB graduate students. Just a couple of years earlier, “Soylent Green,'' the American ecological dystopian thriller, was in movie theaters. The grad students inserted scenes from the movie into their video. They shared videos of the Antarctica glaciers melting, the Amazon jungle being mowed down, the lasting horrific moments of the Vietnam War, the smoggy air in Los Angeles, New York and other large cities around the world. The background music was a classic mixture of Eagles songs — Desperado, Hotel California, Take It Easy and Take It to the Limit — as captured sentences from Paul Ehrich’s “The Population Bomb” (1968) appeared on the screen, shadowing the scenes of the disappearing rain forest and ocean pollution. These were startling images of what the world might look like in the next century. As the images on the screen created a shock and awe feeling from the students, the writings of renowned environmentalist, Rachel Carson, in Silent Spring (1962) dotted the video screen. Carson’s writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement. The last scenes were epic photos of majestic views of Yosemite, a sunset over the Grand Canyon and a soaring Eagle above the Alaskan Wilderness. The final words on the video were a simple message to the students: “It is your turn to make a difference.” Why am I citing this college experience from years ago? Those college moments placed a significant impact on me about the role of humans who must take compelling steps to address what we knew we needed 46 years ago — a new world vision for the next generation. We know more now: that climate change (global warming) and the urgency of making a dramatic shift in our global energy strategy creates an opportunity. But it also places problems to be overcome before the world can move from the fossil-fuel-dependent one to one which uses only “clean” and renewable energy — a goal with target dates of 2030, or at the outside, 2050, according to world leaders. California is viewed as a global leader in this effort. The past three governors have embraced this strategy at an accelerated pace since the start of this new century. We are now one-fifth through the 21st century with renewable energy target dates eight years away. What are the challenges and what are the obstacles to overcome for us to get there? As an example of achieving these goals, I read a Princeton University study that said it would take 225,000 square miles of solar panels just to provide the amount of electricity required to power all the vehicles in the United States that now use gasoline. This Bloomberg Report and the Princeton University study only illuminate the path ahead: Bloomberg Report I assume the immense environmental impacts (and potential public opposition) that would flow from developing all that land might be one reason to question the idea of accomplishing such a goal in less than a decade. Is this problem surmountable? According to a study from a team at the Geological Survey of Finland (known by the acronym GTK) — which set out to calculate how many “alternative” energy systems would be required for the global replacement of fossil fuels — global leaders are advocating for these changes as a solution for our future planet not only to halt climate change but to make sure everyone has enough energy for a civilized life when fossil fuels are eventually depleted. “This report addresses the challenges associated with the ambitious task of phasing out fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) that are currently used in gas- and diesel-powered vehicle engines and a shift to electrical power generation,” says the summary of the 1,000-page report examining every component of global energy production and consumption. Summary Assessment to phase out fossil fuels . Citing a few of its data points will convey the seriousness of the report’s conclusions. For example, did you know that in 2019 there were 1,416 billion vehicles in the global fleet and that only 7.2 million were electric? In other words, to achieve full conversion of electric cars, trucks, and buses we have 99.49 percent to go. When it comes to worldwide systems for producing electricity: “Data from 2018 shows that 84.7 percent of power plants were dependent on fossil fuels, whereas renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels) accounted for only 4.05 percent of global energy generation, and nuclear power accounted for 10.1 percent,” the report says. To convert the entire 2018 capacity to renewables, the report continues, will require 221,594 new power plants — a very big number, especially when you consider that the total number of worldwide power plants in 2018 (all types including fossil fuel plants) comprised 46,423 stations. Those numbers are nothing compared to the immense undertaking required to produce all the clean energy and power all the machines while eliminating the use of fossil fuels. The author of the report, Simon Michaux, is a geometallurgy analyst with the Geological Survey of Finland. Based on his analysis we learn that just the basic metals required to replace fossil fuel technology with wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power plants, hydropower, geothermal power plants, motors and batteries for electric vehicles, metal content of hydrogen fuel cells, and stationary batteries to store electricity from intermittent sources (such as solar and wind) may not even exist in sufficient quantities anywhere on Earth. However, let’s take a look at another viewpoint in this effort to meet the GHG standards by 2030. A Stanford University professor has outlined a roadmap for the United States to meet its total energy needs using 100% wind, water and solar by 2050. Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and director of its Atmosphere Energy Program, has been promoting the idea of all renewable energy as the best way forward for more than a decade. His latest calculations toward this goal were recently published in the scientific journal Renewable Energy. Transitioning to a clean-energy grid could happen by 2035, the study advises, with at least 80% of that adjustment completed by 2030. For the purposes of Jacobson’s study, his team factored in presumed population growth and efficiency improvements in energy to envision what that would look like in 2050. The full story is here. The new study found that rapidly transitioning our global energy systems to 100% renewable energy could solve all of these problems without fear of blackouts and at a lower cost than today’s energy system. The study focused on 145 countries that currently make up 99.7% of global emissions. Relying almost entirely on commercially available technology, the Stanford team laid out a path to decarbonize the energy system by as early as 2035 (and no later than 2050), with an 80% transition by 2030. Following this plan, they estimated an additional 340 billion tonnes of CO2 would be added to the atmosphere by 2050. This is well below the 500 Gt budget outlined by the Paris Agreement to keep warming below 1.5°C, demonstrating that it is possible to meet our climate goals without relying on unproven “silver bullet” technologies. These two studies show a glaring difference of opinion. One is critical of the timeline and the accessibility of the precious metals that are used in advancing a renewable energy future. The other study says it is not only feasible to be achieved but it can happen in the predictable future timeframes, be cost effective and create millions of new jobs. I return back to that UCSB auditorium to reflect on where we have come in the past half century and where we need to go in the next eight, fourteen or twenty-five years — it all boils down to one message: the last generation took steps to change the world and it will be the next generation to finish the mission.
Nearly 46 years ago, I was an undergrad student at UCSB studying American Urban History and Environmental Studies. One course in my studies was the design and development of “The Modern American City of the Next Century” — dissecting the superhighways that lead to the grid-designed roadways of most American cities and creating movable communities with environmentally built housing and commercial projects for the next generation of city dwellers. The course outline took us from the late 1800s and early 1900s American east coast cities to the stretches of 1960 California beach communities. Of course, since Santa Barbara was 99 miles up the highway from Los Angeles, there was always discussion about the “City of Angels.” The heavy traffic congestion produced smog that hung over the San Fernando Valley and distorted the view of the sprawling Los Angeles basin. UCSB students marveled that our community was mostly absent of the unhealthy air to the south of us, except for the constant reminder of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill when we jogged on the beaches near the University and came home with thick black tar on our shoes or bare feet. At a minimum, I believe most UCSB students, faculty and residents had a strong emotional attachment to protecting our planet.
Another college course was about the environmental challenges ahead of us as we approached the last twenty-five years of the 1900s (1975-2000). In a large university auditorium — two hundred-plus students sat in our seats awaiting a video presentation by three UCSB graduate students. Just a couple of years earlier, “Soylent Green,'' the American ecological dystopian thriller, was in movie theaters. The grad students inserted scenes from the movie into their video. They shared videos of the Antarctica glaciers melting, the Amazon jungle being mowed down, the lasting horrific moments of the Vietnam War, the smoggy air in Los Angeles, New York and other large cities around the world. The background music was a classic mixture of Eagles songs — Desperado, Hotel California, Take It Easy and Take It to the Limit — as captured sentences from Paul Ehrich’s “The Population Bomb” (1968) appeared on the screen, shadowing the scenes of the disappearing rain forest and ocean pollution. These were startling images of what the world might look like in the next century. As the images on the screen created a shock and awe feeling from the students, the writings of renowned environmentalist, Rachel Carson, in Silent Spring (1962) dotted the video screen. Carson’s writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement. The last scenes were epic photos of majestic views of Yosemite, a sunset over the Grand Canyon and a soaring Eagle above the Alaskan Wilderness. The final words on the video were a simple message to the students: “It is your turn to make a difference.” Why am I citing this college experience from years ago? Those college moments placed a significant impact on me about the role of humans who must take compelling steps to address what we knew we needed 46 years ago — a new world vision for the next generation.
We know more now: that climate change (global warming) and the urgency of making a dramatic shift in our global energy strategy creates an opportunity. But it also places problems to be overcome before the world can move from the fossil-fuel-dependent one to one which uses only “clean” and renewable energy — a goal with target dates of 2030, or at the outside, 2050, according to world leaders.
California is viewed as a global leader in this effort. The past three governors have embraced this strategy at an accelerated pace since the start of this new century. We are now one-fifth through the 21st century with renewable energy target dates eight years away. What are the challenges and what are the obstacles to overcome for us to get there?
As an example of achieving these goals, I read a Princeton University study that said it would take 225,000 square miles of solar panels just to provide the amount of electricity required to power all the vehicles in the United States that now use gasoline. This Bloomberg Report and the Princeton University study only illuminate the path ahead: Bloomberg Report
I assume the immense environmental impacts (and potential public opposition) that would flow from developing all that land might be one reason to question the idea of accomplishing such a goal in less than a decade. Is this problem surmountable? According to a study from a team at the Geological Survey of Finland (known by the acronym GTK) — which set out to calculate how many “alternative” energy systems would be required for the global replacement of fossil fuels — global leaders are advocating for these changes as a solution for our future planet not only to halt climate change but to make sure everyone has enough energy for a civilized life when fossil fuels are eventually depleted.
“This report addresses the challenges associated with the ambitious task of phasing out fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) that are currently used in gas- and diesel-powered vehicle engines and a shift to electrical power generation,” says the summary of the 1,000-page report examining every component of global energy production and consumption. Summary Assessment to phase out fossil fuels .
Citing a few of its data points will convey the seriousness of the report’s conclusions. For example, did you know that in 2019 there were 1,416 billion vehicles in the global fleet and that only 7.2 million were electric? In other words, to achieve full conversion of electric cars, trucks, and buses we have 99.49 percent to go. When it comes to worldwide systems for producing electricity: “Data from 2018 shows that 84.7 percent of power plants were dependent on fossil fuels, whereas renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels) accounted for only 4.05 percent of global energy generation, and nuclear power accounted for 10.1 percent,” the report says. To convert the entire 2018 capacity to renewables, the report continues, will require 221,594 new power plants — a very big number, especially when you consider that the total number of worldwide power plants in 2018 (all types including fossil fuel plants) comprised 46,423 stations. Those numbers are nothing compared to the immense undertaking required to produce all the clean energy and power all the machines while eliminating the use of fossil fuels.
The author of the report, Simon Michaux, is a geometallurgy analyst with the Geological Survey of Finland. Based on his analysis we learn that just the basic metals required to replace fossil fuel technology with wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power plants, hydropower, geothermal power plants, motors and batteries for electric vehicles, metal content of hydrogen fuel cells, and stationary batteries to store electricity from intermittent sources (such as solar and wind) may not even exist in sufficient quantities anywhere on Earth.
However, let’s take a look at another viewpoint in this effort to meet the GHG standards by 2030. A Stanford University professor has outlined a roadmap for the United States to meet its total energy needs using 100% wind, water and solar by 2050. Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and director of its Atmosphere Energy Program, has been promoting the idea of all renewable energy as the best way forward for more than a decade. His latest calculations toward this goal were recently published in the scientific journal Renewable Energy. Transitioning to a clean-energy grid could happen by 2035, the study advises, with at least 80% of that adjustment completed by 2030. For the purposes of Jacobson’s study, his team factored in presumed population growth and efficiency improvements in energy to envision what that would look like in 2050. The full story is here. The new study found that rapidly transitioning our global energy systems to 100% renewable energy could solve all of these problems without fear of blackouts and at a lower cost than today’s energy system. The study focused on 145 countries that currently make up 99.7% of global emissions. Relying almost entirely on commercially available technology, the Stanford team laid out a path to decarbonize the energy system by as early as 2035 (and no later than 2050), with an 80% transition by 2030. Following this plan, they estimated an additional 340 billion tonnes of CO2 would be added to the atmosphere by 2050. This is well below the 500 Gt budget outlined by the Paris Agreement to keep warming below 1.5°C, demonstrating that it is possible to meet our climate goals without relying on unproven “silver bullet” technologies.
These two studies show a glaring difference of opinion. One is critical of the timeline and the accessibility of the precious metals that are used in advancing a renewable energy future. The other study says it is not only feasible to be achieved but it can happen in the predictable future timeframes, be cost effective and create millions of new jobs.
I return back to that UCSB auditorium to reflect on where we have come in the past half century and where we need to go in the next eight, fourteen or twenty-five years — it all boils down to one message: the last generation took steps to change the world and it will be the next generation to finish the mission.