Climate Science—No KISSing

That’s right, no KISSing. Or kidding for that matter. Normally, at The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment, we are very much in favor of KISSing, that is, following the well-known principle to Keep It Simple and Straightforward (KISS), particularly in this blog, where we hope to provoke thought and discussion. Would that it were so simple!

KISS? It’s complicated.

Indeed, as both actors in the clip above discover, sometimes, some things are just complicated.

As a first example, consider the shift to alternative energy and electric cars as a front-line effort to combat climate change. It’s simple! Right? Yet, some think this is a healthy serving of profit-motivated boondoggle. I have my reservations. For instance, what do electric engine cars, internal combustion engine cars, wind turbine parts, and solar panels all have in common? One answer is this:

“Sustainable?” Electric cars, internal combustion engine cars, wind turbine parts, and solar panels all rely to varying extents on mined, non-renewable resources.

To put it another way, energy from wind and the sun, renewable. Wind turbines and solar panels? Non-renewable (and not especially recyclable when considering what they are made of and that the laws of physics mean no process is 100% efficient. Loss is inevitable).

Energy from the sun and the wind (left), renewable; wind turbines and solar panels (right), not.

So how can we take an evidence-based, scientific approach to understanding environmental sustainability, which is deeply interwoven with Climate Science-based issues? There are many approaches to this question. Here we consider Energy Return on Investment and Life Cycle Assessment.

Energy Return on Investment is a way to understand how much energy we need to “spend” versus how much energy we get out (are “paid”). For conventional fossil fuel (gas or petrol), we invest energy to extract, refine, and transport the fuels and receive a return on that investment in how much energy we obtain by fuel combustion. For wind turbines, for instance, it would be the energy to mine, refine, fabricate components, etc., compared to energy obtained from operating a turbine over its fixed life.

In finance, most people would understand that different investment schemes could lead to good returns, poor returns, or, in the worst case, a net loss. This is true of Energy Return on Investment as well. The graph below shows different energy sources and where the “break even point” (energy invested versus energy returned) is. For “renewables” (which are not really renewable), which are increasingly used in Texas, the return is not so great.

“Renewables”—a good Energy Return on Investment? According to this graph, most renewables are below the “break even” point. Source: Corporate Finance Institute

The graph above is provided by experts whose mission is to upskill capital markets and increase business intelligence and who work with most of the major well-known financial institutions, as well as companies such as Amazon. Like any measurement, Energy Return on Investment has its imperfections; arguably the greatest is human. According to the world-renowned scientist who first published this kind of data, Dr. Charles Hall, most published data is incorrect, too high or too low, because it is published by advocates or detractors (sources that have a conflict of interest). In one interview, Dr. Hall mentions photovoltaic energy, a form of solar, as a case in point. He notes that real-world data puts the Energy Return on Investment at approximately 2.5, much higher than what is estimated by anti-solar funded work and much lower than what pro-solar funded investigators calculate.

The information on the graph above is in line with the world’s top expert and paints the picture that we are not currently in a position for solar to pay for itself, i.e., it does not produce enough energy for us to use and also produce new solar panels for when the systems now in use are at end-of-life. Additionally, because of the comparatively poor return, even if we focus only on the use-phase, where the energy return of solar is positive, there are other issues. For one, the ecological impacts of land-use change are enormous. As the old song goes, shall we “pave paradise to put up a parking lot” (or solar farm)?

Pave the world with solar farms? Leading to numerous problems, including the destruction of ecosystems such as Texas’ last large tall-grass prairie.

Next up, pollution. In terms of energy production, the best energy alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear (graph above). There are various problems with this source of energy, one being how to have confidence about storing radioactive wastes safely for thousands of years. Enter Life Cycle Assessment, which calculates the total resources use and environmental damage of a product or process over its whole lifecycle (mining/resource extraction, manufacturing, use or “operations,” and end-of-life). Like Energy Return on Investment, Life Cycle Assessment calculations can be fiddled, mostly to omit the parts that reveal a product or scheme to be problematic. Let’s look at some results from one relatively complete study, that is, likely a “more accurate” study, undertaken to understand the real environmental performance of different kinds of cars in Europe.

Comparing internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs, which use fossil fuels) to battery engine vehicles (BEV, i.e., electric) to hybrid engine vehicles (HEV, a bit ICEV, a bit BEV), the global warming potential for driving a car 150,000 km (93,000 miles) is lowest for the BEV, at approximately 60% of a conventional ICEV. This is a huge carbon savings, to be sure, but a savings of 40% is probably a lot less than what most people think when they hear the term “zero carbon.” Additionally, because BEV manufacturing is typically carbon-intense, this savings is only obtained after 150,000 km of driving.

According to this Life Cycle Assessment study, battery engine vehicles produce 40% less carbon than internal combustion engines for 150,000 km (93,000 miles) of driving—not “zero carbon.” Source: Sustainability (journal)

In contrast to the benefits of BEVs from reduced global warming potential, the rate of acidification of soils, ground and surface water (affecting animals, ecosystems, agriculture), and fine particulate pollution production are almost double for BEVs as compared to conventional cars/ICEVs. “Surplus ore potential”, that is, mineral ore depletion, is over four times (over 400%) greater for BEVs than for ICEVs.

According to the same study as above, battery engine vehicles result in approximately four times more mineral resource depletion (422% “Surplus Ore Production”) than internal combustion engines for 150,000 km (93,000 miles) of driving.

In discussing these matters recently, a colleague of mine remarked, “I only care about global warming.” This might seem reasonable, but it is not consistent with how Earth Systems work. According to the Stockholm Resilience Center, climate is not the most pressing environmental issue of our age, pollution and biodiversity loss are; however, it is not possible to separate these—each depend on the other. Matters discussed in this blog post are now referred to as an “Everything Problem.”

So what do we do? What can we do? One thing is to use less, buy less, consume less, and drive less. Another would be to employ evidence-based policy based on sound calculations, that is, following the science instead of the “science party.” This would require acknowledging complexity. KISSing—would that it were so simple. Some things are just complicated.

Further Reading:

Photo Sources:

2 thoughts on “Climate Science—No KISSing”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Further Reading:

Photo Sources:

Share this:

2 thoughts on “Climate Science—No KISSing”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply