This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


The Climate Crisis and the Transition to a Renewable Economy

Steven Cohen's picture
The Earth Institute, Columbia University
  • Member since 2018
  • 101 items added with 52,829 views
  • Apr 26, 2016


The difficult process of transitioning to a renewable resource-based economy requires us to ask: how does political, economic and social change happen? To answer that question it’s helpful to look at the changes we have seen over the past century and also ask: how did they happen? It’s easy to see change: the end of legal racial segregation, women’s rights, gay marriage, the growth of smartphones and the internet, cleaner air and water, the growth of the global economy, and, here in New York City, the transformation of a manufacturing and commercial city into a center of the global brain-based economy. We live in a different world than the one our parents and grandparents lived in. When you look back you find that conventional wisdom and punditry either overestimated or underestimated the difficulty of change. But you also inevitably see a long process of triumphs and failures and a sudden awareness that the world has changed and we are no longer where we used to be.

When I read the predictions of some analysts examining the climate crisis I am often struck by their pessimism about our ability to address climate change. Current trend lines, the science deniers in congress, the influence of the fossil fuel industry and growing consumption in the developing world generate predictions of a future of drowned cities and massive shortages of food and water. That could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it. What is striking about those predicting doom is their present-mindedness. Projections and scenarios rarely factor in the possibility of disruptive technological change, since by definition, it is difficult to know when it will take place and what shape it will take. Nevertheless, we can count on the certainty of some form of disruptive change.

What I am betting on is the growing sense of awareness and understanding of environmental issues among the people of the world. It could be that my personal perspective is a little warped. I’ve seen the environmental issue move from the outer fringes to the center of our political agenda. In my case, it began over 40 years ago when I walked into a small graduate seminar in SUNY Buffalo on an obscure topic called “Environmental Politics.” Only a handful of us thought this was of much importance and most of my fellow graduate students weren’t even sure what it was. Today, the average college student is well aware of environmental issues and, in fact, the average fourth grader knows about it too. Mass education and social awareness are the foundations of large-scale change. The need for global sustainability policy and management is well understood by huge majorities in every country of the world. If we believe polling data, young people get it more than old people. There is a fundamental consensus on the importance and dimensions of the problem. We don’t know how to move from our current non-sustainable lifestyle to a sustainable one, but most people know that we need to figure it out. In my view, broad public understanding of our crisis of global sustainability is the foundation for the large-scale, non-linear change that is starting to take place. Evidence of that change can be seen in the introduction of products like the new lower-priced Tesla electric car and in the policy pronouncements of leading public officials all over the world.

We’ve seen large-scale change before. Young women increasingly expect equality and assume they will get it. Racism, sexism and homophobia still exist in this country, but they are not as bad as they were when I was growing up. When we see an act of overt bias, we know what it looks like and we know it is wrong–not everyone, not all of the time, but most people, most of the time. The large-scale public discussion of racial profiling and effective policing now underway was not an agenda item in Mississippi or New York City in the 1960s. The legalization of gay marriage was not up for discussion on June 28th, 1969, when the patrons of New York City’s Stonewall Inn battled with the NYPD. Unequal pay for equal work was a way of life for women of my mother and wife’s generation. My guess is my daughters will end up doing better. The point is that we live in a social order that few would have predicted fifty years ago. Change may be slow, but the forward motion of social progress is undeniable. Catastrophe or terror or both could halt that progress, but people are learning more about each other and their world and society is slowly changing in response.

Returning to the theme of climate change and fossil fuels, our problem is not simply climate change, it is a broader set of issues we should call environmental sustainability. Even when we decarbonize our energy we will still have toxic substances in both our food chain and ecosystems that pose a wide range of dangers. We are still reducing biodiversity and damaging ecological systems without fully understanding the impact of what we are doing. But we are learning. The paradox is that our urban, post-industrial lifestyle means that we spend less and less of our time securing the food, clothing and shelter that occupied human effort for thousands of years. That frees us to learn more about each other, our home planet and ourselves.

We like and wish to retain the lifestyles we enjoy, but we know that these lifestyles are built on technologies that need to change. American consumers want to buy SUVs, but if an electric SUV were as cheap and convenient as a standard SUV, people would buy the electric one. People may be too busy to recycle, but understand why it would be a good thing to do.

Once we have the base of values and understanding in place that supports preserving the planet, we need to develop public policies, infrastructure and private sector business models that move the economy toward sustainability. This is also a type of change we have seen before. American government has worked with private businesses since the founding of the republic. American land grant colleges and agricultural extension built new farming methods and technologies and taught farmers how to use them. It turned America into the world’s breadbasket. Public investment in railways, roads, airports and ports ensured that goods could be efficiently transported to the market place. Government policy after World War II was designed to transform America from a nation of renters to a nation of homeowners. Government-backed mortgage insurance lowered down payments, and tax deductions for property tax and mortgage interest lowered monthly costs. The policy worked: most Americans now own their homes.

We need the same sort of creative public-private partnership on renewable energy, waste management, water management and conservation. The large-scale public support for sustainability ensures that if this is done intelligently (e.g. no direct subsidies to particular companies) it can help elected officials keep their jobs while ensuring that Miami and New York City remain above sea level.

My focus is on long-term gradual models of change, because I think it’s appropriate for this issue and because the alternative mode of forcing change is catastrophe. If a climate catastrophe takes place, all we will be able to do is to adapt to our new planet. Despite the current danger, I think a climate catastrophe is unlikely. Even if the current actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not sufficient to address the problem, together they are an impressive first step. My hope is that each subsequent step will be greater than the one that came before and growing momentum can reduce the probability of a climate disaster.

Photo Credit: Oregon Department of Transportation via Flickr

Original Post

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Apr 26, 2016

Steven, once again you present a tired, misinformed monologue based on your wholly unsupportable belief that renewables are capable of supplying America’s energy needs.

All that these essays accomplish is to cement methane’s place in generating electricity for decades to come, to disastrous effect.

Hops Gegangen's picture
Hops Gegangen on Apr 26, 2016

Why would you assume natural gas as the dispatchable backup instead of nuclear?

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Apr 26, 2016

Because using the rapid variability of wind and solar to force the replacement of nuclear by gas-fired turbines is practically the Green mission statement?

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Apr 27, 2016

Hops, to add to EP’s point, simple-cycle gas turbines are the only tech which can effectively load-follow which is non-nuclear, and most renewables advocates are anti-nuclear. The reasons for that don’t make a lot of sense to me, but like Ouija boards or horoscopes they’re not that interesting either.

I suspect SMRs will be capable of effectively load-following wind and solar. But if you accept nuclear, renewables are not only unnecessary but expensive, difficult to integrate, and wasteful of natural habitat. Why bother?

Hops Gegangen's picture
Hops Gegangen on Apr 27, 2016

Companies like NuScale are planning to adapt to high-renewables grid.

Burning methane may not be the end of the world, as the CO2 from methane combustion is simpler to capture than from coal. And considerable methane is potentially derived from biological sources. It could even be carbon negative if CO2 from bio-methane is sequestered.

Given the trend in cost of renewables, a grid with a mix of renewables and nuclear might have the lowest overall cost.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Apr 27, 2016

Hops, where will you put that CO2 once it’s captured – in Sempra’s Aliso Canyon repository? Sempra would certainly be more vigilant about keeping their worthless waste gas sequestered than the valuable methane that somehow escaped, wouldn’t they?

Sarcasm aside – California now has 157 square miles of desert and farmland covered by solar panels. They’re beyond useless at night and on cloudy days, except for guaranteeing income streams for Exxon-Mobil and GE for the next forty years.

Recommission San Onofre, rip out all solar panels and wind turbines, and throw them and their fossil fuel peaker plants away. The sooner, the better.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Apr 28, 2016

Yes, NuScale has said their SMR design will feature an impressive load-following capability. This paper compares the load following capability of their 50 MW small modular reactor to the historic output of the 58 MW Horse Butte wind farm, and finds their ramping capability adequate to follow it.

It’s an interesting study, but the combination is almost certainly not a good economic choice. It will not be cost effective to run a nuke (or any other sustainable power plant) at 60% capacity factor, to make room for a wind farm with 30% capacity factor (the value of the fuel savings is so low that it’s better to skip the wind farm and go all nuclear).

However, this load following is valuable even if it only used a small percentage of the time. It means that even though an economical wind-rich grid must have a substantial fossil fuel contribution, at least there will be a few occasional deep dips in demand when the fossil fuel plants can be turned-off, and the nukes can providing the load following.

Ike Bottema's picture
Ike Bottema on Apr 28, 2016

@Hops You say “Why would you assume natural gas as the dispatchable backup instead of nuclear?”
Because with nuclear as backup, there is no need for the diffuse, intermittent solar panels.

Lewis Perelman's picture
Lewis Perelman on Apr 30, 2016

OK, people indeed are inventive and adaptive, so there’s no telling what they may come up with. But historically, societies change slowly and not always irreversibly or necessarily for the better.

As for ‘sustainability,’ it’s a murky notion that may not lead to a happy outcome. See:

The outstanding social characteristics resulting from the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy are likely to be theocracy and feudalism..

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on May 2, 2016

If load-following capability adds more than a few percent to the cost of the SMR, then how does load following make economic sense given the very low fuel cost of nuclear? The risk to SMR technology, especially at its smaller scale, is its capital cost. It seems simply venting steam would be preferable to adding cost.

Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on May 2, 2016

I once suggested using off-peak steam to convert MSW to liquid fuels.  Cellulose hydrolyzes fairly well in sub-critical water at temperatures around 225°C IIUC.  This is well within the range of LWRs.  Having extracted the bulk of the cellulose from the MSW stream, you ferment the liquid and use lower-grade off-peak heat to distill it.

Cal Abel’s scheme for molten-salt energy storage for a LMFBR had him suggesting that it could remove NRC oversight from the non-nuclear balance of plant, because it would no longer have any influence on the operating conditions of the reactor itself.  With sufficiently flexible and fast steam diversion between the turbine and other loads, maybe that could be made true for an LWR as well.

Erich J. Knight's picture
Erich J. Knight on May 5, 2016

Our ability to address climate change has been demonstrated in spades, both east & west by Agriculture in the Levant and Fire Land Management by Paleoindians. To curry the remaining Mega-fauna, mostly bison.
After the Younger Dryas, after Mammoths went off the menu.
1000 years of -10C cooling of the climate.
Now that is adaptation!

At 7 Billion We are now the new Megafauna, weighing about the same in total, but to control climate we need to start doing the ecological services they did. Build Soil Carbon in conjunction with the power of C-4 plant photosynthetic efficiency, (think MOur ability to address climate change has been demonstrated in spades, both east & west by Agriculture in the Levant and Fire Land Management by Paleoindians. To curry the remaining Mega-fauna, mostly bison.
After the Younger Dryas, after Mammoths went off the menu.
1000 years of -10C cooling of the climate.
Now that is adaptation!

At 7 Billion We are now the new Megafauna, weighing about the same in total, but to control climate we need to start doing the ecological services they did. Build Soil Carbon in conjunction with the power of C-4 plant photosynthetic efficiency, (think Mollisols).

Using these bio-mimicry best management practices, our ungulates can do the same, Just by treating our cows as predators would;;

Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter

Sustainability, Is not a murky notion if simply measured by Soil Carbon Content.
No confusion, no gaming of this simple & universal soil test, either you do or don’t have more carbon in your soil after your harvest.

Steven Cohen's picture
Thank Steven for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »