Doing some green math and not liking the numbers

Sharon Begley, the science reporter for Newsweek has some sobering and scary thoughts on global warming and energy consumption. Consider…

Before the Industrial Revolution the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million. The current level is 386 ppm. and we already see climate effects. Climate specialists say we dare not go above 450 ppm. To stop the rise we must get the level of CO2 emissions to below 80% of what they are now and do so by 2050 (only 40 years from now).

Total energy consumption is at the rate of 14 trillion watts (terawatts) per year (2006 figures). Assuming low population growth, slow economic growth, and unprecedented energy efficiency the forecast for energy use in 2050 is 28 terawatts. (Since all three of those assumptions are unlikely the actual figure is probably closer to 45 terawatts, but we'll stick with 28). But if we must get CO2 emissions 80% below of what they are now 26.5 terawatts in 2050 must be zero-carbon.

How we doing? Not good. Total solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear in 2006 was just over 1 terawatt.

To get only 10 terawatts out of nuclear we need another 10 thousand reactors worldwide. Get busy -- that comes out to one new reactor every other day. Starting today.

Wind? A million turbines will get us 3 terawatts. If we figure out how to store it for days when the wind doesn't blow.

Solar? Using current technology we would need to cover a million roofs per day (worldwide) in solar panels to get 10 terawatts.

And if we do that we still only have 24 of the needed 26.5 terawatts.

Conservation? Um, that's part of the difference between the 28 terawatt and 45 terawatt figures above.

Looks like we can't get there from here. How do we get out of this mess?

We need several breakthroughs in technology, each one worthy of a Nobel Prize. To do that we need to increase R&D spending by at least 10 times to $30 billion (still a pittance compared to the bank bailouts) and reform the national labs to be closer to the practical marketplace. And we need top stop focusing on cutting emissions by 20% by 2020. That's easy, and should take care of itself if we strive for the 80% cut by 2050.