Lack of Environment

A blog on the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems

James Lovelock stuck between a rock and a hard place

with 7 comments

Although much delayed and interrupted by other stuff, this is now the third part of my review of The Revenge of Gaia, as published by James Lovelock in 2006.  The first and second parts were published on this blog last month (i.e. here and here).

Once again, I will assume the reader is familiar with the concept of Gaia (as described in part one of my review and on Wikipedia).   Also, as discussed in part two of my review, I will also assume the reader is aware of Lovelock’s subsequent attempts to repudiate his ‘alarmism’ (April 2010) and, even more astonishingly, disavow his faith in the objectivity of climate scientists (June 2012).  However, in all of this, I hope readers will recognise that I am trying to be pragmatic and objective; as opposed to dogmatic and prejudiced.

Previously, I had got as far as Lovelock’s assertion (circa 2006) that humanity needs to get off its addiction to fossil fuels as quickly as possible.  Therefore, I now continue by looking at the ways in which he suggests we might (or indeed might not) do that.  However, it must be stressed that Lovelock accepts (or at least accepted) that carbon capture and storage (CCS) will not prevent excessive climate disruption unless we decide to leave most fossil fuels in the ground (or radically reduce the rate at which we are burning them).

Lovelock’s first non-fossil fuel option is hydrogen; and his first point is that, as with electricity, hydrogen has to be manufactured.  In addition to pointing out that it can be manufactured from fossil fuels and in nuclear reactors, Lovelock explains how hydrogen can be produced from water by hydrolysis.  However, the problems inherent in transportation and distribution of hydrogen (e.g. very low atomic mass and high explosive potential) and the low amount of energy return on energy input (EROEI) mean that this is unlikely ever to be commercially viable.

In contrast to this, hydrogen could be widely used in fuel cells (i.e. as used to generate electricity on the command module in the Apollo missions), although this is not without its own problems and dangers.  Wikipedia has a good summary of methods of hydrogen production, from which the important takeaways appear to be that hydrogen is:
(1) mostly produced from hydrocarbons (steam reforming); and
(2) mostly used in oil refineries to derive lighter products from heavy ones (hydrocracking); or
(3) used in other chemical processes to produce other things (e.g. ammonia and methanol).

Both Lovelock and the above Wikipedia article refer to the potential of a hydrogen economy.  Indeed, Lovelock refers specifically refers to the work of Geoffrey Ballard – who pioneered the concept of cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells (i.e. like rechargeable batteries), which would consume hydrogen in use (by driving an electric motor) and generate it when not in use (by being recharged).

Expressing his hope that this technology will become widespread, Lovelock moves on to explain why he hopes that renewable technology will not:  In essence, his objections are based on:
(1) low EROEI (i.e. in manufacture of hardware with a low energy conversion efficiency); and
(2) low energy density (i.e. need for large areas of land to be given over to electricity production).

Lovelock suggests that the concept of sustainable development has been hijacked by those who promote renewable energy as a means of avoiding dealing with the impossibility of perpetual economic development on a finite planet with finite resources.  This is a point on which I would agree – and have agreed (as published here by the Geological Society of London).  However, even so, I find his complaints about the industrialisation of the countryside somewhat tiresome.  The bottom line is this: anything that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels must be a good thing; as must be the use of any fossil fuels consumed in working towards that goal.

Lovelock does himself no credit whatsoever by suggesting that pursuit of wind power is short-sighted because climate change will alter planetary atmospheric circulation.  Such an assertion is almost (but not quite) as stupid as suggesting that harnessing the Earth’s tidal energy is likely to slow the Earth’s speed of rotation (to any significant extent).  Similarly, his suggesting that the UK would need 276 thousand wind turbines (each 100m high) to meet national demand for electricity is nothing more than a straw man argument (because no-one is suggesting that this can or should be the aim and it ignores the agreed need for overall consumption to be reduced).

Lovelock’s comments about tidal energy, pre-date the development and testing of numerous technologies (e.g. around the Orkney Islands off the north coast of Scotland), but he does make the valid point that, as with CCS, it will take decades for any technology to become widely available and implemented.  However, this does not change the fact that it would be almost insane for an island nation such as the UK not to pursue these technologies.  The down-side to all this is that it will require additional power distribution infrastructure to be built.  However, so will micro-generation (as opposed to centralised generation), unless everyone is to become self-sufficient and not feed-in unused power to the national network (the income from which is the main reason most people install the systems).

Lovelock then moves on to consider hydro-electric power (HEP). He makes the point that HEP is not without environmental cost (loss of farmland, enforced displacement of populations, and interference with fluvial deposition patterns including the benefits of regular flooding of farmland).  However, he also seems to ignore the fact that HEP can be of considerable benefit to communities in areas where population density, competition for land and ecological carrying capacity are all low.

On the subject of biofuels, Lovelock merely re-states his objections to the diversion of agricultural land away from producing food (and takes another swipe at those who favour the inherently inefficient use of land for organic farming).  It is on this subject that the intellectual incoherence of Lovelock’s position is most clearly displayed:  being simultaneously pessimistic (about the prospects for so many people living on such a small planet) and optimistic (about the potential for technology to solve all our problems) – especially if we embrace GM crops.

However, given that he could not possibly have heard of it in 2006, Lovelock may be forgiven for not mentioning a new avenue for sustainable biofuel production that emerged in 2010 – namely GM algae that photosynthesise ethanol (instead of glucose).  However, even this may now be eclipsed by the potential of the latest idea – higher mixed alcohol fuels.  These can be produced form any solid, liquid or gaseous waste product and, therefore, could solve all our energy problems (but only if fossil fuel companies don’t buy up the patents to such ideas and then make them disappear).

Finally, in his long preamble to consideration of the future potential of civil nuclear power, Lovelock turns his attention to solar energy:  Here, once again, his argument is primarily based on low EROEI and on the cost of manufacturing the hardware (not to mention all the other finite metallic resources required).

On this front, I must confess I have some sympathy:  Harnessing the energy the Earth receives from the Sun (especially in mid-to low latitude countries where population densities are and probably will remain low) would seem like an obvious choice.  However, pursuing solar power generation on a large scale simultaneously in a large number of countries would have a serious impact on the demand for – and cost of – copper (and other even rarer metals), which is already high as a consequence of the success of hand-held electronic devices such as mobile phones.

As for Lovelock’s justification for his pro-nuclear stance, that will be the subject of the next post in this series (although I am not promising when that will be).

About these ads

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. As a non-scientist I would be grateful for any satisfactory explanation of the fact that, whilst the atmosphere on Mars is 94% CO2, the temperatures range from -55 to -225 at the martian poles. If CO2 be the warming, heat-storing, gas it is claimed to be, how come this anomalous and puzzling state of affairs?

    Duncan

    8 October 2013 at 04:59

    • As a non-scientist, Duncan, Wikipedia may be a good place to go for a straightforward explanation. The pages on the climate of Mars and the atmosphere of Mars appear likely to answer your question. For example: Mars is 50% further from the Sun and has low atmospheric pressure; both of which make it colder. In essence, therefore, the atmosphere on Mars is having to play with the cards it has been dealt. So too the atmosphere of Venus (where the warming effect of excess CO2 can be very clearly seen).

      Please forgive me but, your question appears to pre-suppose the World’s scientists are either stupid or lying to you? I am sorry to have to be so blunt but, my intention is solely to make you think about why you are doubting what you are told: If you doubt the scientific consensus you are effectively invoking belief in a scientific conspiracy (to perpetuate research funding). If you doubt IPCC’s 95% confidence you are effectively invoking belief in a political conspiracy (to justify authoritarian government and higher taxes).

      However, if you entertain such beliefs at all, every piece of conflicting evidence quickly ‘snowballs’ and very quickly your conspiracy involves scientists, universities, professional bodies, national governments and international organisations. At some point, however, should you not stop and ask yourself, ‘Is the simplest explanation not more likely’? There are very obvious reasons why vested interests would want you to doubt the science (and there is a great deal of evidence to show that they are spending a lot of time and money to make you doubt it). On the other hand, there is no single reason why all the supposed co-conspirators would want to fabricate alarm (and there is no conclusive evidence to support such a false belief). The validity of Occam’s Razor is therefore intact.

      With the greatest of respect, therefore, I think you need to be far more careful about what you read and/or question why it has been written.

      Martin Lack

      8 October 2013 at 10:14

    • The Martian atmospheric mass is tiny compared to that of Earth, so 94% of not much is still not much.

      Second, there is little water vapour in the Martian atmosphere, consider the role of water vapour (not clouds) in the ‘greenhouse effect’ of Earth.

      That is the short answer, a longer one could be found by studying the pages of ‘Principles of Planetary Climate’ by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert. Go to Real Climate for more.

      Lionel A

      8 October 2013 at 16:34

      • Thanks for that, Lionel. I trust Duncan will not be confused by your mentioning water vapour (WV). Whilst its absence from the Martian atmosphere may be significant, its presence in our own is not. Yes it is the most potent greenhouse gas but, whereas CO2 has increased by 40% since the Industrial Revolution, WV has only increased by 4%. The big change – and therefore the big problem – is the increase in CO2.

        Martin Lack

        8 October 2013 at 16:53

  2. […] our economies (part two), and discussed the various sources of renewable energy available to us (part three), we must now confront ‘the radiating face of Gaia’.  The possibly surprising reality is that […]

  3. I am curious about the implicit statement “the inherently inefficient use of land for organic farming.” What support is there for this?

    Bill Everett

    10 October 2013 at 15:43

    • Hi Bill. This is a recurrent theme throughout the book. One has to remember that Lovelock originally trained as a chemist. His point is that a sevenfold increase in the global human population would not have been possible without mechanisation and modern agricultural practice. Thus he suggests that reverting to organic farming methods will merely reduce the Earth’s ecological carrying capacity further.

      Martin Lack

      10 October 2013 at 16:00


Please join the discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 296 other followers

%d bloggers like this: