To summarize the problem, using fossil fuels for our energy needs is costly, destabilizing, and ecologically ruinous. According to the global scientific consensus developed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC), we need to reduce our emissions 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2050 to prevent a global average temperature rise of more than 1.5C. Electric appliances– both heating/cooling appliances as well as electric vehicles (EVs)-- are much more energy efficient than their fossil-or-biofuel-burning equivalents. For example, electric heat pumps use ¼ the energy of natural gas furnaces or water heaters. Similarly, EVs are 4 times more efficient than internal-combustion engines (ICEs). And consider that 11.3% of all global energy use is expended to mine, refine, and transport fossil fuels and uranium.
Dr. Jacobson continued by describing the various existing technologies which are available and in use– in addition to heat pumps and EVs– to power heavy industry, provide long-haul transportation, and store power for future use. Many of us have heard that hydrogen fuel cells can be used for air travel, shipping, long-haul trucking and military transports when battery EVs (BEVs) become less viable. However, many are unclear on the rainbow of colors used to describe how hydrogen is developed into a fuel. Dr. Jacobsen demystified this hydrogen color spectrum for us, explaining that only green hydrogen is a positive and efficient solution to the climate crisis and that so-called ‘blue’, ‘pink’, ‘turquoise’, ‘grey’, ‘brown’ or ‘black’ hydrogen all cloud the public’s understanding of clean energy sources. Only green hydrogen, or hydrogen produced from clean, fossil-free, renewable energy sources, is a fuel compatible with retaining stable global climate conditions.
Next, Dr. Jacobson addressed another common greenwashing technology promoted as a solution by the fossil-fuel and fossil-fuel adjacent industries to perpetuate and rationalize their continuing use: carbon capture and direct-air capture. Dr. Jacobson explained that carbon- or direct air-capture only remove carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel exhausts, they do not capture any of the other harmful toxins released into our air. Therefore, there are no health benefits provided by carbon- or direct air-capture systems. Moreover, they are ineffective. Carbon capture equipment requires 30% more energy to run. Therefore, as an example, a coal- or natural gas-burning power plant would need to burn 30% more coal or natural gas– creating 30% more air pollution in the process– in order to produce the same amount of electric power. It’s much cleaner, more efficient, and less costly to produce electricity from solar, wind or water sources. Even more stupefying, Dr. Jacobson revealed that 75% of the carbon dioxide which is captured worldwide today is used for “enhanced oil recovery” where the carbon dioxide is piped to oil fields where it is combined with crude in order to lighten it so that it rises to the surface faster. As it rises to the surface, 40% of the previously “captured” carbon dioxide is immediately emitted into the atmosphere again. Dr. Jacobson reported that only one U.S. coal-fired power plant, located in TX, had been fitted with carbon capture equipment. Using head-scratching logic, the coal-burning power plant built a natural gas-burning power plant next door to generate the extra electricity needed to run the coal-plant’s carbon-capture equipment at a cost of $1 billion– and the cost was loaded onto the electric utility’s ratepayers. (The carbon dioxide from the natural gas-burning plant was released freely into the atmosphere and not captured.) Due to the cost-inefficiency of this model, the plant closed after 3 years but its [low-income] rate payers were still stuck covering the cost for the carbon capture infrastructure which was abandoned.
Dr. Jacobson lamented that federal taxpayer subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) can be used to pursue carbon- and direct air-capture technologies. He emphasized that if our taxpayer-funded subsidies were instead used to build renewable energy generation instead of carbon capture for dirty fossil power sources, more carbon dioxide and air pollution would be reduced for the same amount of power generated. Dr. Jacobson concluded matter-of-factly by stating that there’s never a case where carbon- or direct air-capture or “blue” hydrogen are beneficial– “they are scam technologies– they do not do anything for climate, air pollution, or eliminating fossil fuels.” He had the same science-based conclusion about so-called “energy crops” (e.g. corn grown to make ethanol, one of many “biofuels” which can be burned in ICEs or mixed into dirty aviation fuels). Dr. Jabobson reported that solar photovoltaics are 20% efficient whereas photosynthesis is 1% efficient. Therefore, one gets 20x more energy by putting solar panels on an acre of land rather than growing “energy crops”. Combining the land inefficiency with the ICE inefficiency, Dr. Jacobson further calculated that one could drive 80x further using land for solar panels to generate electricity and driving an EV than one would be able to drive growing corn to make ethanol to burn in a combustion engine. And one would generate no toxic air pollution in the former scenario.
When asked about nuclear power as a clean energy option, Dr. Jacobson simplified the math for us. He said that the capital costs are 15x higher and the lead-time 15 years longer to bring nuclear plants into operation in contrast to the capital costs and lead times to bring an equal amount of new solar and wind power generation into operation. This results in nuclear power which is 8x more expensive over time than the equivalent wind or solar and, Dr. Jacobson cautioned, this doesn’t account for the issues of weapons proliferation, nuclear waste, underground uranium mining, and meltdown risk which nuclear power entails.
Dr. Jacobson also commented on policy recommendations for solving the climate crisis. He remarked that he believes that Renewable Portfolio Standards are the most effective policy tool, where an increasing share of energy in every sector (transportation, aviation, industry, etc.) would be required to be renewable until gradually reaching 100%. This reduces air toxins because it reduces combustion sources whereas a carbon tax, by contrast, allows industries to pay the tax and continue to pollute. Dr. Jacobson reiterated that those industries can also use scam technologies like carbon capture and so-called “blue” hydrogen to evade any real action which would deliver beneficial results.
As for solar geoengineering– any technique used to reduce the amount of solar radiative energy reaching the earth’s atmosphere– as a potential solution, Dr. Jacobsen served a blunt warning: “The problem is burning things– we need to stop the burning… we need to stop the problem, not mask it– that’s the key.”
That certainly sums the situation up in a nutshell but, if you want to dive into more detail, watch the recordings of all 6 events in the Piedmont League’s and Piedmont Connect’s
Climate Speaker Series on the LWVP YouTube Channel.