Mine Your Own Time

Not your grandparent’s air

 When I was born, the earth had 355 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When my parents were born, it was 315 ppm. Just twenty years before them, my grandparents came into a world of 305 ppm.

 My wife and I became parents on August 12, 2021. Our child, 32 years my junior, emerged at 415 ppm.

 Over four generations, people that I know and love both witnessed and contributed to the creation of an entirely new climate.

 It’s unequivocal, humans have already added 1.5° C of warming to our world’s atmosphere[1], that was the recent news from the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC).

 This amount of greenhouse gasses has not existed in the earth’s atmosphere for over 3 million years. When these levels did exist, the earth was between 2 - 3° C warmer. Thermal inertia is off to the races.  

Keep it Simple

 I should have avoided my fatal flaws – I’ve already been speaking in Celsius, a metric we don’t take kindly to round here, and abstractions, such as, how does one conceptualize one part in a million?

 The truth is, climate science is infinitely complex, and also extremely simple.

Burning super old dead stuff, i.e. fossil fuels, adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, trapping more and more heat in the process.

 Before humans figured out we could burn super old dead stuff, there was a relative balance for a (geologically) short 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide and global average temperatures increased and decreased in lockstep. Land and sea absorbed carbon from the atmosphere and then returned it back in a long cycle of photosynthesis, respiration, birth and decay. These natural fluctuations swung CO2 from between 150 to 280 ppm, no more, no less.

 For perspective, even around 300 ppm, my grandparents entered a world of greenhouse gas concentrations touched only once prior in that 800,000 year period. The industrial revolution was already leaving its mark.

 The issue is – all that super old, dead stuff is loaded with ancient carbon, which is added to today’s atmosphere that would otherwise not have been there. Before we unpack that fully, I want to break more rules and talk abstract.

Mine your own time

 At some point early on in my torrid relationship with climate and energy, I was exposed to the idea of mining your own time. The author and physicist, Peter Atkins, wrote about the concept in a book he published called The Second Law, a beautiful and whimsical journey through the heady ideas of thermodynamics. Atkins also published the textbook on Physical Chemistry, so has an appreciation for the technical and philosophical!

 Atkins approached the concept from an energy perspective. When we burn fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, and oil, we are burning solar energy, just that of thousands to millions of years ago trapped in the form of decaying organic matter. It appeals to the ethos of leaving a place better than you found it to use as little as you need and to not disrupt ancient forms of energy for momentary comforts.

 The philosophy of the idea is a beautiful as it is challenging to put into practice.

 To take the abstraction one step further, thermodynamics is ensconced with the principle of entropy, a quantifiable property of randomness that never decreases of its own volition. Only with inputs of energy can order be created and entropy minimized.

 With this idea of order and disorder lodged in your brain – think of fossil fuels as long, well-organized chains of hydrocarbons. Today’s fossil fuels took the immense radiation of ancient sunlight, photosynthesized that energy to create organized bonds that then got locked in the earth by even more heat and pressure. This took generations and generations of taking and organizing energy. It was a herculean initiative of natural processes, incubated by hard-to-imagine quantities of time.

Combustion of fossil fuels takes oxygen and heat to destroy those chains of hydrocarbons unleashing energy and entropy in the process. The unanswerable question is what is to be made of the vast additions of entropy to our world?

We took millions of years of organizational efforts and released their entropy within a couple hundred years. Surely there are implications of this.

Minimize Entropy

The war on an unseeable physical property is certainly not going to garner bastions of concerned global denizens. Fight entropy! Philosophical chaos cannot be good!  

Conveniently though, in the context of our modern world this blind, thoughtless entropy creation through combustion of fossil fuels has a parallel story.

The endless entropy created by the combustion of fossil fuels is wasteful and inefficient. So, combatting waste and inefficiency is less abstract. But without a concrete downside, that even is a bit of a Puritanical argument to advocate for less wasteful use. The downside is emissions that are causing the climate crisis. The entropy released by burning fossil fuels is paralleled by the carbon emissions spewed. Those emissions do have a downside.

We’ve bridged the gap.

The war on entropy continues!

Mine your own time.

[1] More precisely, enough greenhouse gasses have been added for 1.5°C of warming, but the earth has only observed 1.1°C of warming because the burning of fossil fuels sends aerosols into the atmosphere that contribute a 0.4°C cooling effect.

Quarantine Sankey Shifts

Last time I sat down to review Sankey charts was in the blissful solitude of lockdowns. At that point, COVID impacts on energy use were not well documented. Now, we’ve got the year of the dip recorded. Time to dig into what it entailed.

The big headline news was that total energy consumption dropped 7.3% to 92.9 Quads! The old school conservationist in me is most encouraged by the absolute drop, to a level not experienced in the 11 year history of the publishing of this chart. Despite this, nearly every prediction is that consumption has already bounced back and will exceed 2019 levels. So, yet again, it will be a tedious wait to see how 2021 responded to 2020.

Before sitting and waiting, let’s see what else there is to get excited about, and where we need to re-dedicate efforts to halt the march of fossil fuel proliferation.

The good news:

• Overall Energy Consumption down 7.3% in 2020

• Overall Energy Efficiency up 0.9% to 32.9% in 2020

• Coal down 19.2% in 2020; Accelerating from 2019 decrease of 14.3%; Down 56.1% since 2010

• Solar up 20.2% in 2020; Accelerated from 2019 growth of 9.6%; Up 862% since 2010

• Wind up 9.9% in 2020; Accelerated from 2019 growth of 8.3%; Up 227% since 2010

• Electricity efficiency had its best year ever at 34.8% efficient, up 1.2%.

• Percentage of non-carbon based energy at highest level yet at 16.5%, up from 14.9%

The news that causes hesitation:

• Natural gas only down 1.9% despite larger drops in residential, commercial, and industrial sectors

• Overall efficiency at 32.9%

  • Still a lot of wasted energy due to fossil fuel reliance

• Transportation only 21% efficient and has flatlined since 2010

  • Impact of efficient EVs still muted by other trends toward larger, less efficient vehicles and predicted increase of single occupant vehicle use

In the absence of a pandemic, this list would have been almost fully positive, but instead, I am full of reservations. Natural gas in buildings is cause for concern as is a stagnating efficiency of the transportation sector despite rapid increases in EVs. Both building and transportation sectors need more aggressive approaches to decarbonize faster, which will in turn cause overall efficiency to increase.

I’m writing this as congress deliberates infrastructure spending and a large budget reconciliation bill that would invest in efficiency and electrification. The overt climate impacts of 2020 were a stark reminder that bold action needs to drive renewables, energy storage, electric vehicles, electric heat pumps, and weatherization.

As said last year…The arc of energy infrastructure is long, but it bends toward decarbonization. May the arc bend a little faster!

Juggling through Quarantine: Imagination and Action for a Clean Energy Economy

I have been juggling three separate books recently: Falter by Bill McKibben; Growth by Vaclav Smil; and After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration by Holly Jean Buck. I am a fairly consummate book starter and over my lifetime, not always the best finisher. I venture to say that this is perhaps not limited to books. Projects, chores, writing, pretty much all fall under this guise. Yet, COVID has been somewhat beneficial to reversing this trend. Let’s just say I’ve had more opportunities to follow through on reading. So, over the next few weeks I have set a personal goal to be better at capturing and sharing my perspectives too. 

Today, I want to start with some thoughts on collective versus individual action. This winter and spring, I have observed a persuasive argument around impact asymmetry. Recent attribution research has concluded that just 20 companies are responsible for 35% of all carbon emissions. The resultant logic can disempower individual action or more forcefully say we are slaves to a corporate monopoly. One conclusion has been that we should not beat the drum of individual action, rather, make these polluters pay. (Of course they should!)

I resonate with the elimination of guilt for the actions of the few. The majority of people should not feel guilty nor should be told to feel guilty if they don’t take action. Most individuals are trapped by their economic position and hardly need guilt layered on top of their already unequal position in society.

It is ironic that one of the tools the fossil fuel industry is wielding to protect their interests is “consumer choice”, when for the majority of their existence consumers had no real choice but to stay addicted to their product. The perpetuation of that addiction and the impact of polluters is deeply troubling. The climate is obviously in a fragile state, and the fact that so few people profited grandly off the destruction of a stable climate is perhaps the worlds greatest example of inequality. But strip away the climate change lens for a second. 

The fact is, these individuals and their companies undermined democracy in order to maintain momentum and advance narrow self-interests. Inordinate wealth and an entire world addicted to their product only increased the economic and political influence over time.

It is for these reasons that every personal action matters. In his book, We Are the Weather, Jonathan Safron Foer makes the case that individual action alone will not solve climate change, but that climate change also will not be solved without individual action. This, I believe, is a healthier message.

Opposition and polarization to clean energy and climate solutions has been ginned up for the very reason that it is a viable solution. There are going to be hard sectors of our economy to decarbonize. Then again, even ten years ago, most people did not imagine renewables to be as competitive as they are today. The metaphorical inch was given then, and enabled reinforcing trends to grab the next mile. Steep cost reductions, more renewable deployments, and many quality jobs created a new political voice. You have to believe those carbon intense businesses are taking notes. Inches are no longer for sale. Continued personal and collective actions will work.

The most dangerous threat is one to a growth narrative.

That is exactly why individual action matters now more than ever. Coronavirus shutdowns have revealed the fragility of unbounded growth narratives. The collapse in oil markets is the most apparent example. How will stock prices adjust when investors realize most of that oil will be kept in the ground?

Further peddling the fossil addiction happens everywhere. Gas utility companies will pay huge incentives to convince individuals to convert their home to gas. The investment is worth it if they can capture a client for a lifetime, and keep convincing shareholders and ratepayers they they have a growing business with declining costs to consumers. 

Every minor victory matters. You don’t have to solve climate change single handedly. In fact you can’t. But you do have the power to change narrative. Individuals can combat growth stories by electrifying their homes and businesses. Heat pumps have changed the math on heating the air and water for our homes. Induction stoves are doing the same for the experience of cooking. Like the promise of the 1970’s all electric homes are once again the safest, healthiest, and cheapest option.

It will never be about just one individual’s actions, but about the rippling effects and the capture of a collective mindset. 

If you follow climate change, you probably read an article ten years ago on how divestment was an ineffective tactic. My alma mater said as much in a letter to us alumni who petitioned them to divest. Economists and investors proselytized a high level view that divesting did not change the number or shares in circulation - they just made them cheaper for someone else who would see the opportunity to get in. However, the shortcomings of that perspective are now on display for all to see. Divestment is working. Fossil fuel companies have started citing downside risks of divestment on their required SEC paperwork.

The growth narrative is over for these huge oil and gas companies, and personal decisions have and will continue to impact that. 

So, if you are in a stable enough position after all this to spend some money to save money, invest in efficiency and invest in electrification. Buy that electric vehicle or replace your gas water heater with a heat pump water heater. These actions do matter and they do influence the imagination of what is possible. Positive change is reinforcing, and it starts with all of us. By flattening the carbon curve, you are also accelerating the clean economy of the future.

If you’re not in a position to make these changes, don’t feel guilty, but do advocate for a cleaner, more democratic future, and encourage those who can afford to do their part. We are in a battle to reimagine our future, and from my perspective, I see a diverse coalition pushing toward a clean, low carbon future. 

Impressions from last year's LLNL Energy Flow Chart

You betcha, it’s back! 2020 has delivered the ultimate energy treat for quarantine.

There were some promising things and some not so promising things about the U.S’s energy infrastructure in 2019.

The good news:

• Overall Energy Consumption down 1% in 2019

• Overall Energy Efficiency up 1% in 2019

• Coal down 14.3% in 2019; 45.7% since 2010

• Solar up 9.6% in 2019; Up 700% since 2010

• Wind up 8.3% in 2019; Up 198% since 2010

• Electricity efficiency had it’s best year ever at 34.4% efficient

• Percentage of non-carbon based energy at highest level yet, 14.9%

The not-so-good news

• Natural gas up 3.5% in 2019; 28.4% since 2010

• Overall efficiency at 32.6%

• Transportation only 21% efficient and has flatlined since 2010

Reviewing this list, it seems that the positives outnumber the negatives, which I’d say is largely accurate. We’re still up against some huge structural issues being the giant total energy demand, the inordinate waste built into the system, and the incumbency of fossil fuels.

That said, I’d say this year is a positive reminder of how much improvement is possible even in the absence of federal support. Imagine the potential if there were high-level initiatives to drive renewables, energy storage, electric vehicles, electric heat pumps, and weatherization.

The arc of energy infrastructure is long, but it bends toward decarbonization.

Strongholds

I recently finished the book, Stronghold , by Tucker Malarkey. The story was motivating on several fronts, including a familial connection between my wife and the primary characters, her first cousins once removed, both the author, Tucker, and the protaganist, Guido. Beyond the subjects being known entities, the narrative follows the life and conservation work of Guido Rahr, someone deeply connected to wild rivers. Via a lifetime of dedication to protecting wild salmon and their intricately interconnected ecosystems, Guido developed a guiding thesis for his life’s work: pure, unadulterated “strongholds” were necessary for the long term success of salmon everywhere. These bastions of ecosystem originalism could help sustain species diversity and also act as scientific references to inform the protection of other salmon habitats worldwide.

It is an open secret that lack of protection, regulation, and appropriate economic signals combined with ever accelerating development has caused the disappearance of salmon from regions where they once thrived. Wild Atlantic Salmon are mostly gone while watersheds up and down the west coast of the United States have eradicated salmon due to the introduction of large dams, clear cut forestry, and industrial agriculture.

The inspiration in the story comes from a few main sources. First, Guido is a unique character with a singular passion. Second, the millions of acres of protected habitat speak to the power of conservation. Third, there is an appeal to bio-mimicry, that we must think on a larger scale about interconnection - human and natural.

As a matter of course, I projected Guido’s strategy to a subject that I am intimately passionate about, the war on entropy. Rather, I posed the question to myself: how can we apply the idea of Strongholds to our energy production and consumption? For too long, society has relegated energy efficiency to the subservience of the almighty “cost-effectiveness” God. In practice, this subservience has created a lot of inaction.

Part of the magic of conservation is that it appeals to a higher order. Certain natural environments should be protected for their intrinsic value and appeal. This can be found in National Parks, Wilderness areas, and remote, protected regions around the world.

The energy landscape needs similar inspirations and we should invest in creating those to inspire others that there is a better way than sinking investments in the status quo. For convenience and comfort, we are addicted to coal, “natural” a.k.a. fracked gas, and oil. Yet the consumption of these fuels directly leads to the destruction of ecosystems and the destruction of our climate system. By using these fuels without second thought, we are providing the moral license for industry to continue their acts of destruction. But is important that we do not ascribe blame on individuals, because we are all puppets of industries who want us to pretend there is no harm.

We need to scale Strongholds by proving their capabilities. We know if works on a small scale. Homes can be built or retrofitted to produce as much energy as they consume, and have no emissions. But an individual home’s impact is small. We must create neighborhoods where each home is a producer and consumer of energy and can share with one another. On site, battery energy storage could negate the need for distant, centralized fossil fuel power plants. Energy needs beyond the home could be supplemented by more localized renewables and storage to power electric vehicles and commercial needs. Islands, cities, and increasingly larger regions will all eventually be enveloped as Strongholds emerge.

The truth is: we know this method can scale, it is a matter of investment and action. In the way we’ve mobilized capital for conservation, we need to invest in the projects that will inspire people to see the possibility of moving beyond carbon. Just like Guido’s success in bringing people to the river, actions are motivated by first hand experience. Only when people see the possibilities, will we be able to continue loosening the stranglehold of fossil fuels on our society. Every Stronghold chips away at their influence and provides space for an alternative future. This is why I feel rejuvenated after reading Stronghold.