Our planet faces a grave threat from global warming and climate change, which are caused largely by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases generated by human activity. Yet readily available energy technologies could be put in use today to forestall their worst effects. In this issue of Technology Review, we examine some of these technologies and argue that they require not further refinement but a considered, long-term strategy for their deployment. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide -- the most common greenhouse gas -- have shot up 32 percent in the last 150 years. Geological evidence and climate science suggest that we are approaching a tipping point beyond which sea levels will rise catastrophically. Nevertheless, immediate steps to sharply reduce emissions could still prevent the worst consequences of global warming, according to famed NASA climatologist Jim Hansen (see "The Messenger," by Mark Bowen). In the meantime, however, humankind is increasing, not decreasing, consumption of fossil fuels -- and even getting cleverer about extracting them (see "The Oil Frontier," by Bryant Urstadt). For the foreseeable future, we will continue to burn fossil fuels: they now provide 80 percent of the world's energy, and global energy demand will at least double by 2050. "Controlling carbon dioxide while also doubling energy use is a rather remarkable challenge to contemplate," mused Ernest J. Moniz, an MIT physicist and former undersecretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, earlier this year as he discussed an MIT research and education initiative aimed at confronting the energy crisis. In meeting this remarkable challenge, we must, in particular, address the problem of coal. It is among the largest sources of carbon dioxide and, regrettably, is also the cheapest and most abundant fossil fuel. But cleaner technology -- in which carbon dioxide could be captured and sequestered -- is ready to go into new coal plants now (see "The Dirty Secret," by David Talbot). Similarly, improved versions of today's nuclear power plants await construction (see "The Best Nuclear Option," by Matthew L. Wald). Unfortunately, implementation of cleaner technologies has been thwarted by federal aimlessness. The Energy Department keeps changing its nuclear-research strategy, and a "FutureGen" zero-emission coal demonstration project announced three and a half years ago by President Bush hasn't yet picked a site. At least one alternative energy technology is also coming into its own. Ethanol production from biomass is already a booming business in Brazil (see "Brazil's Bounty," by Stephan Herrera); with help from bioengineered organisms, it could soon be efficient enough to compete directly with traditional energy sources (see "Redesigning Life to Make Ethanol," by Jamie Shreeve). There is no escaping the reality that in the end, we will need an energy economy based on solar, wind, and other renewables (see "It's Not Too Early," by Marty Hoffert). We'd like to have an all-renewable energy portfolio today. But we cannot wait any longer for new technologies, as Joseph Romm, an Energy Department renewable-energy official during President Clinton's administration, made clear at a conference in April. "The point is," he said, "whatever technology we've got now -- that's what we are stuck with to avoid catastrophic warming." |



Comments
Guest (Mac) on 07/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
-Ethanol? Still a net energy looser.
-Nuclear energy? an Atomic power station using high-grade uranium ores would have to run from seven to 10 years before they create enough power to cancel out the energy required to establish them (mining, uranium enrichment, etc..), all CO2 emiting energy consumption.
-finally, acording to the las reports, if we cut RIGHT NOW our CO2 emissions to CERO, the planet would take at least 50 years to get to where it was in 1990 climate wise.
It´s starting to sound like your source of information is the Bush Administration.
Guest (Ben Barrowes) on 07/25/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
opinions or evidence. This is unfortunate and disappointing coming from a magazine of TR's
stature, especially under the auspices of MIT.
Many scientists, including Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
do not agree with the "man is the cause of an impending global warming catastrophe" theory.
Here are a couple of other articles presenting an alternative viewpoint on "global warming"
"Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe"
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
"The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'"
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
TR's not even presenting the possibility of dissent on such a important issue represents
substandard scientific journalism.
Guest (gnomic) on 07/29/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Scientific journalism does not mean presenting every crackpot point of view. Good job TR!
Guest (Al Brown) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Jerry P) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Nimish) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
So many tech. advance has cuased harmful effect to humans e.g. Asbestose, DDT etc.. and we have acted to ellimiate via better product/process..
Why would not go for improvement ? Is there a clear reason you have NOT going that direction.. irrespective of TR has put opposite view point or not ?
Lets have a dialoge where we can contribute to filtering the information and provide a better solution rather then just dismissing the idea.
HTH
Nimish
Guest (Erik) on 08/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202447,00.html
Guest (K. John Morrow Jr.) on 08/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
uinclan on 08/24/2006 at 12:59 PM
1
michel on 08/28/2006 at 6:41 PM
3
Guest (Jerry P) on 07/25/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (mike) on 07/28/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (gnomic) on 07/29/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Jerry P) on 07/31/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Nimish) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Surity is in data trending.. Several fronts a) Glacial data b) birds migration..
The nature has its timers/factor/process, however we afffect the nature by producing carbon and other polution..
Simply put - if running car engine in garage can harm you.. Imagine bilions of carbon-entities emitting the carbons and its outcome..Imagine how simple ATOM if diffused properly can trun into ATOMIC bomb. Aggrate of small partical generate the effect which may not be as clear as simply on-off logic..
Further reading - Natinal Geographic had major artical on "Global WARNING"
HTH
Nimish
Guest (Jerry P) on 08/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/hot_summer_nights
Look at the numbers. Ask yourself how many cars where on the road 96, 81, 20+ or 15 years ago?
For me the math doesn’t work for a causal relationship. Please, point me in the right direction!
Guest (Kha) on 08/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Andre S) on 08/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
One question I have though for the scientists. How much of global warming is due to the information age? Are we just using _much_ more energy for all our computers, gadgets etc? Are cars getting more than their fair share of the blame?
Just a question for debate.
Guest (Margherite) on 08/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
I would also like to know whether the testing of military undersea acoustic projectors, intended to fry submarine radio communications and immobilize the occupants, contribute to the violence and frequency of tsunamis.
There is much more disturbance going on in recent years than the addition of emissions from a couple million SUVs.
Guest (Mark Bahner) on 08/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
You mean, like fusion?
I predict that, 50 years from now, fusion will provide more energy than any "renewable" source (e.g. solar, wind).
And by the end of the century, the world will be powered by fusion. (But probably not tokamak fusion.)
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/alternatives_to.html
Why, in an entire series of articles devoted to future energy sources, was fusion mentioned in a single throw-away line (as an example of wasted money)?
Guest (Andre S) on 08/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
What is your take on China's fusion attempt (via what their call the 'Artificial Sun')?
Guest (Mark Bahner) on 08/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
I hadn't heard about it. I see it's a superconducting tokamak.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/175922.htm
Nuclear physics/engineering isn't my specialty, but from the little I know, it seems to me that tokamaks are a dead end. Sort of like airplanes with movable wings.
On the other hand, everything I've read about plasma focus fusion has really impressed me:
http://www.focusfusion.org/
It's aneutronic. The plasmoids provide their own magnetic field. It generates electricity directly (without generating steam and running a turbine). It seems very...elegant.
I find it absolutely mind-boggling that probably the most advanced tests in the world in plasma focus technology are going to be conducted in *Chile.*
Mark
DogFight on 08/18/2006 at 3:49 PM
2
pilotjim99 on 08/28/2006 at 1:09 AM
5
Concerning Deuterium. Deuterium is used in "heavy water reactors" as a moderator, to slow down the neutrons in the fission reaction. Deuterium exists naturally in about 1 part per 5000 of normal water. It's not like there are hidden pockets of Deuterium to be found ala oil exploration. There are also "light water reactors" that use normal water as a moderator. Thus, no deuterium issue, even if one imagines a pending deuterium shortage. The main difference between light and heavy water reactors is that the light water reactors require Uranium that has been enriched, while the heavy water reactors can use the Uranium essentially as mined. Lastly, graphite is also used as a moderator in some designs.
I'm certainly not against other forms of energy, e.g., solar, wind, hydro. But lets not discard nuclear on unfounded critiques.
DogFight on 08/28/2006 at 2:11 PM
2
pilotjim99 on 08/29/2006 at 3:49 PM
5
We have no real idea what needs will be in 350 years anyway. It's not a useful measure, especially if one's analysis consists of drawing a straight line from some historical point.
Renewables are great, but nuclear is going to be done also. Other countries are already doing it. We'll come around.
michel on 08/28/2006 at 7:42 PM
3
asdar on 08/29/2006 at 10:07 AM
60
I'd like to see nuclear reactors being built, PV Solar, Thermal Solar, Solar concentrators, bio-fuel, various wind power and anything else that comes along that can be tested and proven to be cost effective in the long term.
Anything that has a sure long term positive in my opinion and like the Hoover dam I think should be funded by the government.
Nuclear isn't sustainable because of the waste and materials required, but for all practical purposes it's sustainable for generations.
If nothing else I think Nuclear is a relatively long term stop gap until we can set up a renewable power supply.
pilotjim99 on 08/29/2006 at 3:39 PM
5
Given current fission technology, including reprocessing, nuclear is "sustainable" for a 1,000+ years, even considering increases in consumption. That buys a little time to work the challenges in less mature technologies, like fusion.
I'm all for solar, wind, and hydro, but in the near term, nuclear is a more viable large scale replacement for the world's energy consumption needs.