Nathan Myhrvold is a polymath's polymath, the former chief technology officer at Microsoft who, by the time he was 23, had earned, primarily at UCLA and Princeton, a bachelor's degree (mathematics), two master's degrees (geophysics/space physics and mathematical economics), and a Ph.D. (mathematical physics). He is co-founder of Intellectual Ventures, a firm comprising many other scientists, including climate scientists, whose counterintuitive views on global warming and its possible solutions are explored in the final chapter of SuperFreakonomics. A climate-activist blogger didn't like the chapter, accusing Levitt and Dubner of chicanery (a charge that Dubner rebuffed here) and accusing Myhrvold of not understanding the physics behind solar power. Oops. Below you can read Myhrvold's views on the tenor of the global-warming debate in general and solar power in particular. Watch this space for further rebuttals of shouted claims of error and evil.
One of the saddest things for me about climate science is how political it has become. Science works by having an open dialog that ultimately converges on the truth, for the common benefit of everyone. Most scientific fields enjoy this free flow of ideas.
There are serious scientific and technological issues in studying our climate, how it responds to human-caused emission of greenhouse gases, and what the most effective solutions will be for global warming. But unfortunately, the policy implications are vast and there is a lot at stake in economic terms.
It seems inevitable that discussions of climate science would degenerate to being deeply politicized and polarized. Depending on which views are adopted, individuals, industries, and countries will gain or lose, which provides ample motive. Once people with a strong political or ideological bent latch onto an issue, it becomes hard to have a reasonable discussion; once you're in a political mode, the focus in the discussion changes. Everything becomes an attempt to protect territory. Evidence and logic becomes secondary, used when advantageous and discarded when expedient. What should be a rational debate becomes a personal and venal brawl. Rational, scientific debate that could advance the common good gets usurped by personal attacks and counterattacks.
Political movements always have extremists -- bitterly partisan true believers who attack anybody they feel threatens their movement. I'm sure you know the type, because his main talent is making himself heard. He doesn't bother with making thoughtful arguments; instead, his technique is about shrill attacks in all directions, throwing a lot of issues up and hoping that one will stick or that the audience becomes confused by the chaos. These folks can be found at the fringe of every political movement, throughout all of history. Technology has amplified them in recent years. First with talk radio and then with cable TV, the extremists found larger and larger audiences.
The Internet provides the ultimate extremist platform. Every blogger can reach millions, and given the lack of scrutiny or review over content, there is little accountability. Indeed, the more over-the-top the discourse is the better -- because it is entertaining. Ancient Romans watched gladiators in much the same way that we read angry bloggers.
That seems to be the case with Joe Romm, a blogger with strong views about global warming and what he calls "climate progress." In a recent series of blog posts, Romm levels one baseless, bald charge after another. What provoked this? The best summary I've seen comes from a comment by DaveyNC to the Freakonomics blog which says:
No, no, no, no -- you have committed apostasy; heresy! You are not allowed to speak of warming except in the most emotional, alarmist tones!
You are not allowed to follow an objective, skeptical line of reasoning in this matter. You are not allowed to consider whether or not it is cost-efficient or even possible to cease all carbon emissions; you simply must do it.
That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell. SuperFreakonomics dares to comment on climate issues in a manner that Romm sees as contrary to his agenda, so he sets out to smear the book and me as a figure in the book.
Romm's method of attack is pretty simple. He takes as many statements as he can, interprets them -- or misinterprets them in the worst possible way -- and then subjects them to ridicule. As an example, he goes on and on about a comment that I made about how solar photovoltaic cells have a problem because they are black. Romm attacks me as if I think that this means that solar cells are bad. Yet that wasn't the point in SuperFreakonomics at all. I am quoted in the book as follows:
As an example he points to solar power. "The problem with solar cells is that they
The biggest problem is that journalists and politicians don't understand the scientific process. The dialog in science, as you said, is undertaken to converge on truth. The dialog in politics is, at least in the current US system, a means to express a more and more radical position in an effort to garner publicity and votes. Journalism in its current US embodiment is a he-said-she-said, "balanced" effort to avoid having anything to do with truth - it's easier to report the controversy. So neither journalists nor politicians understand dialog by people with differing positions in an effort to come to the truth, all the people with the loudest megaphones understand is conflict; therefore, scientific dialog is presented as if it were a position rather than an effort to discover truth.
ResponderEliminar> So for every watt of electricity they generate, current solar cells throw about 10 watts into the climate as heat
ResponderEliminarMaybe I'm thick, but this part doesn't make sense to me, and it seems like it's the lynchpin of your defense. Where do these 10 watts come from? Aren't they from solar energy that was here already? It can't be the case that solar panels generate more energy than they receive from the sun. (Unless you're saying that the solar panels manufacture energy, which isn't possible according to the physics I understand.)
Awesome post! Very very good points made there.
ResponderEliminarIt is really too bad how many people don't want to hear it though. They want to live in their own little green world - even if it isn't green; odd isn't it.
Excellent follow up - I agree with your take on geo-engineering completely. Keep fighting the good fight!
ResponderEliminarPersonally, I am not convinced of the "truth" of AGW. Some days, it's tempting to simply pick a side and start throwing rocks. But it's rational, calm, methodical explanations like Mr. Myhrvold's that convince me that common sense may one day prevail, and that "deniers" and "believers" might actually find some common ground on this divisive issue.
ResponderEliminar[And I thought the abortion chapter in the first book was controversial!]
This isn't exactly related to the article, but it is inspired by it. Ever since Socrates (at least) each generation has been complaining about the moral failings of the next. Is it the same way with politics? We feel like the internet has radicalized politics, but has it really done so, or have people felt like this since the dawn of politics?
ResponderEliminar"If we go hell-bent for leather in building solar plants for the next 50 years or so, it is entirely possible that we won
ResponderEliminarJeffrey, those watts are gained from absorption of solar radiation that would otherwise be *reflected* into space by a lighter colored ground cover. When you see the earth's deserts from space, they appear light in color because they're very reflective, and all that light energy is dissipated into space. Solar panel farms would appear dark in color because their black surfaces absorb most of the light, and most of what they absorb just heats up the panels, which in turn heat the air around the panels, raising atmospheric temperatures slightly. It's a small effect, but in the quantities we're talking, it adds up. In this case, 10w of atmospheric heat per 1w of electricity generated. (Of course, even that 1w of electricity eventually turns into heat, too!)
ResponderEliminarNathan - as a scientist (theoretical chemical physics) that lives in a hotbed of environmental shrillness (Boulder, CO) I feel your pain. Thanks for being so eloquent about how science works. I say it everyday (though not as good as you) an people never get it.
ResponderEliminarJeffery - what Nathan is saying is that there are 11 watts of energy coming in from the sun, the solar cell turns that into 1 watt of electricity and 10 watts of heat (bad for global warming). If the solar cell weren't there and the 11 watts of energy from the sun hit the desert sand, 1/2 of that would be reflected back into outer space, so only about 5 watts would be turned to heat.
Solar cell: 11W sun -> 1W electricity + 10W heat
Desert sand: 11W sun -> 5W heat + 6W reflected to outer space
@ Nosybear
ResponderEliminarAbsolutely agreed. I would love t osee people actually have a discussion (a real one) about the scientific principles involved, as well as the relative merits of various solutions.
Unfortunately politics precludes reason, logic and thoughtful disucssion. People are just too emotionaly involved.
I'm a little confused by your numbers. In your initial calculation, you calculate the cost of *building* a solar panel, and compare them to the cost of *running* a coal plant. In other words, in your accounting of CO2 costs, you omit the costs per watt of building a coal plant.
ResponderEliminarThis omission would only be correct if one assumes that the solar panel is being built solely to replace the output of a previously existing coal plant. But that's not really true. Due to the increasing energy requirements of our world, the real question being asked is whether to build a coal plant *or* a solar panel to meet new energy demand. In that scenario, one must compare the cost per watt of building the coal plant vs the solar panel, then compare the cost per watt of running each device, to get a true measure of the total costs and "break-even" point of each strategy.
Most environmentalists (I suspect), aren't advocating shutting down all the fossil fuel plants and switching completely. After all, there's been a massive investment of capital (and CO2 emissions!) to build the plants. At most, what they advocate is that when these plants reach the end of their useful life and need to be replaced one way or another, that we should consider building green plants.
At any rate, without taking into account the carbon cost of building a new coal plant, you're break even analysis is inaccurate for the most common scenario we face today.
Why, thank you, Mr. Myrhvold! I may have to get out of my pajamas now before I post here.
ResponderEliminarIt is a shame that the mere mention of another possibility besides anthropogenic causes for global warming results in the collapse of any further useful discussion. We're not even allowed to mention that there will be benefits to warming. I am certain that the people of Iceland and Greenland will enjoy being able to grow crops for a longer period of time each year.
One gloomy day, when I wasn't feeling well enough to leave the house, I forced myself to read the IPCC Summary. I was startled to learn that it does not represent scientific consensus. In fact, it represents political consensus on how the findings of the IPCC will be presented. A review is conducted of various studies in a given area and depending on that review, the IPCC will state that X "may" cause warming or it "does" cause warming or it "is possible" that it causes warming. In other words, if the various reviewed studies split 60-40 on a topic, then the IPCC will say that it "may" cause warming. And then everybody agrees that "may" is the right word and it gets printed that way. That hardly changes the underlying science. The science, to this layman's reading of the report, is most definitely not settled.
I think your post sort of proves a point that I have seen in several posts. Basically that the chapter while it might have had good intentions, was not written by people who completely understand the issues and can explain them in layman terms clearly and unequivocally (like you have done), and hence the overall feel of the chapter might not be the one L&D intended.
ResponderEliminarI don't have a problem with this point, and I haven't read the chapter, but I would like to see a Freakonomics response to the relatively persuasive points of Paul Krugman, to wit that the authors misrepresented authors' intentions in quoting their papers... can you guys post some kind response to those critiques?
ResponderEliminarMr. Myhrvold,
ResponderEliminarYour words on the blog are very different in tone and content from what readers will find in the book. Particularly, your view that "Geoengineering is proposed only as a last resort to try to reduce or cope with the even greater harms of global warming! " is not reflected in the book at all. Instead, the books presents geoengineering as an alternative to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, the book goes out of its way to justify the presence of excess CO2 in the atmosphere and to discount its role in disrupting our climate and that is where many of its scientific errors are made.
While I appreciate you clarifying your views here, you must admit that readers who read the book, but fail to read your blog post will walk away with the exact opposite impression you leave here.
Thanks,
Aaron Huertas
Union of Concerned Scientists
I imagine that you omit the costs of building a coal plant because it's already built. The debt has been incurred and is no longer relevant since you're trying to claw back *future* emissions.
ResponderEliminarNow you can make the case that you can start replacing coal plants with solar plants, or compare the marginal differences in choosing solar over a coal plant for newer capacity. But the context is that swapping an extant infrastructure to a new technology creates the carbon debt, despite the fact that the new tech is carbon-free in its running. Then it's highly relevant to ask about the sunken costs of building a new solar plant for the sole purpose of eventually decommissioning a coal-burning plant that still has many years of life left.
"Where do these 10 watts come from? "
ResponderEliminarThey come from the sun. When you put on a black shirt in the sun it gets warmer than when you put a white one, right? that difference in energy is the energy that was not reflected, but turned into heat instead.
In this case, change a white t-shirt for the desert and a black one for a solar cell
Oops. Forgot to include one more question-
ResponderEliminarI appreciate your discussion of the effect of the different albedos for solar panels and the ground. It's something I hadn't seen before. While I would agree with you that solar panels, by not utilizing all the heat they absorb, and reflecting much less than the underlying land would have, ultimately radiate more heat than the underlying land would.
However, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that the overwhelming source of the "greenhouse effect" is the composition of the atmosphere and its ability to absorb radiated heat and reflect it back to the earth. In other words, whether light gets absorbed (solar panels) or reflected (ground) makes a difference only in the ultimate wavelengths (infrared in the former, and visible light in the latter) that the energy is radiated back to the atmosphere. Ultimately, it all still gets radiated back.
While this does have an effect on whether the energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases and reflected back to us (due to the specific absorption profiles of the different gases: most of what they can absorb is infrared), by far the larger factor is whether that greenhouse gas is present in the first place. In other words, the fact that the solar panel emits less CO2 means that on balance, it causes less "greenhouse effect" *even though* it also radiates more infrared light.
I haven't read your full chapter (although I'll probably stop by the bookstore and check out the book now :-), so I'm not sure if you account for this, but I do believe that in terms of relative importance, the CO2 that isn't released into the air is far more important to the overall temperature than the lower albedo of solar panels.
Indeed, according to Wikipedia (search for greenhouse effect), if there were no greenhouse effects and we relied solely on the black body radiation of the earth's surface (which is what factors like albedo affect), the average surface temperature could be as low as -0.4F vs 57F that it is now.
So, this is the chapter's point:
ResponderEliminar"The point of the chapter in SuperFreakonomics is that geoengineering might be good insurance in case we don
Dr. Myhrvold,
ResponderEliminarThanks for the explanation--you have inspired me to go look at more complete calculations. I suspect that when you measure thermal heat exhausted plus energy spent in mining of the coal versus the difference in albedo, solar comes out ahead, but it's certainly a calculation worth making if you care about global warming.
I would suggest, however, that you leave the first 5-10 paragraphs out of your post when you are forced to make this argument again in the future. No need to spend time urging us to keep the debate on the science--just keep the debate on the science and we will get the point.
MR, you're entirely right, and the critics who do a magnificent job of refuting many of the technical problems in this chapter have said exactly the same thing. Among their critiques:
ResponderEliminarFirst, much of the time solar panels get put on roofs, which are many different colours and have widely varying absorption specra. With the ongoing desertification in the world, we're honestly calculating the loss from a few hectares of solar panels every hundred kilometers as being significant?
Second, that secondary heat can also be put to use, to heat water or glycol that can also be used to generate electricity as well - or simply be used to heat, particularly in the Northern hemisphere.
Third, solar panel efficiency is getting better all the time - it's around 18% these days (and Honda has one that's 28-30%, but it's pricey.)
Fourth, nobody's seriously suggesting doing solar power in isolation (almost wrote "insolation.") Urban heat islands are a problem, that's why emphasis is now on things like green roofs, park and wilderness areas, and alternative construction methods.
Good post! Albedos, energy used during production, acknowledgement of the fact that people aren't going to drastically cut consumption... all things rarely mentioned when speaking of solutions.
ResponderEliminarI don't know about his whole "science" thing, but it seems like it could really help inform some of the political opinions around this climate issue.
Mr. Myhrvold,
ResponderEliminarYou make a number of reasonable points about the tone of dialogue, especially on the internet (e.g., polarized debate, protecting territory, primary goal of being heard, etc.). Interestingly, on blogs devoted to global warming relata, each "side" thinks the data are with them, and it is only the other side that is politicized.
You also mention that the Superfreakonomics chapter "...did not explain all the numbers and details behind the comment on solar cells, but it is not supposed to. Instead, it touched on the highlights..."
I disagree here - on several of the topics, the lack of numbers can be misleading and can further polarize a discussion. For example, take your break-even time of 2.7 yrs for solar vs. coal plants. The time frame is crucial to deciding whether it's worth it to build solar. A qualitative statement, without specifics to the effect that solar has costs that we should consider vs. coal leaves us to wonder about the extent of the costs - with just the slightest motivation, some people will assume that the costs are huge, and others negligible. It's better to tether the issue when possible than to leave it to everyone's imagination.
Hunter,
You mention that you're not convinced about the "truth" of AGW, but you appreciate Mr. Myhrvold's "calm, methodical explanations." Take a look at the scientific literature for much, much, much more of the same, in even greater detail... You'll find the science is understated, and basics of the AGW picture clear.
Oops, that should have been 6.7W-4.6W. The answer, 2.1W, was correct.
ResponderEliminarWell, I have ordered the book, so I will read the chapter. I am not a scientist, and my knowledge of economics is limited to a BA.
ResponderEliminarI believe Gavin Schmidt of real climate dot org took a look at the geo-engineering concept. I don
Dr. Myhrvold,
ResponderEliminarI fear you are somewhat overestimating the albedo and LCA impacts of solar PV. Lets examine a hypothetical 1 m^2 panel in California's Mohave Desert.
Lets assume a 12% efficiency panel (PV_eff = 0.12).
An insolation of 6.6 kWh / m^2 / day (insolation = 6.6, characteristic of the Mohave Desert per NREL).
A carbon intensity of grid electricity of 0.387 kg CO2 per kWh (grid_CO2 = 0.387, based on eGRID numbers for CAMX grid and CA's average transmission losses).
A 20-year-lifetime-weighted carbon intensity of electricity from PV panels from Ruether et al 2004 of 0.18 kg CO2 per kWh (pv_CO2 = 0.18, almost 50% of the emission of a grid kWh).
The albedo effects of our PV panel are a bit harder to model, but lets use the white roof numbers from Akbari 2008 who modeled a 100 kg per m^2 CO2_eq reduction from painting black roofs white (assuming for the moment that putting PV panels over sand is the equivalent of painting a white roof black). We should modify this estimate to take into account the fact that the insolation in Mohave (6.6 kWh / m^2 / day) is considerably higher than the national average (around 5 kWh / m^2 / day), so this becomes 100 * 6.6 / 5 = 132 kg CO2_eq per m^2 albedo forcing. Lets call this albedo_forcing.
Now, we get the lifecycle carbon savings from our 1 m^2 PV panel by the equation:
Lifetime_CO2 = PV_eff * insolation * 365.25 * panel_lifetime * (grid_CO2 - pv_CO2) - albedo_forcing
A quick check sees that the "albedo debt" from the panel is paid off in 27 months, and over the expected 20-year life of the panel it saves 1065.6 kg CO2 relative to the base case of using grid electricity.
Now, this is a fairly simple analysis, and the big uncertainty is the albedo number used (though the roof-derived numbers should give us a ballpark figure).
Zeke Hausfather
Yale Climate Media Forum
yaleclimatemediaforum.org/
One of the things that Nathan doesn
ResponderEliminarIn your treatment of solar cell efficiency here you say that solar cells are only 9-13% efficient with low albedo; i.e. unconverted light turns into heat. This does not have to be the case.
ResponderEliminarEven today's solar cells are very efficient at converting light energy (percentage in high 90's) **of the wavelengths they can convert.** It turns out that only ~9-13% of sunlight energy is in these convertible wavelengths and that's where your cited efficiency number comes from.
The "blackness" of solar cells can be mitigated if coatings are added to the cells to reflect all wavelengths that cannot be converted. This wouldn't change the overall efficiency of the cells (we can't change the composition of sunlight), but coatings could make their albedo perhaps as high as .8 or more. (.91=1-.09 to .87=1-.13)
Today these coatings would be prohibitive in cost, but mass production could change this.
We can get to it later but for now I'll ignore your albedo argument...
ResponderEliminarThere are three options in building solar plants:
1. We are replacing the current power plant only to save carbon
2.There is more demand for energy so we need more overall power
3.The coal plant needs replaced because it is old (or something).
You assume the first to be true because you compare carbon costs of an operating plant to building a solar plant. Ok, let's take that assumption.
Why is it bad to spend two years and nine months of carbon straight away? Politicians are giving us until 2050 to solve the problem. That would be 40 years of carbon at the current rates. We are talking about hypothetically solving the problem in two years and nine months.
In fact, how is geoengineering a fail safe when this is a solution that takes, and I repeat, two years and nine months?
The science behind the claims related to CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere has been developing quite slowly over the past few decades with careful debate and progress in the science through specialized forums. Because the issue has found scientific legitimacy, it has finally broken through the glass ceiling of the scientific cathedral and reached us. The contentious political discussion is not related to the validity of it's claims, but because the theory of global warming has immense geopolitical implications that affect an infinite number of vested interests it has and will always generate inflammatory remarks for everybody actively involved. It is like the debate on health care in the USA. The technical aspects can be worked out but the political interests are not very malleable. One should not be surprised by this shrillness. At least people are not being sent to the gallows or burned alive. Yet.
ResponderEliminarIan...that's exactly the point. It's a complex system. The numbers change daily based on a nearly infinite set of possible inputs. So, in actuality, it's more productive to think less specifically. This is why we need to be very wary of "experts" showing up with point solutions. This isn't an issue that can be addressed that way.
ResponderEliminarTo the Author and Jeffrey McManus:
ResponderEliminarWouldn't the difference in heat thrown off by solar panels be something like the difference between the heat thrown off by the 'natural desert floor' (near .4 or .5) and the heat thrown off by the near-black solar panels of (near 0.1).
In other words, it wouldn't be 1 watt of solar electricity generation versus 10 watts of solar heat generation, because a good amount of that solar heat generation would have occurred, regardless due to the albedo of the desert floor.
So, instead, 1 watt of solar electricity may be generated vs perhapd a 30 to 40% increase in heat generation at that one location in a vast desert.
Yes, there would be an increase in heat created by the solar plant, but it would be nothing like 10 to 1 for solar heat vs solar electricity, once existing heat is taken into account.
I believe Jeffrey McManus is correct. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be avoided.
The amount of solar energy present remains the same. What changes is the amount reflected vs absorbed, causing some percentage increase in atmospheric heating over the comparatively small solar plant acreage vs vast area of the desert.
As an example he points to solar power[1,2].
ResponderEliminarIt seems that you are comparing coal plant waste heat to solar panel waste heat to estimate the benefits yet ignore the heat from increased CO2 in the atmosphere which is an order of magnitude larger than the waste heat.
ResponderEliminarFirst of all, let's apply the maxim of unintended consequences to geoEngineering. If ever there was a scenario where unintended consequences could be fatal, this is it!
ResponderEliminarSecondly, we have to be careful when people confuse science and engineering. We are talking about engineering solutions to the threat of global warming - not science. The distinction is that science is about revolutions, engineering is about tradeoffs. And it's the tradeoffs that we would have to make to stabilize our climate that cause the uproar and the politics. As any professional engineer will tell you, marketing (in this case politics) and engineering are always in tension. The politicians always want it too soon, too perfect and too cheap, and all the engineers can do is work with what science gives us.
Excellent post. One point I would make is that the surface area required by the solar cells are utterly insignificant on a global scale. Scientific American had a story on a plan for complete solar power for the USA, with a plant that would take up some 200 square miles (iirc) and could be built in 50 years (with current tech).
ResponderEliminarPoint is, that is such a minute area compared to the entire earth that it would have no effect on earth's albedo.
"Regardless of whether the numbers are 1, 2, 4, or some other sequence ... the three-year break-even times start to overlap and pile up as we build more and more plants."
ResponderEliminarSo you're saying that even if we could replace all coal plants this year with solar plants, atmospheric carbon would be higher (for 3 years) than if we'd done nothing at all.
This is true, but deeply misleading. Our goal is to minimize peak atmospheric CO2 levels, which means summing net CO2 emissions every year and trying to minimize the maximum value.
To achieve that goal, whether we've got a 1-year, 2-year, or 10-year CO2 "debt" for solar power, the earlier we make the conversion, the lower peak atmospheric CO2 levels will be. Do the math.
Emphasizing peak emissions rather than peak CO2 levels is either foolish or downright disingenuous.
This was absolutely a great post. It provided a lot of insight and relayed information that i was unaware of, and think that we all need to consider. Although I found the information to be very clear and explanatory, there are still a few people that are somehow able to misinterpret the information you have provided. Those people should read the piece over a couple times.
ResponderEliminarLets start by looking at thermal energy rejected by power plants and compare that with the energy balance on planet earth. Looking at various sources, we see the earth is getting hit with somewhere between 160,000 to 174,000 terawatts of solar energy. Power plants on our planet use about 16 terawatts, with 80-90% coming from fossil fuels such as coal, oil or gas, so this heat is added to the incoming energy from sunlight (not mentioned in your analysis).
ResponderEliminarThe actual average thermal efficiency of power plants is closer to 35% compared to the 50% thermal efficiency you used in your calculations. Solar panels get between 10-20% thermal efficiency of the absorbed sunlight, but CSP (solar thermal) plants get 35-45% thermal efficiencies on the absorbed sunlight.
If we do the calculations, the amount of thermal heat added to the atmosphere from fossil fuel power plants is about 14.5 terawatts.
If all the fossil fuel plants were replaced with solar panels, then the panels would intercept roughly 120 terawatts, and reflect and re-radiate roughly 88% of that energy, with rest going to the electricity consumer. You focus on the difference in albedo in your analysis, which might be as high as as 40-50%, although most roofs or parking lots would have similar albedos compared to the panels so the difference is minor. But you forget and ignore the long wave radiation from the panels. Most of the LWR is going to make its way up and out of the atmosphere; although the LWR is going to be absorbed and reradiated several times. Eventually the net outflow will be most of the LWR from the solar panels (likely over 98%). If the electricity produced is consumed and adds to heating of the atmosphere, eventually much of it will escape outward as well.
CSP projects will have a substantially lower albedo, reflect more light, generate power with higher thermal efficiencies, and thus the the amount of sunlight intercepted will be less. It is funny how you decided "black" solar panels would be placed in your high albedo deserts, but ignored the much more likely mirrors of a solar concentrating thermal project. ( Hmmm, didn't fit your politics?) But the net effect of both solar power technologies in terms of adding thermal energy to the planetary system is about the same; very close to a net of zero.
But fossil fuel plants added the "mined" thermal energy directly additive to the incoming solar energy. So in terms of net thermal energy added to the planetary system, fossil fuel plants are much worse, contrary to the comments about the "trouble with solar panels is that they are black".
In spite of all of this, not very many people are concerned about the thermal energy release of these power sources.. the releases are almost insignificant compared to the planetary heat balance, as the number above show. Contrary to the statements in the SuperF chapter, the problem isn't the heat directly, its the increased concentration of greenhouse gases intercepting outgoing long wave radiation. One molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere, and causing increased water vapor positive feedback, will end up trapping over 100,000 times the energy released when the carbon was burned to CO2.
So the statement "the problem with solar panels is that they are black". Total nonsense.
And if you use photovoltaics manufactured with low carbon technology like CdTe or CIGS and use those 'thin film' panels to shade structures which would otherwise have to be air conditioned solar looks a little better and If you run some capillary tube mats along the back side of the panels you can capture some of that waste heat for domestic hot water and space heating.
ResponderEliminarAt any rate the old model which keeps householders dependent on capital intensive and centralized infrastructure for their lights and heat is not the most efficient. The beauty of solar is it comes to you and 'they' can't leave you freezing in the dark because you're short of cash. It's infrastructure you can own and take with you and you can get it tailored to your needs (from a 5 watt cell phone charger with a solar shower bag to 12 kilowatts of hybrid pv/thermal on your barn to charge your new electric car and warm your hot tub).
It is interesting that you omit the beginning of the quote from the book (pg 187)
ResponderEliminar"A lot of the things that people say would be a good thing probably aren't." Myhrvold says. As an example, he points to solar power.
...
Is this quote an accurate presentation of your view on solar energy? If it is, then presumably the balance of your concerns indicate that solar power wouldn't be a good thing, or at least that's what the chapter leads us to believe.
Now look, you don't get to say there is this other cost here and not compare the order of magnitudes of the costs to see if there is any reason to consider it at all. So it takes 2.75 years to repay the carbon debt of a solar plant. But you say, it also directly warms the Earth! And if it absorbs 10W of heat for every 1 W of electricity, and it's over a desert that would have only absorbed 5 W of heat, it contributes twice as much direct heat as an equivalent coal or other thermal power plant! But how does that compare to the effect of global warming? I've read elsewhere that the CO2 output of a coal plant has 100,000 times the warming impact of its waste heat. Ah, but that's not right away, that's over the hundreds of years the CO2 may be in the atmosphere. So how does this affect the solar payback time? Does it make it 2.75 years, to 3 significant digits? Or does it make it 2.76? Or am I off by an order of magnitude, and it's really 2.86? Would it matter yet? Come on, Nathan, if you want to be a serious part of the conversation about what to do about global warming, do the math and let us know. That way we know whether you're raising a real issue or whether this is a cheap attempt to get attention over something trivial.
ResponderEliminarAnyone who dismisses anything in dealing with complex systems is making a big mistake. Small things are very meaningful over the long run as is the long term dependence of the future on the past. The biggest threats I see now are the people, like some responders here, who believe that any of their calculations are meaningful, in terms of telling you anything worthwhile about the future of the system. You could have sensors every 5 feet all around the earth from the ground to space itself, and these sensors giving you every data point known to man, you'd still be wrong with anything you predict because of the unknown unknowns, and the knowns between the sensors. Just ask Lorenz. This is why we cannot take seriously anyone like Romm - ever. This is why we need to work on all known solutions, always, and why we need to knock the Climate Change Community off of its religious pedestal if it gets in the way. I
ResponderEliminarMhyrvold:
ResponderEliminarYour post opens by acknowledging and lamenting the politicization of climate science. It is largely due to this politicization and its attendant misinformation campaign that we find ourselves in the climate change response deadlock we currently suffer from. One of the main tools used by those who would indefinitely extend the status quo of using our atmosphere as a permanent GHG dump is to falsely overstate the viability of techno-solutions like carbon sequestration and geoengineering.
The false and distant promise of these
Thanks for the fine article. I've read many Joe Romm articles. He reminds me of Rush Limbaugh. Both glum onto small details but ignore the big picture. And in their fervor to influence others they disrespect those who do not agree with them.
ResponderEliminar-- Robert Moen, energyplanUSA.com
Owen (#29);
ResponderEliminarWhat if reducing CO2 emissions only slows but does not stop global warming? The alternatives become the fail-safes
Maybe it's time to think the unthinkable and go for the real 'fail safe' option: Nuke the population centers of the northern hemisphere. But only if the flu doesn't work.
ResponderEliminarDr. Myrhvold,
ResponderEliminarYou're quite right about the hysteria & distortion. It's a pity that (if I may steal a line from Roger Zelazny) you've succumbed to the disfiguring disease, but think that on you, it looks good.
You start by taking an extremist position, covering desert areas with sufficient solar panels to supply the world's energy consumption, and proceed to knock down this straw man. Never mind the practical difficulties, like environmental destruction & the cost of overnight storage, or the fact that the albedo of many desert areas isn't all that high. (Trick question: the moon's awfully bright, what's its albedo?)
How about responding to a more practical plan? Put solar panels on existing roofs, most of which are already pretty black. Use some fraction of the waste heat for water heating, and space heating in winter (thus displacing the carbon-sourced energy that would otherwise be used). Revegetate those areas which human activity has turned to deserts. Build nuclear plants, change lifestyles... Above all, quit thinking that there are going to be simplistic solutions from either side.
Sorry if this came up already in the comments, but Dr. Myhrvold solves his own problem with solar panels in his article. If the net energy transfer to our atmosphere from the sun is increased due to placing low albedo solar cells on high albedo places, simply place the panels on low albedo places. He even goes so far as to suggest where those places could be: on the ocean! Floating arrays of solar panels (floating on water) would solve the albedo problem.
ResponderEliminarH
"It seems that you are comparing coal plant waste heat to solar panel waste heat to estimate the benefits yet ignore the heat from increased CO2 in the atmosphere which is an order of magnitude larger than the waste heat."
ResponderEliminarI don't know about order of magnitude. Perhaps. But I did notice the omission.
I also noticed that these discussions, while not denialist in themselves, seem to be lapped up by the deniers.
As long as we're having an open scientific debate:
ResponderEliminarYour point about the albedo of solar PV in relation to the albedo of desert sands is correct, except that the overwhelming majority of solar PV *isn't going to be in the desert.*
If a massive solar rollout happens, it's going to consist of solar thermal, which at utility scale is much, much more efficient, not to mention cheaper.
PV is going to go on rooftops (cf. SolarCity) which are already quite dark.
Just goes to show that your starting assumptions reflect your biases - whoever you are.
"Watch this space for further rebuttals of shouted claims of error and evil."
ResponderEliminarAt the risk of being called a partisan or "true believer" as you spent most of this article preaching about, I'm going to quietly point out the significant errors in facts and logic with regards to your claims on solar panels.
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/underwhelming_response_from_su.php#more
"The Internet provides the ultimate extremist platform. Every blogger can reach millions, and given the lack of scrutiny or review over content, there is little accountability."
I agree with that. Claims, whether regarding the science on global warming or solar panel effectiveness at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, often go unreviewed and unchecked, and make their way into provocative best-selling books.
You leave out the most important fact: the relative blackness of the solar panel is a trivial factor compared to the CO2 emissions saved. As Romm points out, each molecule of CO2, during its subsequent lifetime in the atmosphere, traps 100,000 times more heat than was released during its formation. Thus, by far the biggest impact of solar collectors on global warming is reducing the CO2 output of fossil fuel plants. Its about about 5 orders of magnitude more important than the albedo effect that you ask the reader to focus on.
ResponderEliminarI see two possibilities:
1) you did not know this originally, perhaps because you were sloppy or just ignorant.
2) you knew it but intentionally sought to divert attention from this fact for some reason.
Please let us know which explanation it is. In case 1, a correction and apology would be appropriate. In case 2, you should disclose your motivations or rationale.
I will agree that Joe Romm can seem excitable and caustic, but it is wrong to call him merely a "blogger." The post above burnishes Mr. Myhrvold's considerable credentials, so readers might be interested in Mr. Romm's as well.
ResponderEliminarMr. Romm holds a Ph.D in physics from M.I.T., and headed the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at the Department of Energy during the Clinton Administration.
He also wrote "The Hype about Hydrogen" (Island Press 2004) in which he talked at length about how political factors and naive optimism clouded the scientific realities of Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles.
I would further point out that Mr. Romm has written about the economic incentives of energy efficiency programs ("Cool Companies, Island Press 1999), and how such energy saving improvements often led to even more lucrative productivity increases.
Yes, sometimes Romm creates a ruckus to serve his point, but so too do Levitt and Dubner.
Just to be clear, are you saying that as you build the solar plants, the CO2 deficit grows at some kind of exponential rate? I would think that, using your simplified hypothetical, the deficit would remain at about three years if the plants were all built at the same time. But as you build more plants, do their carbon footprints somehow build on each other and make the deficit worse?
ResponderEliminarGreat post!
Dear all,
ResponderEliminarCorrect me if I am wrong (and I might be), but you seem to be looking at this problem from the one specific angle (of the solar system) and not from the other of the Whole Universe at large (and the possible connection of things (planets...) that comprise it.
In other words, how does one altered state affect the others?
"So for every watt of electricity they generate, current solar cells throw about 10 watts into the climate as heat. Some of this heat would have occurred anyway when the light was absorbed by the ground, but the most effective solar cell installations are in deserts where the albedo is pretty high (.4 to .5) and there is little cloud cover, so the solar cells cause a bunch of heating that would not have otherwise occurred."
ResponderEliminarThat is a red herring of the first order. The fraction of the surface area of deserts likely to be ever covered by solar panels is minuscule. The albedo effect, therefore, makes no real difference to the heat balance. It is like pointing to the 60% waste heat from fossil power plants as the cause for global warming. It is not, the CO2 emitted from them is.
For those interested in approaches for alternative city/industrial design do a google video search for a documentary called "Waste = Food". That's an approach that could use some smart people and some "intellectual ventures".
ResponderEliminarThis is a typical cognitive dance performed by anyone who tries to be glib on climate issues.
ResponderEliminarEarly on is the realization that we face a colossally difficult future - so rationalization and equivocation helps - and forgetting and ignoring lots of basic science. The political and economic arguments mean nothing to the science of climate change predictions.
Next comes a glimpse of the horrible, unforgiving science of CO2 as a greenhouse gas - that whatever humans do now takes at least a half century to begin to see an effect. More like a full 100 years. And meanwhile all the changes are proceeding as they must.
Next is the tunnel-vision horror (masked by the salve of great wealth) that the only possible escape must be a frenzy-panic invention of some undefined nano-magic-buzzwordy thing; it has to be something that has not even been considered yet - because all the half-assed, stupid ideas are getting shot down way too fast by common sense.
Information is moving too quickly into anyone who wants to learn it, and beside we all seem to be partying in an out-of-control frenzy of mass consumption. Half the world is carbon drunk and puking. And somebody, anybody who is smart, or responsible, or a saint or a dictator has got to call for a full stop to this adolescent carbon frat-party that will soon kill us all. (Or maybe you could just invent a carbon bong)
So now we are looking to those captains of the techno-bling industry for an answer. Or for more entertainment.
They want a solution where only a few people need to get smart. One or two inventions. It may be difficult, or impossible for some to even consider that our entire civilization has to learn and change.
Or not.. Gosh this is an exciting drama!
Thanks Dr. Myhrvold for your reasoned discourse. I'm wondering if you have done or know of someone else whose has done a similar comparison but including nuclear. I'm particularly intrigued by the potential of thorium which appears to have advantages over uranium and plutonium too numerous to elaborate on here, but a comprehensive comparison for any form of nuclear energy production against coal and solar would be very useful.
ResponderEliminarI am really surprised at the know-it-all-ism that Myhrvold displays here. His point, that science should come first in discussion of these topics, is not born out in his representations and arguments. That has been the basis of most of the criticism of the Super Freakonomics recently.
ResponderEliminarThe energy equations in considering costs and benefits of solar power plants vs. coal are far more broad and complex than represented here. To draw conclusions based on intentionally limited data is unscientific. To excuse that shortcoming by saying that ones work is "popular" as opposed to being "technical" is beyond reason.
Nathan,
ResponderEliminar"...most large-scale solar installations are aimed at deserts or other terrain that has pretty high albedo"
I don't really think you are doing an apples to apples comparison here, even excluding the massive heat trapping from differential C02 emissions.
#1 If my neighbor is putting solar panels on their black rooftop, it will probably be a photovoltaic, but if I'm building a large scale solar installation in the desert, I'm probably gonna go with solar thermal power which is more efficient
If I'm using parabolic reflectors(a proven technology) I'll probably get 20% efficiency. This will give me a 4 watt heat to 1 watt power ratio. Using your number, .5 albedo for desert, 2.5 watts of energy would have been emitted if I hadn't built my plant. So I end up with a net 1.5 Watts additional waste heat for every one Watt of power. This is .5 Watts better than the waste heat from a coal plant.
#2 You compare the cost of *running* a coal plant to the cost of *building* a solar plant. I'd love to see some numbers, but I'm willing to bet that there isn't a huge difference between the thermal cost of solar and coal plant construction. Let's also not forget the C02 and heat generated while mining and shipping coal, as well building the mines and the trucks to do the shipping. You need to include the full life cycle costs of both to be fair.
One last note, It is true that the reflective surface of a solar thermal plant is much smaller than the overall size of the plant, but I'm assuming we can match the prior albedo of the area in these other areas of the plant. In the same way, I'm assuming the we can match the coal plant's and mine's and trucks' roofs to the prior albedo of what they replace, so these factors should not contribute.
Dr. Myhrvold,
ResponderEliminarYou state "...the most effective solar cell installations are in deserts where the albedo is pretty high (.4 to .5)...". I'm sure that you're familiar with the expression "garbage in, garbage out", and your apparent assumption that the American "desert" is just sand is pure garbage. Sand covers only a tiny fraction of our deserts. A somewhat greater area is covered by dry lake beds, or playas, but both together are still only a small fraction of the total. (And those dry lakes are not a good place to build anything, since they're not always dry :-)).
The great majority of our deserts are in fact quite well vegetated: with several distinct ecosystems ranging from pinyon/juniper forest in the higher elevations to sagebrush steppe & grassland to the cactus & Joshua trees of the Mojave and parts of Arizona. The average albedo is lowered still further by areas of exposed rock and soil, which are often dark and rough.
Figures for some representative albedos can be found with a little searching, for instance here: opticsinfobase.org/ao/viewmedia.cfm?uri=ao-18-7-994&seq=0 You might try redoing your analysis with accurate input data.
It seems that, for one reason or another, Levitt and Dubner decided to spend a chapter of their forthcoming book wading into unfamiliar territories. Whether they had preconceived opinions on the subject or not, I couldn't say (I haven't read the chapter, much less kept up with the controversial aftermath in the blogs).
ResponderEliminarFrom what it sounds like, though, the chapter has little to do with economics and more to do with skepticism either about man-made climate change, or (to take them at their word) about the proposed solutions for it. Are there interesting economic principles involved in the discussion of geoengineering, or solar panels, etc.? It sounds to me that, insofar as economics are concerned, it a rather mundane question of cost vs. benefit.
With that in mind, I think the authors were foolish to wade outside of their field and rely on summarizing the thoughts of other supposed specialists instead. You're only asking for trouble, whether it be picking the wrong specialists, or mischaracterizing them, or simply drawing the wrong conclusions from what they say.
When the actual climate scientist who was apparently the main professional source for the chapter claims he was mischaracterized, that gives me reason for pause.
Established scientific theory is always subject to be upended. But it's likely to be upended by someone practicing science (with or without a PhD... but likely with), not intrepid "rogue economists" who decide to devote a chapter of a pop economics book to the subject- any more than a "rogue author" who decides to write an essay on the matter.
When the subject is outside of your field, you ought to tread lightly, because you likely don't possess the expertise to capture important nuances, or to distinguish valid positions from invalid.
You are completely missing the point it seems. Won't we have to build new power sources no matter what happens? So it is misleading to compare how much CO2 is outputted by coal plant versus building an array of solar panels, because if you were not building the solar panels you would be building a new coal plant. The more fair comparison to make would have been how much CO2 is output while building a coal plant versus and an equivalent array of solar panels.
ResponderEliminarAlso, I think you might not be looking at the whole picture. You are criticizing "angry" bloggers and are lamenting how mean bloggers shouldn't be hostile to your ideas but you have to realize that this issue ALREADY is politicized. It would be just a great world if one side of the issue could be the bigger person and give up, but if those "angry" bloggers didn't say anything, then the inevitable fate of your words would be a talking point for the people who want to destroy the planet. This is how politics and public opinion is formed.
Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that geoengineering ought to be a "last resort" to deal with global warming? What do you think should should be tried before we resort to geoengineering?
ResponderEliminarThe most straightforward interpretation is that we should try deal with global warming by reducing carbon emissions, and that we should only try geoengineering techniques like adding sulfur to the atmosphere if we are unable to prevent climate change by other means. But from what I've seen, that interpretation matches the views of Dubner & Levitt's critics (like Ryan Avent), who support geoengineering research as a kind of insurance. Levitt & Dubner seem to support a more ambitious role for geoengineering, arguing that it is preferable to emissions reductions and should be pursued instead (e.g., in Levitt's email to Yoram Bauman).
Of course, your numbers are out of date. Current solar construction costs and efficiencies are quite a bit better than you quote.
ResponderEliminarOn the dark solar panel albedo effect, why not simply alternate PV panels and mirrors. Since this effect is probably only an issue at large PV stations, this might make sense.
ResponderEliminarYour argument only get any traction because of the assumptions that you make. You assume that we would be replacing functioning (presumably efficient) coal burning plants with pv. But as you say, it would take 30-50 yrs to replace coal with pv. In that period, surely the better assumption is that we would be replacing the oldest dirtiest plants as they reach the end of their working life with the newest most best pv (i.e. more efficient than the figures you cite and made using less energy than the figures you rely upon). Thus, the question is when a plant comes to the end of its working life, should we replace it with a new coal plant or pv? In CO2 emission terms the answer is a no-brainer - after all building a new plant is going to result in huge emissions even before the thing is switched on.
ResponderEliminarI agree that Romm was unnecessarily hostile, but his tone is not the most important issue. You attempt to undermine the case for solar on very weak grounds - as I think a majority of the posts responding to your piece suggest.
Thank you, Mr. Myrhvold.
ResponderEliminarI agree with your basic points completely. I have one casual observation to add--Aircraft pilots (by my random survey) usually don't believe in global warming. The reason is that they have a perspective where humans don't really occupy much of the Earth's surface. After reaching an altitude of about 1000 feet--no humans can be seen. This has a profound effect on their psyche.
I also think you erred in mentioning "black solar panels". You went off the road with this idea and distracted from the basic argument. ---Certainly you never looked at the "black" coal cars fueling the coal-power station, etc., so the whole thing is (worst case) a problem of 0.000001% change in the Earth's albedo. Ignore it.
Actually, the best solar solution may be space-based solar. Solar power collectors placed at geo orbit 22,000 miles above the equator should be black so as not to impact the view of the night sky from the ground.
ResponderEliminarHeat is not an issue with space-based solar, because heat is radiated into space. A single collector can run a city with a clean 5GW of base load electricity.
Has anyone discussed this angle yet? CO2 has STAYING POWER.
ResponderEliminarIf CO2 has an effective lifetime of possibly THOUSANDS OF YEARS (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas), nothing we do with respect to reduction of carbon emissions over the next few decades is likely to save us from an imminent and irreversible tipping point. So before those ice caps (and their reflective powers) melt away forever, we'd better not dismiss human bioengineering or any other "quick-fix". Desperate times require desperate measures.
However, there are vital reasons to continue down the "slow-fix" path, too. A vast build-up of a solar-based economy would:
a) reduce dependence on foreign oil ($400-700 billion spent annually), which would in turn
b) reduce the horrendous trade deficit
c) reduce the availability of funds sent to terrorists, and
d) decrease the vulnerability to and thus probability of a devastating EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) attack.
The latter topic (EMP) has become politicized at least as much as AGW, and that's why some use ad hominem tactics to shut down the debate before it even begins. Here too, an open-minded analysis of the facts is what is called for (yes, I know, that would REALLY be a sign of desperation!). A good (objective) place to start is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse.
Re. the approx. 10 watts of heat generated for every watt of electricity produced - can we figure out ways (micro or macro) to use those 10 watts of heat?
ResponderEliminarFor example, I have a pair of (black, of course) solar panels on my roof that function to augment my water heater - they work on a heat exchange principle where antifreeze runs under the panel, down to a heat exchange (parallel coils) for water over the water heater to, in effect,preheat the water going into my water heater.
There should be similar ways to leverage the so-called "waste".
Just a thought.
"First of all, let
ResponderEliminarCommenting on the technical side of solar, there are a couple of big, important points:
ResponderEliminar1. The current generation of big solar plants proposed for the desert areas are solar thermal, not photovoltaic. I'm not part of the solar community, but I'll bet that the heat issues are different for a system of mirrors focused on a central tower. There are other huge problems with solar (for example, why on earth is it appropriate to surround a national park with power plants?--see the current California map of proposed development), but solar thermal currently scales to giant plants better than PV does.
2. Oddly enough, plants do it better. Intact forests are noticeably cool, and although it's seldom used, you can actually detect damage to a forest from its infrared signature. Damaged forests are hotter than intact forests. Part of this is because they use lots of water, some of which gets captured internally. Still, we're missing something really important with hot photocells that either radiate heat or reflect wasted light. At the very least, we should be looking at some form of cogeneration to capture some of the heat energy. In the intermediate term, I'd suggest looking at leaves for solutions. Photosynthesis is 20-30% efficient, so it's quite possible to capture a lot of energy and stay cool simultaneously.
So what about all those black and dark brown home roofs I saw flying into Dallas? Surely these could be utilized for solar generation versus sucking in radiant heat. Call them micro solar generators.
ResponderEliminarAt the very least put an additional radiator up in the attics for hot water recovery during summer months (this is already a product somewhere on the internet).
I see a lot of heated discussion regarding solar power calculations.
ResponderEliminarTwo numbers that I regular see are: 1.6 billion people do not have access to electricity. 2.5 billion use biomass for their energy needs. We have around 6.7 billion people on planet. If those numbers are correct, 24% of the population does not have access to electricity and 37% use biomass for their energy.
Swapping coal for solar would decrease CO2 & pollution production in the US. However a substantial number of people in world are not even using electricity. Alternative electricity production methods does not even address them
I find the discussion of geo-engineering potentially distructive and a red herring. As an extreme example the planet venus has a high albedio due to sulfur dioxide clouds and yet it has a surface temperature high enough to melt lead.The issue is not how much light the planet absorbs, in general we want the earth to absorb as much light as possible so it can be used by plants and for power production, the issue is the CO2 prevents the planet from dissapating its waste heat. In fact, the geo-engineering scheme suggested will reduce the amount of light hitting the earth, causing a loss a plant productivity, which could have severe if not catostrophic consequences.
ResponderEliminarThere's too much hysteria over CO2 when, as some credible research is showing, it contributes to only about one third of the recent warming. In a chaotic system like climate, pulling out the parts is a complex and difficult task. Alarmists with agendas make it even harder by muddying the water. The honest skeptics don't get their case heard because of the roar.
ResponderEliminarCan anyone comment -- does radiated heat contribute to global warming? That 10 watts -- does that matter? I thought that CO2 was a problem because it accumulates. But heat doesn't work like that.
ResponderEliminarIf excess heat is a problem, should be be talking about painting roofs white? It just seems weird -- nobody cares that shingles are black, right? It's not considered significant? So why the concern about panels?
It seems to me that there is a good opportunity for a solar energy company to design solar panels that provide both electricity and heat. The back of the panels could include small channels for heat transfer solution(water or other fluid) that when circulated could be used to heat water or heat conventional houses during winter.
ResponderEliminarThis would boost the overall efficiency of the solar panel and further reduce the need to burn fossil fuels.
wow, just...wow
ResponderEliminarLike #5, I am also not convinced of the "truth" of AGW. Thank you, Freakonomics guys, for standing up to Big Science. This is so depressing that I'm afraid to even read the book, lest I do myself harm.
Re #85: "...nobody cares that shingles are black, right? It
ResponderEliminarPosted this earlier, but doesn't look like it "took." (Hopefully it wasn't rejected for being critical, as that would essentially confirm my feelings.)
ResponderEliminarI don't really have a horse in this race, but it seems to me that in universally decrying the criticisms of Superfreakonomics, and complaining about how "unfair" those criticisms are, Dubner, Myhrvold, et al are coming off as defensive and every bit as shrill as the "bloggers" they mock. Heck, the first *fifteen* paragraphs of this very article have little to do with defending Myhrvold's views; rather, they were written to cast everyone else as political and partisan, as if Myhrvold is simply an unbiased, "science is the truth" observer who's above the fray. It isn't until paragraph sixteen that he actually addresses
Dr Myhrvold, if you are to take the argument about changing the albedo seriously, you need to compare the increased heat absorption that the dark solar panels imply to the decreased amount of heat reflection implied by lower CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not clear to me what the result of such a calculation would be - but you should have done it if you were going to honestly compare building PV plants vs continuing with coal fired plants.
ResponderEliminarLikewise, in saying that building a new PV plant uses 2+ years worth of CO2 from a coal-fired plant, instead of handwaving about how that obviously results in lots of additional CO2 (why? because we have to build new coal plants before we can build PV plants?) you should have actually computed the comparative emissions under the two scenarios: gradually replacing all current coal plants with PV, vs retaining/replacing all existing coal plants. Not to mention addition of new energy capability. I'm not so sure that the results would have been as alarming as you suggest.
Finally, for someone making complaints about the tenor of Joe Romm's criticisms, the first half of your article is pretty ironic.
I wish I had time to read all of the comments. I don't. However, I do wonder if we will ever be able to discuss whether anthropogenic global warming even exists. There is so much "true believer" crap out there, it is difficult to get any pros and cons on the meat of the matter. Perhaps this kerfuffle will be the pebble that starts the landslide, and we will get an actual scientific (as opposed to psuedo scientific, but actually political) discussion of the matter.
ResponderEliminarDear Nathan:
ResponderEliminarThank you for demonstrating the need for combined photovoltaic and solar thermal energy capture systems. Several solar companies have recognized the problem of "waste" heat from solar cells and have developed systems that capture both the electricity and the heat for space and water heating. White roofs just waste the electricty and heat delivered to your door but PV/T solar collectors can make almost any building a net energy producer with a very quick CO2 payback period, particularly where the collectors are building intergrated and form the actual roof. Still other utility grade systems can cost efffectively concentrate insolation for high efficiency type III-V cells and also collect the heat for further power generation using low temperature Organic Rankine Cycle engines and otherwise provide process heat for industrial or district heating uses.
Thanks for the clarifications, Mr. Myhrvold. I've been reading about the controversy, and enjoy getting to some cogent and rational segments.
ResponderEliminarThere always remains a portion of humanity that doesn't want logic and rationality, abhores detailed analysis and research, and has very strong opinions on what they want the end result to be. Most of them, frankly, are too lazy or stupid to understand the physics, chemistry, and math. (Yes Jeffrey McManus, you're being thick! Hopefully Casey 'splained it for you.)
The Joe Romm's of the world are getting more and more strident and hysterical, as their pet theories get shot full of holes. But climateprogress.org is well known for refusing to respond to its critics and doubters with reasoned argument. After all, theose critics are guilty of sacrilege or apostasy, if not outright crimes against humanity. [/sarcasm off] If I were you, I'd plan for this getting uglier.
Joe Romm is the Rush Limbaugh of the left. Why did it take me so long to realize this???
ResponderEliminarNathan,
ResponderEliminarI really appreciate the time you took to address this. I haven't read SuperFreakonomics yet, but I am really looking forward to it. Especially after the effort and research you clearly put into your comments.
I also appreciated your ability to remain professional in the face of some less-than-professional comments.
Jon (#85)
ResponderEliminarThe reason CO2 matters is because it helps capture radiated energy (heat). That's the whole point of the AGW theory.
I've read, however, that the heat absorbing ability of CO2 is nonlinear and has physical limits, and that it already causes about 95% of the energy capture that it theoretically can do. So doubling of CO2 should have virtually no additional impact. And that water molecules are a much more efficient capture device for the radient energy...so any effect of CO2 is swamped by water vapor.
So many questions, so little rational explanation from the AGW supporters.
Man Made Global Warming is a HOAX so I do not see why anyone should get upset over it. Its neat how people are looking for solutions to a non-problem.
ResponderEliminar@ruralcounsel:
ResponderEliminarYour conclusions are wrong.
Water vapor is important. It and the summed effects of other greenhouse gasses explains the earth has a generally habitable average temperature, rather than, say, -75 degrees centigrade.
The important fact is that normally global climate is at equilibrium and it normally changes VERY SLOWLY, but our C02 and methane emissions are shifting this is equilibrium in relative terms very quickly. The water vapor already in the atmosphere contributes but it has already been factored in.
That said, water vapor has a secondary effect. As our C02 emissions shift temperature above equilibrium, the air can hold more water vapor than it would have at equilibrium, thus *multiplying* the temperature increases that occur from C02 alone.
So contrary to your claims, the effects of water vapor make the effects of our greenhouse pollution much worse, rather than mitigating its effects.
Your claims about the effects of C02 being at their limit are not even close to correct. While it is true that the growth in radiative forcing of C02 is logarithmic, it is not even close to the maximum damage it can do.
The equation for the change in temprature from C02 is:
T-T_0 = .8*5.35*ln(C/C_0)
where C_0 is the original concentration of C02, T-T_0 is the change in temperature.
Doubling C02 concentrations leads to ~3K increase in climate temperature ignoring positive feedback(discussed above). Quadrupling C02 leads to ~6k increase in C02.
The reason why your 95% figure is wildly incorrect, is because the pre-industrial C02 concentrations were quite low so it is easy to increase the relative atmospheric concentration. Pre-industrial levels were around 284 ppmv, and we've already increased them by 100 ppmv.
But our rate of C02 emissions is also increasing, so we're well on our way to doubling and quadrupling our pre-industrial concentrations. Even without including all other temperature increasing effects(water vapor,methane, etc..), this would be sufficient to cause massive increase in temperature.
Maybe I'm missing something...
ResponderEliminarIs anyone really considering solar "panels" as the solar technology for large scale energy generation? I didn't think so. Especially when there are working large generators that are far more efficient.
But here is the problem: this Thanksgiving my moronic brother is going to sit at the dinner table and regale my relatives with how stupid the 'tree huggers' are. "You see, the black solar panels are going to end up BAKING THE EARTH." And then some of them will vote for whichever politician says "some smart people are saying..."
I did a quick google on total petawatts of sunfall, total human energy consumption in Joules, the actual albedo percentage and mechanism, the current efficient of actual solar plants (not panel!) calculated square kilometers needed.
All left as an exercise for the reader.
Dr. Myhrvold,
ResponderEliminarThank you for the post - it was illuminating.
Also thank you to the AGW side for posting some more civil responses, most were quite illuminating and I am glad to have read them.
Unfortunately, the bashing of Levitt and Dubner has continued. Unacceptable in my opinion.
If you can be more rational, maybe we'll have a chance at solving our problems.
Well, your carbon debt argument is not really accurate. Am I bad person for saying that? No.
ResponderEliminarJoe Romm has actually been promoting science of global warming for years and trying to counter the deniers you cozy up to. He has faced a blizzard of sleazy and disingenuous lies from the denier crowd. You could start by understanding that reality and cutting the guy a little slack.
You also seem blissfully unaware of the massive PR campaign from fossil industries and the like fighting climate action. Instead, you bury your head in the sand
Why not use some of those math skills to look up spending on defeating climate action?
You claim to have a thick skin but it doesn't come off that way. When you seek to provoke people and then they are provoked, you shouldn't be surprised!
Myhrvold says, "You need to operate the solar plant for at least 2.75 years before you break even versus the coal plant
ResponderEliminarThese are not new ideas, just new to those who aren't deeply involved in solar. We have done calculations and written papers for 30 years about these topics.
ResponderEliminarThe albedo effect is about 30 times less than global warming if we met the entire world's energy demand, so if we have to meet energy needs a few centuries from now with PV, god forbid, we'll have a problem then (when we need 30 times more energy). I think Nemet published a good paper on this. But if we raise the efficiencies high enough or reflect the lower-gap-light that would remove this problem.
Some thin films are getting down to 1 year energy payback at the system level, and they advertise this as part of their advantage over older PV technologies. So go back and do the arithmetic for one year instead of 2.7. I think a good midterm goal will be closer to half a year.
PS - PV module prices are down under $1.5/W and systems now as low as $2,5/W are being contemplated. The Chinese just signed an MOU for an array the size of Hoover Dam in output, made by a US company - cliches aside, this is disruptive.
Ken Zweibel
GWU
zweibel@gwu.edu
Perhaps Nathan could shed light on the impacts of cloud cover; as he seems to grasp the scientific aspects (disconnected from the politics) of climate issues.
ResponderEliminarAnyone who says religion is dead (or dying) in the US only needs to read this comment stream. It's alive and well in the church of GlobalWarmism. See you at mass!
ResponderEliminarLet us not forget that solar cannot run at night. For this reason it is not comparable to coal or any other dependable capacity such as that fueled by natural gas. We must always have baseload capacity sufficient to meet demand plus a margin of 10-20% (unless we lose our minds). Prudence also requires a mix of fuels / energy inputs. Solar would be nice for daytime peaking power, isolated load or specific captive uses but it is not a magic bullet and will increase the costs of power from the grid due to its low efficiency and the redundant baseload that would need to be installed.
ResponderEliminarI don't know why you are picking on bloggers in particular. Science in general has been full of bomb throwers. Many of them reside in government funded science institutions. For example, James Hansen and his nonsense about coal cars being death factories, and his calls for trials for opponents for "high crimes against humanity" . The very use of the word denialist is an extremist position.
ResponderEliminarJoe Romm isn't some random blogger. He to is involved in the government. He's a former Clinton Administration official.
There's David Suzuki, another "scientist" calling for anyone who questions his beliefs to be "thrown in jail". I put scientist in quotes because anyone who thinks like that does NOT think like a scientist.
Same goes for politicians. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
It's not the platform that the problem. It's the personalities that are the problem. I don't see you calling government or non-profits "the perfect platform for extremists" when in fact that is even more true. In both those environments not only do extreme views get more attention but they get more funding.
That's why organizations like PETA and World Wildlife Fund are taken over by activists pushing the most extreme positions. It's easier to convince people to contribute if you claim a million species are dying every year than if you tell the truth.
What's worse is that with politics the funding come not merely out of the pockets of dupes who have been tricked by the extremism but by people who don't believe or don't care about the underlying cause. So James Hansen and Joe Romm get to spew their vile nonsense on my dime. Now that's criminal.
Appreciate this de-frocking of Joe Romm. He's been annointed as a high priest in the movement to address what is percieved by some as a sort of devine knowledge as to the correct temperature of the earth or is it the "proper" rate of climate change as detailed by the climate record that he and his acolytes and fellow believers? I don't know, but I'm sure we'll be told.
ResponderEliminarWhile I don't agree entirely with Mr M on the degree of change that is attributable to co2 specifically, nor do I think it is the greatest challenge facing our civilization, I do appreciate his sober and objective approach towards geoengineering and his realization that it must make sense in the realm of economics, engineeering and yes even on the sociological plane. Let's hope that more people with the sound real-world engineering background insist and are allowed to have their voices heard so that decisions made now are based on facts and in-depth research instead of the long gloomy-doomy sorry litany of environmental impacts that no matter the true circumstances surrounding them, are required to be seen as indisputable evidence of just how terrible everything will be if we don't walk lock-stepped into the idealized and "climate stabilized" future where idealogues are guiding science policy.
My personal perspective is that our current state of technology and its dependence on energy as it is today is untenable but that is why we need a robust and vigorous industrial economy so that by virtue of its enormous capacity civilization is able to make the transition to new, cheaper and more abundant energy sources, as well as bringing-on new and improved efficiencies, that will eventually replace our current energy sources with the clean superabundance of space based solar energy satellite systems, fusion, and others as yet unexplored energy dense potentials now being researched, and place our civilization securely on the path towards reducing our impact planet earth and perhaps even restoring much of it to more natural conditions as we will at that point finally have the energy and resources to do so once we are no longer dependent on the meager resources we squeeze from the stones on which we live and upon which all life on earth depends.
Is the planet even warming? After all the "believers", like Obama, now call it climate change.
ResponderEliminarIf it is warming it is yet to be proven that a rise in CO2 is the cause. If rising CO2 is the cause there is no proof that the rise is caused by man. If the rise is caused by man can it be stopped (would switching the US to say solar be worse) or inconsequential over the long term (developing world industrialization). And there is surely no argument that a rise in temps is worse than a drop in temps. There certainly is not argument that says the climate of the planet does not change.
Or my favorite question: let's say man is putting out CO2; it is accumulating in the atmosphere; the US is the big culprit; this is causing the entire planet to warm RELATIVELY to natural forces; BUT THE NATURAL TREND IS FOR COOLING - there can be no argument against that over the long term history of the planet - and MM GW is actually saving mankind from a natural ice age.
So why bother. I for one hope to see an increase in carbon based energy. The US is sitting on piles of coal, and oceans of natural gas and oil.
It is cheap, efficient and there is plenty of it.
The Achilles heal of space based solar power is pouring tens of units of new energy into the Earth's atmosphere for each unit that is used. Talk about global warming.
ResponderEliminarArithmetic on 1 year payback solar growing at 100% per year is
cumulative solar (think of these as new GWs)
0,1,2,4,8,16,32,64,..2^n=2000, n= 12 years!
cumulative CO2
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,-2000,-2000,...etc. (think of these as equivalent to offset .2G baseload).
So 1 unit of worse CO2 for 12 years, followed by minus 2000 units, indefinitely. This is the "terrible" problem of being black! Ok, amateurs cannot know much outside their field.
If you use a rate of 50% annual growth, you get to minus CO2 sooner (because you are building fewer new ones per year and the cumulative output overwhelms the new ones), but actually you reduce CO2 less because it takes longer to get to the big offset numbers. So much for freaky economics thinking - once more, it turns out to be "economics" again, i.e., wrong.
In PV, one of the pitfalls, is taking average numbers (like 2.7 years payback based on averaging past studies) in a fast changing field, where the future is the "average", not the past.
Ken Zweibel
thesolarreview.org/
Hi Dr. Myhrvold,
ResponderEliminarWhat would be the CO2 cost of increasing the albedo of desert/wasteland areas to offset the decreased albedo of the black photovoltaic arrays? Could large high-reflectivity areas of .9 albedo or higher be constructed that would balance it out?
Without crunching the numbers, I imagine you would need a larger area of either white surfaces or mirrored surfaces to offset the impact, which may be unattainable due to dust storms/occlusion lowering their albedo.... or sheer expense. Could evaporative cooling help in this regard?
Thanks!
"Take a look at the scientific literature for much, much, much more of the same, in even greater detail
ResponderEliminarOne day a cat wandered into a kindergarten classroom. A discussion arose among the children as to whether this was a boy cat or a girl cat. After much debate, one of the children said, "I know how we can tell." A little apprehensive of what the answer might be, the teacher asked how he thought they could tell. The answer: "We can vote on it."
ResponderEliminarThat is how some of us are trying to address the issue of global warming.
Yes, and one can make the same points about EVERY source of energy or any technological or behavioral adaptation to reduce energy use/CO2 production---we almost always just look at the simplest, first-order effects, almost NEVER try to really understand. So it comes down to prejudices and people believing whatever they want to believe, and stopping all critical thoughyt as soon as they have reached a point they like.
ResponderEliminarThis applies generally to both alarmists and "deniers," there are a few skeptics but thyey tend to be drowned out or lumped (by the alrmists) in with the deniers.
The difference between the 2 sides is that the alarmists want to do things that we can say with a high degree of certainty will do great harm to the US and world economy and the people in it, based (but I repesat myself) on VERY VERY weak grounds.
I wish to reiterate the very important point that the argument presented here is a **complete red herring**
ResponderEliminarThe heat given off by burning coal vs the albedo of a solar panel (per watt), while an interesting calculation, is totally irrelevant to the central argument. The important point is that the heat trapped by a molecule of CO2 in its lifetime is 100,000 times greater than the heat released in creating that CO2.
If the significance of this fact hasn't struck you, take a little time to think about it.
Heat absorbed while generating 1 watt by solar panel = X
Heat liberated when generating 1 watt from burning coal = Y ~= X
Subsequent heating by CO2 created during coal burning = 100,000 * Y
Therefore fossil fuels bad. Devastation. Famine. Solar panels good. All the people of the world live happily ever after.
I agree with the previous poster who stated that he was very suspicious why this crucial point was missed out by Myhrvold. I'm going to be generous and assume that he was merely breathtakingly ignorant, rather than willfully mendacious.
It's interesting that there seem to be plenty of solid arguments debunking this article; and plenty of new posts (even mine) that re-hash what has been said that debunks it. But the different views do not meld into more enlightened synthesis, they just keep repeating themselves.
ResponderEliminarThe author of the article ought to synthesize the responses and then continue from there, if he is half the technical person he presents himself as. This struggle needs to become civil and lead to consensus, not just more ranting, and someone in his position should get the hint and move forward rather than cling to his own past views. That would be a service that the internet could bring, and it would stand above our random rehashing.
A plausible response, but while Nathan Myhrvold may only be arguing for further research into geoengineering as a possible insurance policy in case we fail to get global warming under control (can't argue with that), the coverage I've read suggests that the Superfreakonomics chapter goes further - suggesting that CO2 isn't "the real villain" and that we should consider going straight to the sulphur dioxide solution without also working to reduce CO2 emissions. (Admittedly, I haven't actually read the chapter, apologies if this is a misrepresentation.) Would it be wrong also to suggest that Myhrvold's company would directly benefit from further funding into such as scheme?
ResponderEliminar"Alarmists with agendas make it even harder by muddying the water. The honest skeptics don
ResponderEliminarAlot of hand wringing by Dr. Myhrvold about the unscientific nature of the discussion, but no response to
ResponderEliminarcriticism of his serious scientific error cited in the book:
"The problem with solar cells is that they
You STILL did not address what surfaces the "black" solar panels are replacing, calculate out just how much of the surface of the Earth would be needed to match our energy output, and calculate how any heat generated by the panels compares to the carbon dioxide alternative coal energy would produce -- See RealClimate's letter to Levitt for that. You also make the erroneous assumption that fossil power will be used to make the panels, not say, wind power.
ResponderEliminarIt is refreshing to hear a calm and rational voice in the midst of the sensational bluster and condescension on Romm's blog. Mr. Myhrvold, we are all glad you have thick skin and can take these onslaughts and keep crusading. Our best wishes to you.
ResponderEliminar[per above p.-7: ignoring PO transitionary, consider rationing present in all universal systems, or stuff proposed in hr3200]
ResponderEliminarPeople have been yelling "fire" for what 20 years now? And it would seem the in large part, the climate models have even failed to predict the weather we have today.
A legitamate scientific field, would have to realize it's credibility has been slightly compromised. As the big man says, the only way out of that is to do good science.
And I think you should be obliged to do that really, and working that much harder to bring clear and concise results to the general public at large. If you don't know, you don't know; thats ok too.
Perhaps in a future post Mr. Myhrvold will explain why waste heat of solar panels (or for that matter any other power plant) was mentioned at all. Waste heat and CO2 is produced by a coal fired power plant. Over its atmospheric lifetime the CO2 traps 5 orders of magnitude more heat from the sun than the original waste heat when the coal was burned. Its no surprise that climatologists are not concerned about waste heat. What is Mr Myhrvold's concern?
ResponderEliminarI am wondering if climatologists have some inner sense or gut feeling they would care to share with the rest of us.
ResponderEliminarI've done some looking, and I can't find one solid result concluding anything at all, besides the observation the CO2 is rising, and temperatures are decreasing. Something is seriously wrong here. I just spent an hour and did learn not learn a single thing for certain other than the temperal models or dissappointingly innacurate.
This is all terribly dissapointing. Please prove something please, for all the money we dumped.
And thank you for contributing to the creation of this climate bill and for not providing any voice of moderation. I hope you sleep much better the night it passes.
Apperently, this field consist only of hysterics, for I have not heard one single scientest come to congress, or publicly and voice any oposition
So there is no conclusive data, and you want even stand up for the people and make that clear, while your secret desire is being worked down the throats.
How much is the tax payer paying you to provide them with nothing but hysteria and not proof from any of your research. I just don't understand how anyone could be worried about wether solar panels are green or not.
Do you have any idea, at all, what effect this policy will have on the average citizen. This whole field is irresponsible.
Dr Myhrvold
ResponderEliminar"I say yes, we
Mr. Myhrvold,
ResponderEliminarI'm sorry to bother you once more, but I think numbers speak better than words.
I will assume emissions of 0,5 kg CO2 per kWh produced. This is less than the current US generation mix. Feel free lookup another number and plug it into my calculations. Actually you will see that this number makes very little difference.
Let's say we start with building a quantity of solar panels, able to produce 1 TWh per year (that is less than 1 GW of solar panels, less than today's global production capacity). Nanosolar has just brought 1 GW of solar panel production capacity online. Seems like a reasonable starting point to me.
According to your article the CO2 payback time is 2.75 years, or 2.75 TWh worth of CO2 emissions In the first year the PV factory will produce 2.75e9 kWh * 0.5 kg/kWh = 1.38 MT of CO2.
Then we must increase production, let's say by 25% per year. So the 2nd year 1.25 TWh/y worth of solar panels will be produced, at an emission cost of 1.72 MT. But the first year's batch will have produced 1 TWh in its first poduction year, preventing 0,5 MT of conventional generation emissions. The net emissions in the second year were therefore only 1.22 MT.
Continuing for the 3rd year, the production emissions will grow by another 25% to 2.15 MT, and the saving of year 1's 1 TWh and year 2's 1.25 TWh = 1.125 MT, yielding a net emission of 1.025 MT.
You will see the net emissions due to solar panel production drop futher in subsequent years until they become negative after only 6 years.
The peak amount of extra CO2 in the atmposphere is less than 5 MT in this scenario. A negligible amount.
With a growth rate of 25%, the 4000 TWh of yearly US electricity consumption will be reached in 32 years. After that the PV factories can be stopped.
I am sorry for not being able to attach a spreadsheet, but I think you can do this exercise in Excel and see for yourself.
This calculation does of course not prove that a consistent 25% growth rate is feasible. I merely responded to the hypothetical case you layed out in your post. I think your conclusion that 'Solar energy will first make it worse before making it better' is only true in the very short term and then in a negligible amount.
There are impediments to widespread roll out of solar energy, but the temporary increase in CO2 emissions from solar panel production is not one of them.
Kind regards,
Anne van der Bom
Interesting post, but I agree with some of the other commenters - the numbers are crucial. And you can't just look at solar in isolation, it has to be compared to other sources of electricity. You come up with these numbers about break-even points and such but where are you getting them? What is your methodology? How about publishing them in a peer-reviewed journal?
ResponderEliminarAlso, I think the reason why Joe Romm gets annoyed at things like SuperFreakonomics is because he spends his time trying to get people to pay attention to the science of climate change. Then along comes these two guys, an economist and a journalist, with no scientific training (unlike Joe Romm) and it seems like they are saying we should spend money on geoengineering when there is no scientific data that these things could work, when real studies show the costs to mitigate the worst effects of climate change with current technology are comparatively pretty small.
Dr Myhrvold
ResponderEliminarI like your ideas global warming. I think that we can live with a short term CO2 injection until the solar panels pass the break-even point. I see the results of 5, 10, 20+ years of energy sans carbon emissions.
Another aspect is the wind power. Aren't there more efficient wind energy-electrical energy converters than the tri-blade windmills?
I watched your Sulfur Dioxide emitter in the stratosphere. There may be a problem in that SO2 will/could react with oxygen and form SO3 which will form Sulfuric Acid aerosols when the SO3 diffuses down into the Troposphere. If this conversion is a very slow process then the concept becomes elegant
Nathan Myhrvold is so far ahead of the game, it frightens small-minded people such as Romm.
ResponderEliminarRomm is not an accredited journalist and uses cyberspace as a forum to vent his dislike for successful, educated people.
Romm, we all know that you stay home in your unwashed robe, troll the Internet for regurgitated stories and post unintelligent content to have your name appear in Google searches with the likes of Nathan Myhrvold.
Remember what your mom said...
Small minded people talk about people.
Average minded people talk about events.
Exceptional minded people talk about ideas.
Live it. And wash the robe.
Yes! i am agree with your point that is mentioned here by you as black market is spread all over the world but it is specially make more impact on India and asia..
ResponderEliminarSolar energy
NATHAN what you had said in this topic is okay and I am agree with your point that its affect the environment but comparison other resources those are really making the environment harm....its making less and provided the reliable and good source of light...
ResponderEliminarGood luck getting people behind this one. Though you make some VERY fascinating points Branded Shopping Bazaar, youre going to have to do solar water heater more than bring up a few things that may be different than what weve already heard.
ResponderEliminar