Guest essay by Eric Worrall
David Attenborough and a group of other prominent people, have called for a publicly funded $15 billion / year research programme over 10 years, an international “Apollo” project, to make renewables economically viable.
The letter;
We, the undersigned, believe that global warming can be addressed without adding significant economic costs or burdening taxpayers with more debt. A sensible approach to tackling climate change will not only pay for itself but provide economic benefits to the nations of the world.
The aspiration of the Global Apollo Programme is to make renewable energy cheaper than coal within 10 years. We urge the leading nations of the world to commit to this positive, practical initiative by the Paris climate conference in December.
The plan requires leading governments to invest a total of $15bn a year in research, development and demonstration of clean energy. That compares to the $100bn currently invested in defence research and development globally each year.
Public investment now will save governments huge sums in the future. What is more, a coordinated R&D plan can help bring energy bills down for billions of consumers. Renewable energy gets less than 2% of publicly funded R&D. The private sector spends relatively small sums on clean energy research and development.
Just as with the Apollo space missions of the 1960s, great scientific minds must now be assembled to find a solution to one of the biggest challenges we face.
Please support the Global Apollo Programme – the world’s 10-year plan for cheaper, cleaner energy.
David Attenborough
Professor Brian Cox
Paul Polman CEO, Unilever
Arunabha Ghosh CEO, Council on Energy Environment and Water
Ed Davey Former UK energy secretary
Nicholas Stern IG Patel professor of economics and government, LSE
Bill Hare Founder and CEO, Climate Analytics
Nilesh Y Jadhav Programme director, Energy Research Institute @NTU, Singapore
Niall Dunne Chief sustainability officer, BT
Carlo Carraro Director, International Centre for Climate Governance
Professor Brian Hoskins Chair, Grantham Institute
Mark Kenber CEO, The Climate Group
Ben Goldsmith Founder, Menhaden Capital
Sabina Ratti Executive director, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM)
John Browne Chairman, L1 Energy
Zac Goldsmith MP
Professor Martin Siegert Co-director, Grantham Institute
Professor Joanna Haigh Co-director, Grantham Institute, and vice-president of Royal Meteorological Society
Peter Bakker President, World Business Council for Sustainable Development
Dr Fatima Denton African Climate Policy Centre
Denys Shortt CEO, DCS Group
Adair Turner Former chairman, Financial Services Authority
Gus O’Donnell Former cabinet secretary
Richard Layard London School of Economics
Professor John Shepherd
Martin Rees Astronomer royal
I wish someone had thought of making renewables viable, before the world’s politicians wasted countless billions of public money, building renewable systems which are not fit for purpose.
Having said that, $150 billion seems an awfully high price to pay for speculative research, given there are already other options.
If CO2 is an urgent issue, we should be building nuclear reactors, not delaying action by 10 years in the slim hope of a major breakthrough in renewables technology. A few years ago, former NASA GISS Director James Hansen published an open letter demanding that greens embrace nuclear power.
If nuclear fission is unacceptable for whatever reason, what about nuclear fusion? The ITER project is a serious international effort to explore the viability of nuclear fusion. $150 billion would dramatically accelerate the pace of Nuclear Fusion research. If the ITER project succeeds, it could open the way to limitless non-polluting energy. Unlike Attenborough’s renewables dream, hopes for an ITER breakthrough are based on known physics. Fusion plasmas are not self sustaining because they lose heat too quickly. The rationale behind the ITER project is based on simple geometry. The hope that by building a really big plasma, they can take advantage of the improved volume to surface area ratio, to slow heat loss enough that the fusion reaction becomes self sustaining.
And of course, we would have to think about what opportunities we would miss, personal and public, by spending so much tax money on energy research. For example, a mere fraction of $150 billion could buy an awful lot of clean water and medical care for the world’s poor people – but somehow poor people always seem to end up down the bottom of the list of priorities.
I think the bio-scientists and bio-engineers are well on their way with this project, but it is only with the advent of CRISPR Cas-9 technology that the ability to do the job is in sight. Personally, I think it will be accomplished in the near future (a decade or two).
Just think how peaceful the Middle East will be when the nasty westerners are no longer competing for control of the oil market…Oh, wait, what will they do for a living? I hope they don’t get angry when they’re flat broke and armed to the teeth.
What about liquid fuels for goods transport?
Uh. I don’t think you understand the tech. With what feed stock will you get the cost down to $100 a bbl of oil equivalent – assuming you can get it to work.
https://www.neb.com/tools-and-resources/feature-articles/crispr-cas9-and-targeted-genome-editing-a-new-era-in-molecular-biology
Right now some are working on butanol from cellulose which would merge best with our current distribution network, but I doubt that we’ve even heard of what will work best. Between organisms like algae that produce lipids and those that digest cellulose there are many targets.
The only problem with the plan is the definition of scope. Rephrase it to “economically viable energy sources to minimize environmental impact” and I’m 100% on board. I imagine most people would be.
Only governments can be reasonably expected to invest huge sums in long term high impact R&D.
I don’t agree you necessarily need government involved. Pharmaceutical companies seem to do OK, with placing large punts on high risk high reward research.
Uhhh…..just who do these experts think “leading governments” get their money from?
And what countries qualify as a “leading government”? Which countries are “non-leading governments”?
Who decides? The UN? The IPCC?
Gunga Din
Odd thought. Would this “new budget” not actually cut their present CAGW alarming budget from the Oboma’s administration’s current US budget of over 92 billion per three years to “just” 15.0 billion (worldwide ??) per single year?
I remember him talking about global cooling back in the 70’s. Now that he is on the global warming propaganda wagon, lost all respect for him. Same to with Brian Cox, he should have stuck to rock music.
Well I, for one, endorse expenditure on scientific areas that may or may not provide practical solutions to problems. Research for knowledge’s sake is ok in my book. And if that includes research into solar cells and wind energy options then that’s great. Just as its great we find out about the mating habits of the Eudrilus eugeniae.
I suggest we spend some of the money on family limiting products. The overcrowding of the planet is a large, very large, part of the problems we face.
Oh great – $150 billion worth of condoms.
Really, what evidence do you have of that? Quality of life has infinitely increased with population. We haven’t run out of any resources, and if the nonsensical claim that man if causing climate change is all you can point to, then you have no real evidence to support your position at all.
co2islife,
Evidence? Evidence? They don’t need no steenking evidence , ,
they have vivid imaginations ; )
Is that your motivation for the schlocky climate science we’ve been seeing
Better to spend the money on developing and commerciallizing molten-salt thorium fission reactors and the reprocessing of spent fuel. Estimates say it could compete with coal.
Once fusion reaches breakeven they still have to figure out how to effectively and safely convert the energy from all those high energy neutrons. I don’t know why there is so much propaganda about fusion being called so safe in relation to fission, sure there might not be any spent fuel (which is safely kept in their heavy-water tanks) but high energy neutrons??? And I say that with a B.Eng. in Eng. Physics majoring in Nuclear Engineering.
The molten salt reactor was already developed in the 60’s, just need to develop it for thorium, and maybe throw in a travelling-wave operating mode to make it even more of a home-run.
Better hurry, the Chinese are already working on it.
High energy neutrons are a minor consideration for this fusion device. An introduction to Proton-Boron Fusion. No steam plant (80% of the cost of a nuke plant) required. If it works. A yes/no answer for about $500 million.
BTW high energy neutrons are not difficult to slow down. About 150 mm (6″) of water will do the trick.
My reply went to the bit bucket. Dang.
I’d like to see a MSR with a full steam plant run for a few years to see if corrosion issues are a problem. The tests run in the 60s are not adequate for judging all the operational rqmts. I say that as a Naval Nuke.
“The aspiration of the Global Apollo Programme is to make renewable energy cheaper than coal within 10 years.”
The carbon tax can make that true. That is, with a policy that makes low cost energy expensive, “renewable energy” could seem relatively cheap. Of course it’s a terrible idea.
To make solar viable the solar cells plus 20 hours of storage need to come in at about $1 a watt. So lets see. About 100KW (peak) of solar cells plus 20 KWhs of storage to provide 1 KW 24/7. All for $1,000. Now I may be off some in my estimates. But any idiot can see that even if I’m a factor of 2X or 3X off (on the high side) – it is a fools errand. Wind is worse because you might need to have 2 or 3 days of storage for long periods of low wind.
@RACookPE1978
From what I have read, your statements about geothermal are accurate.
We, the undersigned, believe that global warming can be addressed without adding significant economic costs or burdening taxpayers with more debt. ….
I do not see any top grade electricity supply engineers or energy specialists on that list. We have in effect a group of untrained know nothings in the relevant field expressing the opinion of a group with an ulterior agenda based on no factual evidence whatever.
Show me a similar length list of proper experts in the energy and supply distribution field and I will take the statement seriously. Till then their opinion is worth if anything less than that of my refuse operative in that at least he has nothing to gain from the premise and if Attenborough’s programs a guide a great deal more intelligence.
What is significant on Attenborough’s obscene wage is more than I have to live on for a decade.
David, Luvvies know best!
$150 billion is ten times the cost of building ITER, which is the most expensive advanced nucelar project in the world. Any new tech has to be something of a gamble, but with that level of funding I think it’s an odds-on bet that we would succeed. Bear in mind also that many people regard ITER as insanely overcomplicated; there are simpler proposals that would cost a lot less to test.
When the scam starts to run out of legs, rejig the scam, simples!
I love the idea of spending billions to make something economically viable.
Of course te profession that engages on a daily basis in making technology economically viable, is engineering.
There is not a single engineer in the signatories.
The aspiration of the Global Apollo Programme is to make renewable energy cheaper than coal within 10 years. We urge the leading nations of the world to commit to this positive, practical initiative by the Paris climate conference in December.
*************************************************************************************
The aspiration of the Global Apollo Programme is to make coal more expensive than the ridiculously expensive renewable energies based on wind and solar.
There I’ve fixed it for you, the same statement but more transparent as to its meaning.
That will undoubtedly make the poor poorer and also increase the number that die in poverty.
Is that what you want?
SteveT
It is amazing- they just picked a number with no actual budget goals in mind. Over at the Blackboard Blog Lucia posted a blog on how there needs to be a worldwide trust run by the wisest to solve AGW. It was a joke blog and meant to ridicule the idea.
And here is an old has been trying to hustle up the money.
But everyone knows the Apollo project was faked….
Spending the money on research is infinitely better than building nonsensical wind and solar farms. In 10 years they will all be obsolete, broken down and huge eye sores. There are extremely promising renewable energy sources, and many are going bankrupt due to funding. One of my favorites was Kior. They used enzymes on cellulose to make oil. Bill Gates invested in it. Unfortunately they ran out of money.
https://youtu.be/ZFZeXYvFPDg?list=PLB1_YW37oH_R57AriF_4w7h-QWlI1XfFg
http://www.kior.com/
Renewable Energy Group purchased Syntroleum which has the ability to turn waste cooking oil into pure drop in jet and diesel fuel. They also have Fischer Tropsch technology to turn any carbon source into fuel after being converted to syngas.
http://regi.com/node/686
There are there firms working on cellulosic ethanol.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=17851
There are also firms working on producing fuel from sewage, algae, wood chips and garbage.
http://propelfuels.com/our_fuels/next_generation_fuels/
Unfortunate, instead of funding research in areas that provide a real solution to our problem, we are funding non-starters like Wind and Solar because they have the best chance of resulting in donations to the Democratic Party.
Imagine the damage this kind of technology could do to our enemies? The technology could easily be justified in the Military and NASA Budget. The cost of one air craft-carrier/Space Shuttle would likely provide enough funding to make this technology commercially viable, and it would destroy the Middle East and Russia. The moment we sign a deal to give Iran nuclear material we should fund KiOR and drive the price of oil into the floor, robbing Iran of the funds needed to build a bomb, and turning Russia into a 4th world economy. 4th world as in (1st) developed, (2nd) developing, (3rd) emerging and (4th) stone age. We have wasted 8 years and gotten nothing for the huge investments we’ve made in wind and solar, absolutely nothing but a huge liability and astronomical opportunity cost of missed opportunities.Funding KiOR would be infinitely less expensive than another war.
https://youtu.be/ioEQBEBYTH4
Tell me these aren’t better solutions than Wind and Solar: Obama has wasted 8 years and forced a huge opportunity cost on America.
http://www.kior.com/content/ourtech/movie.html
https://youtu.be/ILAiQURrMH0
http://solazyme.com/solutions/fuel/?lang=en
You realize that because of advanced drilling techniques (a/k/a fracking), the US now produces more hydrocarbons than it consumes, and that the price of oil now less than $50/bbl. If the US really wanted to ensure the availability of fossil fuels, we would invade California and let the drillers go to work there.
You can’t make renewables economic that require 100s of square miles of footprint to do it compared to several hundred acres for natural gas or coal-fired plants that can produce the same energy. This argument was the main reason there was so much resistance to hydroelectric power in bygone years. Arable land at a couple of thousand an acre (European and Asian investors are paying 5,000 to 10,000 an acre for North American arable land). To take it out of service is not economic. To ruin parkland as they have in Denmark and UK is unconscionable. We are talking about areas that are the size of some states in the US and countries in EU. Land is the first quantum prohibitive cost of solar and wind, before we even begin to look at the pathetic efficiencies of these nightmare brain waves. Switch all to natural gas and CO2 will take a nosedive. Clearly, the thinking here reveals another agenda entirely.
P.S: I’m afraid as an engineer/geologist I’m not too impressed with any more ideas from astronomers and university professors – particularly 90% of the list of signatories. On this subject, the LSE has thoroughly abandoned economic thought – what is left in their heads? Do they maybe think we can make tiny windmills?
LSE was always a leftist institution. They used to welcome non leftists like Friedrich Hayek. But, like the rest of the left, they are no longer able to tolerate other voices.
Attenborough really is disgracing himself. An ignoble end to a creditable career. Not a finish worthy of the start.
WHY should not old men be mad?
Some have known a likely lad
That had a sound fly-fisher’s wrist
Turn to a drunken journalist;
A girl that knew all Dante once
Live to bear children to a dunce;
A Helen of social welfare dream,
Climb on a wagonette to scream.
Some think it a matter of course that chance
Should starve good men and bad advance,
That if their neighbours figured plain,
As though upon a lighted screen,
No single story would they find
Of an unbroken happy mind,
A finish worthy of the start.
Young men know nothing of this sort,
Observant old men know it well;
And when they know what old books tell
And that no better can be had,
Know why an old man should be mad.
William Butler Yeats :
So many fallacies so little time.
An Apollo Program. What a bad analogy. The Apollo Program used known technology, upsized versions of existing liquid gas fueled rockets, to take men to a destination that you can see. What that has to do with energy production is beyond my ken. Maybe what that means is having the government spend ginormous sums of money to do something spectacular and not particularly useful. Sort of like having the government spend lots of money on the VA.
“Make Renewable energy cheaper than Coal”. I don’t care how cheap wind and solar are. They can never be the sole source of electrical energy, because the bloody sun goes down every night and the wind blows only intermittently. Power grids cannot be run on intermittent power. Therefore every watt of renewable power must be accompanied by a watt of backup generation, that can take up the slack caused by the sun and the wind. The capital cost of the backup power will always make the renewables more expensive than non-renewables.
I did leave out energy storage. The bad news is that there is no such thing, except for batteries. (Each pumped hydro enthusiast will be required to locate suitable sites for their projects) The bad news on batteries is that they are a completely mature technology, any improvements will be marginal and will not to change the economics. The electric battery was invented more than two centuries ago. No genies will pop out of the bottle in that quadrant.