Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Climate Change And Energy In The 21St Century (Canto Classics)

Today, it takes about half-tonne of CO2 emissions to produce one thousand dollars ($1,000) of GDP (p. 343). "The United States is about at the average, China is above it, the EU is below, but the range of values is small." (p. 342-343).In order to achieve the combined goals of stable or growing world GDP together with static or decreasing carbon emissions new R&D for sustainable energy, efficiency, conservation, and better forestry and marine practices are necessary. Otherwise, as the IPCC estimates, there will be several degrees of global temperature rise by 2100, agricultural disruptions, substantial sea level rise, and the risk for potentially massive amounts of meltwater from Greenland and West Antarctica in the 22nd century (notably, CO2 has an average lifetime in the atmosphere of about three hundred years, the time for the ocean to absorb ninety percent plus of the anthropogenic CO2 through absorption, chemical reactions, photosynthesis, ecosystem cycles, and ocean currents).This is an excellent book on climate and energy for several reasons. First, the author is an undisputed expert (Nobel Laureate in Physics, former director of a US national laboratory, experience in nuclear reactor design and engineering). Second, the arguments are well supported by facts, analysis, and the editorial review of major publishers (Cambridge University Press and Canto). The topics are comprehensive and detailed. Here are several timely and relevant areas for policymakers, activists, and readers:1. "Improving energy efficiency is the cheapest and easiest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; Energy not used reduces imports, emits no grenhouse gases, and is free; The transportation and building secotrs use far more energy than is necessary; The total cost to the economy as a whole of most of the improvements is negative: we save money" [a view also supported by the Rocky Mountain Institute and Amory Lovins] (p. 150)2. "A reasonable and achievable goal for the building sector as a whole is that it uses no more energy in 2030 than it does today." (174-175)3. A national power grid, or SuperGrid. "Move large amounts of power from the wind farms of the Great Plains and the solar installations of the Southwest to the country's major load centers. .... Make the systme more robust so that failur of one major line does not seriously affect a large area .... A model [for policymakers] that might be used is that of the US interstates highway system begun in the 1950s during the Eisenhower administration. .... Maybe if everyong called their new grids a National Defense Electron Highway System we could actually get them built in a reasonable amount of time." (p. 270-271)4. "France's Long-Range Nuclear Development Plan" .... "a shortage of natural uranium needed for lifetime fueling of the LWR [light-water reactor] fleet may occur about mid-century. An on-ramp if new fuel is needed requires the development of a new generation of advanced nuclear reactors that can breed new fuel from depleted uranium. The necessary R&D will be done over the next 30 years so they wil be ready for large-scale commercial development around mid-century if needed and economical." (p. 227-228)5. In general, new or reform legislation that is closely based on engineering concepts and resource limits, can be broadly described in this "Policy Scorecard", updated and modified by me as a commentator, from the 2010 publication date of this book:"Winners": "Greenhouse gas reduction standards", "Federal mile per gallon standards", "Demand side management""Losers": "Cap and Trade for transportation", "Renewable portfolio standards", "State mile per gallon standards", "Low carbon fuel standards" (p. 331).Whether or not artificial global cooling, or solar radiation management (SRM) should be included in these Cost-Benefit analyses is not discussed in this section. Perhaps the complexity of this approach, and the potential reductions in ocean, forest, and agricultural photosynthesis are thought to offset the temporary benefits from a more reflective and cooler atmosphere.The author concludes the book with this "Coda":"....Inaction is certain to have serious consequences; The longer we delay starting to deal with climate change, the harder dealing with the problem will be; The problem is emissions of greenhouse gases and the goal is to reduce them ... the world does not have to run on windmills and solar cells; We can mitigate the damage, but have to act on a worldwide scale; The richer countries will have to develop affordable technologies that all can use; It will be hard to develop sensible national policies and even harder to develop sensible international ones, but we must try to do so." (p. 348-349).

The author, a prominent physicist and former director of a major physics research lab, who has spent the past decade looking into the facts on which the climate change debate rests, has written a book summarizing the scientific basis for concerns about the changing climate, evaluating the various technical solutions that have been proposed, and summarizing his view on a workable policy for dealing with the situation. We are unlikely to have a more qualified reviewer of this vital issue. The earth's climate depends on a delicate, nonlinear energy balance between incident energy from the sun and energy re-radiated outside the earth's atmosphere. The incident energy absorbed in the earth's surface depends on the distance from the sun, which is determined by the earth's orbit, and on the fraction of the incident energy that is not reflected by the atmosphere or the earth itself. The amount of energy radiated by the earth depends on the earth's temperature and on the fraction of that re-radiated energy not reabsorbed in the earth's atmosphere. Some carbon gases in the atmosphere--carbon dioxide and methane--strongly absorb energy at the frequencies it is re-radiated from the earth, producing a greenhouse effect for the entire planet. The earth's surface temperature must adjust so that the incident and outgoing energy fluxes are balanced. Antarctic ice-core data exhibit a remarkable correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature over 400,000 years, with a sharp increase in both since the beginning of the industrial revolution.Atmospheric carbon pollution is predominantly the result of producing energy. Oil, coal and natural gas produce 82% of the world's Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) and 100% of the world's CO2 emissions. If the world's growing energy needs continue to be met primarily by fossil fuels, the carbon concentration in the atmosphere will continue to increase, with predictable dire consequences, and the affordably recoverable supply of fossil fuels will be depleted by 2100. Models for future temperature increases, based on projected energy requirements being met largely by fossil fuels, predict increases of 4-9 degrees F by 2100, which will raise the sea level by 2-4 feet (putting Florida under water and eliminating the snowfall that provides California's water, among other disasters). If the melting of the arctic ice fields releases the methane (CH4-- a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2) in the underlying permafrost, matters would be catastrophically worse. While the several models used to predict climate changes are based on state-of-the-art science and computational technology, and are calibrated to match past weather patterns, their accuracy will be known for certain only 30-40 years from now. However, all models used internationally predict an increasing temperature within the above range with `business as usual' continuation of fossil fuel use. The conclusion is unavoidable--we must start now to reduce, or at least not further increase, the carbon in the atmosphere, primarily by reducing or eliminating the burning of fossil fuels to meet the world's growing energy demands.The end use of energy in the US is 40% for the production and operation of commercial and residential buildings, 32% for industry and 28% for transportation; the primary energy sources for which are today coal 18%, gas 27%, oil 36%, nuclear 8%, renewables (including wind and solar) 2%, biomass 5% and hydroelectric 3%. Substitution of emission-free fuels for fossil fuels is the obvious solution that should be implemented immediately. The author argues that Nuclear is a safe, low-risk source of the amount of power that is needed, while the Renewables (wind and solar) are intermittent in nature, generally not located where the power is needed (among other problems) and could never provide more than a small fraction of the energy required. He is skeptical about biomass (corn ethanol causes a net increase in carbon emission relative to gasoline), but believes that carbon sequestration (burying the CO2 instead of releasing it into the atmosphere) should be investigated as a stop-gap measure.Economic, political, regulatory and policy issues that must be confronted are discussed. US government energy subsidies from 1950 through 2006 in the form of tax incentives for oil and gas, R&D for nuclear, etc. were oil $335B, gas $100B, coal $94B, hydro $80B, nuclear $65B, renewables $52B--a set of political priorities that must change.This is an important book on a vital topic that must be of interest to all who are concerned about the planet that we will leave our grandchildren.

Just as advertised and a good book.

The book was excellently written. I particularly appreciated Richter's clear demarcations between the science and the politics of climate change. This was especially true in his discussion of the increasing need for energy in a developing society, and the options for achieving this while meeting goals for reduced carbon emissions.

First off, I'm a bit biased because Burton Richter is my father. I found the second edition to be an enjoyable, informative read, much like the first. (The first edition received the Phi Beta Kappa science book of the year award in 2011) A lot has changed since the first edition, and the evolution of the energy technologies is well covered. I found that there was enough new content when compared to the first edition it almost felt like a first read.As always, facts are referenced and opinion is clearly indicated. If you are interested in the science behind the climate debate, you will find your time well spent reading this book.

Well written and very informative with many links to climate changesites

GOOD BOOK

So good so far. Looks good and if the product holds up will be a return customer.

A balanced view on this very controversial topic