Wednesday, March 13, 2013

What will Florida look like in 2050? ... by gimleteye

These days, you can see the future on ordinary high tides on Miami Beach. The photo above was taken on the south end of West Avenue.

It should not need interpretation, but it does.

The roadway fronting new condo buildings is stacked with water. Sea Water. It hasn't rained in many days. This photo was taken last night at around 10PM. The tide was still rising.

Miami Beach is flooding because of sea level rise. It is only flooding a little now, but it is going to flood a lot by 2050. If you don't believe me, spend a little time with scientists or the news reports on climate change.

These confirm what we are seeing with our own eyes: the scale of climate change we are now experiencing has no historic precedent within mankind's historical frame of reference.

It is hard to match that assertion with the photograph. We don't know what to do with the information. Over the past decades -- while scientists accumulated evidence of massive changes wrought by burning of fossil fuels -- the conservative right wing sowed seeds of doubt, everywhere. Meanwhile, economies of the undeveloped world caught fire, lifting the prospects of a better life for billions of people.

I've just returned from a month in Asia, where the pollution caused by greenhouse gas emitting power sources is unrelenting. The entire subcontinent is shrouded in smog. Drought is spreading. The annual monsoon that nourishes billions of Asians and Indians withered last year, the same way the midwest and Rockies have suffered.

Today the right-wing is adjusting its message. They say, even if there is climate change, there is nothing we can do about it. That fits the central belief of the radical right: government is the problem, not the answer.

The water stacking up on Miami Beach streets at high tide, cars swerve around. We won't be able to swerve for long, and certainly not when 2050 rolls in.

Please read the recent New York Times article, "In Search of Energy Miracles"
. Its focus is on nuclear power: the only power source able to deliver energy at scale, to billions of people, that does not immediately pollute the planet.

I am steadfastly opposed to new nuclear at Turkey Point at the southern tip of Florida, because it is a certainty that by 2050 billions invested by ratepayers at sea level -- surrounded by the lowest lying region on the Florida peninsula -- will be lost to rising seas.

It is the location, not just the technology, that sways my view. (Congress needs to be locked in the capitol until the spent fuel rod problem is resolved.) We have an enormous lifting job in Miami-Dade County to prepare for the rising seas. Putting new nuclear in South Florida is a massive distraction.

The Times report by Justin Gillis ends with a point that I have also noted: "... surely we would all feel better about the future if the full creative power of American capitalism were unleashed on the climate problem."

What America needs to do, right now, is recruit the nation's top venture capitalists and utility engineers to lay out a blueprint for a rapid transformation away from fossil fuel consumption. We can't get there, from here, without the intervention of government because the nation's utilities will not budge from their business models. How high will the seas have to rise before we recognize that fact?

March 11, 2013
In Search of Energy Miracles

At a legendary but secretive laboratory in California, Lockheed Martin is working on a plan that some employees hope might transform the world’s energy system: a practicable type of nuclear fusion.

Some 900 miles to the north, Bill Gates and another Microsoft veteran, Nathan Myhrvold, have poured millions into a company developing a fission reactor that could run on today’s nuclear waste.

And on the far side of the world, China has seized on discarded American research to pursue a safer reactor based on an abundant element called thorium.

Beyond the question of whether they will work, these ambitious schemes pose a larger issue: How much faith should we, as a society, put in the idea of a big technological fix to save the world from climate change?

A lot of smart people are coming to see the energy problem as the defining challenge of the 21st century. We have to supply power and transportation to an eventual population of 10 billion people who deserve decent lives, and we have to do it while limiting the emissions that threaten our collective future.

Yet we have already poured so much carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere that huge, threatening changes to the world’s climate appear to be inevitable. And instead of slowing down, emissions are speeding up as billions of once-destitute people claw their way out of poverty, powered by fossil fuels.

Many environmentalists believe that wind and solar power can be scaled to meet the rising demand, especially if coupled with aggressive efforts to cut waste. But a lot of energy analysts have crunched the numbers and concluded that today’s renewables, important as they are, cannot get us even halfway there.

“We need energy miracles,” Mr. Gates said in a speech three years ago introducing his approach, embodied in a company called TerraPower.

A variety of new technologies might help. Bright young folks in American universities are working on better ways to store electricity, which could solve many of the problems associated with renewable power. Work has even begun on futuristic technologies that might cheaply pull carbon dioxide out of the air.

But because of the pressing need for thousands of large generating stations that emit no carbon dioxide while providing electricity day and night, many technologists keep returning to potential improvements in nuclear power.

After all, despite its many problems, it is the one low-carbon energy source that we know can work on a very large scale. France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors.

Perhaps Mr. Gates can find a way forward. He is the world’s second-richest man and surely the premier American technologist of the era, following the death of Steve Jobs.

His partner in TerraPower is Mr. Myhrvold, the former chief technology officer at Microsoft. Adept in geophysics, space physics, mathematics, economics, paleontology and gastronomy, Mr. Myhrvold is the man behind a $600 cookbook called “Modernist Cuisine” and a slew of other wildly inventive projects.

Their plan is to build something called a traveling wave reactor. In principle, it could operate safely for a half-century or more without refueling, and could run on material that has been discarded from today’s reactors as hazardous waste, solving several problems at once.

They have persuaded an energy veteran, John Gilleland, to run the company; he employs about 60 people and is laying plans to build a prototype reactor.

“We sensed that nuclear had not been pushed in an innovative sense for some time,” Mr. Gilleland said. “No one had taken 21st-century technology and modeling capabilities and just sort of started over.”

Their method, like that of existing reactors, is based on fission, or splitting heavy atoms, then using the resulting heat to spin turbines and make electricity.

Lockheed Martin is pursuing a more difficult course: fusion. It involves fusing hydrogen variants into heavier elements, similar to the reaction that powers the sun.

The company will not say much about the program under way at its legendary Skunk Works facility in California, which developed the U-2 spy plane. But in a videotaped speech this year, a leader of the program, Charles Chase, suggested it was aiming for small, modular fusion reactors that could be built in factories.

Mr. Chase and his colleagues face long odds: 60 years of research on fusion has produced more disappointment than progress. “There’s really only one guarantee, and that’s if we don’t try, nothing is going to happen,” Mr. Chase said in his talk.

Among the new nuclear approaches, fission reactors based on thorium are especially intriguing, offering potentially huge safety advantages. The basic concepts were proved in research by the American nuclear establishment in the 1960s, but the idea was ultimately abandoned by the Nixon administration in favor of a riskier approach called breeder reactors, which turned into an $8 billion black hole.

An engineer in Alabama, Kirk Sorensen, has helped excavate the old thorium work and founded his own tiny company, Flibe Energy, to push it forward. But it will surprise no one to hear that China is ahead of the United States on this, with hundreds of engineers working on thorium reactors.

“They’re doing laps around the track, and we haven’t even decided if we’re going to lace up our shoes,” Mr. Sorensen said.

Yet not even the speedy Chinese are likely to get a sizable reactor built before the 2020s, and that is true for the other nuclear projects as well. So even if these technologies prove to work, it would not be surprising to see the timeline for widespread deployment slip to the 2030s or the 2040s. And climate scientists tell us it would be folly to wait that long to start tackling the emissions problem.

Two approaches to the issue — spending money on the technologies we have now, or investing in future breakthroughs — are sometimes portrayed as conflicting. In reality, that is a false dichotomy. The smartest experts say we have to pursue both tracks at once, and much more aggressively than we have been doing.

An ambitious national climate policy, anchored by a stiff price on carbon dioxide emissions, would serve both goals at once. In the short run, it would hasten a trend of supplanting coal-burning power plants with natural gas plants, which emit less carbon dioxide. It would drive investment into current low-carbon technologies like wind and solar power that, while not efficient enough, are steadily improving.

And it would also raise the economic rewards for developing new technologies that could disrupt and displace the ones of today. These might be new-age nuclear reactors, vastly improved solar cells, or something entirely unforeseen.

In effect, our national policy now is to sit on our hands hoping for energy miracles, without doing much to call them forth. While we dawdle, maybe the Chinese will develop a nice business selling us thorium reactors based on our old designs. For communists, they do have an entrepreneurial bent.

But surely we would all feel better about the future if the full creative power of American capitalism were unleashed on the climate problem.

This week Justin Gillis, an environment reporter at The Times, begins a monthly column exploring the challenges posed by climate change.

Remarkable Creatures: Solving the Puzzles of Mimicry in Nature
Read More »


Anonymous said...

You are so right, we are going under and no one is paying attention. In the scheme of things, 2050 is not that far away. The kids that are borne this year, will be in their 40's. We don't have much time to create an awareness, size up the situation, and begin to implement an action plan. I guess they figure they will be dead by then, they will have made their money, and let those who remain figure out what to do.

100panthers said...

The dismantling and decontamination of the nuclear reactor at Crystal River will take 50 years. Turkey Point will be under water in 50 years. Shouldn't we be dismantling it now...rather than building more?

Gimleteye said...


Malagodi said...

Ah Gimlette. You believe in nuclear power technology, just not where it is, as you've said many times. So does Bill Gates. But let's not make it a foundational point of division, ok?

I respect your view, which I don't happen to share, given the current technology. That's ok. And no one really knows what the future energy source mix will look like. First and foremost is the reduction of fossils and the rebuilding of the grid in a rational way that makes use of enhanced centralized and local storage systems. That, I think we can agree on.

Look at the South Florida Climate Action Plan. This is the vehicle that will allow the political 'leadership' to divert contracts from ill-conceived suburban sprawl over to hopefully more well-conceived climate change adaption projects. The corruption in the politics/construction industry will go on, but it'll shift to other 'opportunites'. Make no mistake, the sums involved in climate change adaptation projects is enormous.

My question to the SFCAP people was, "is there any discussion about the losses to be suffered by people in unadaptable areas?" Not being discussed at this time.

Turkey Point II will not be built. Let's focus on what's happening.

Anonymous said...

I don't know of a plan to reimburse property owners when Miami Beach becomes permanently a part of the Atlantic ocean. The only thing I can think of is federal flood insurance. But it might go bankrupt if it had to pay every owner in Miami Beach. Tell us what happened when you family member's house was washed away by Sandy, and the land it was on, is now permanently under water.

Anonymous said...

The scientific and environmental communities need to meet with the new Secretary of Energy from MIT to discuss our situation so that he understands that this is another major energy issue that must be addressed on his watch.

Anonymous said...

Ever seen the underground garages on West Avenue? The get filled with 3' to 6' of water during heavy storms. Even certain intersections overflow with 2' to 3' of water. Smart people are selling their Beach homes and moving to high ground in Miami.

Anonymous said...

Nothing will be done about it. The time for action was during the first oil embargo in the seventy's. the inaction and no attention to global warming till today means its business as usual and let everybody fend for themselves, just as in the recent financial debacle, except the fat cat's will be saved.

This is what happens when business runs government.
Or as Mussolini would have his choice word.
It's time the fog comes off the peoples eye's.

Science Teacher said...

No historic precedent for this level of climate change? Are you joking? Florida has been underwater for most of the earth's existence. Florida is rife with limestone which was created by piled up coral, shellfish, and fish skeletons. Florida was more than double in size just 20 thousand years ago. It shrank dramatically because of rising water levels.

I recommend that you take a University course in geology. Or just watch the History Channel. They have a great series called How the Earth Was Made.

Olga said...

Dear Science Teacher,

Stop bringing your stupid science and academics here. We believe only what Al Gore tells us to believe. Also, it is impossible that Florida was twice as big 20 thousand years ago because the bible tells us that the earth is only 10 thousand years old.

Boom Lift Rental said...

Dreams come true that future city should be as post.. working for future lead to success to active dream.. keep posting more post..