Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability

Abstract

There are lessons from recent history of technology introductions which should not be forgotten when considering alternative energy technologies for carbon dioxide emission reductions.The growth of the ecological footprint of a human population about to increase from 7B now to 9B in 2050 raises serious concerns about how to live both more efficiently and with less permanent impacts on the finite world. One present focus is the future of our climate, where the level of concern has prompted actions across the world in mitigation of the emissions of CO2. An examination of successful and failed introductions of technology over the last 200 years generates several lessons that should be kept in mind as we proceed to 80% decarbonize the world economy by 2050. I will argue that all the actions taken together until now to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide will not achieve a serious reduction, and in some cases, they will actually make matters worse. In practice, the scale and the different specific engineering challenges of the decarbonization project are without precedent in human history. This means that any new technology introductions need to be able to meet the huge implied capabilities. An altogether more sophisticated public debate is urgently needed on appropriate actions that (i) considers the full range of threats to humanity, and (ii) weighs more carefully both the upsides and downsides of taking any action, and of not taking that action.

A generalized approach for selecting solar energy system configurations for a wide range of applications

“…It is therefore not surprising to find persistent arguments that solar radiation could never provide a major share of the energy demanded by human civilization on earth. 36,37 In summary, after half a century of extensive development and investments of billions of dollars, we are still faced with the same questions:…”

The structure of the climate debate

“…Climate change is often presented in catastrophic terms (Hulme 2008), although there are also voices that decry it as a hoax (Jang and Hart 2015). Climate policy is often presented as costless if not beneficial (Barker et al 2007), although there are also voices that claim it may bring the economy crashing down (Kelly 2016). These positions are untenable, so their persistence requires explanation.…”

Nurturing transformative U.S. energy research: Two guiding principles

“…Third, tax and regulatory policy (e.g., solar electricity tax credits or fuel emission standards) is sometimes considered a substitute for research in advancing new technologies, when instead it often locks-in inferior current technologies. 23 A third cause of the unwellness of U.S. energy research is the one that we raise in this Commentary for debate and discussion within our own energy research community: a selfinflicted mis-control and mis-protection of energy research supported by the public sector. We use these terms purposefully to indicate behaviors that originate in well-intentioned human tendencies to control and protect, but that end up severely weakening that which was intended to be controlled and protected.…”