Michael Rosenthal
(10/2021) A recent announcement by the current federal administration has outlined a plan to modify the production of energy by the middle of the century to produce close to half of the nation’s electricity from solar panels. This plan would move us in the right direction to address climate change issues. Solar panels currently produce only 3 percent of the nation’s electricity. That amount is far below the potential. When we purchased the house in which we live in 2004, I hoped that it would make it easy to include solar panels. The builders did not make that offer, and I did not have enough confidence at the time to proceed with such a plan. When dog walking with Willie, our standard poodle, I do note that some other homes nearby in our development have installed solar panels.
We could and should do much better than the 3% of electricity we generate by solar panels. The administration proposal suggests raising solar panel usage to 45% of power generation in the next thirty years, by doubling installed solar power every year for the next four years and then doubling it again by 2030. This would make a serious impact on greenhouse gas emissions, moving toward 100 % of the country’s energy coming from clean energy sources.
It will politically not be an easy thing to do. The Department of Energy projects that this could be done and could provide 40 percent of the country’s electricity by 2035, employing 1.5 million people, without increasing energy prices. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm made the following statement. "Achieving this bright future requires a massive and equitable deployment of renewable energy and strong decarbonization policies – exactly what is laid out in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and in President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda."
Coupling this with nuclear power, in my mind, builds a better future for energy production in the United States. We of course must continue to seek a safer nuclear waste disposal policy. In my mind, we must continue to work vigorously to eliminate the production of energy by fossil fuels.
Related to this, the world’s biggest plant to capture carbon dioxide from the air has opened in Iceland. The plant is located on a barren lava plateau in southwest Iceland, and it increases the global capacity for carbon capture by more than 40 percent. Removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is a major factor in making the world carbon neutral. It won’t be an easy thing to do. It will be necessary to remove almost a billion metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere every year through direct air capture technology. The plant in Iceland will capture 4,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. This project is thought to be a blueprint for future efforts.
The procedure is very original. Human-sized fans are built into boxes that are the size of standard 40-foot shipping containers. They draw carbon dioxide out of the air and catch it in sponge-like filters. The filters are then blasted with heat, freeing the CO2 gas, which is then mixed with water and pumped into deep underground basalt caverns, where it cools over time and turns into dark-gray stone. There are other ways to dispose of the carbon dioxide, including use as a fuel component when mixed with hydrogen gas. Why Iceland? Because the tiny island has ample supplies of climate-friendly geothermal energy as well as the appropriate underground geology for carbon capture. Though the costs of producing energy by this methodology are high, prices are expected to eventually fall. This initiative is clearly an important step in the reduction of greenhouse gases.
Potomac Edison has released its summary of the sources of its energy from January 1 through December 31, 2020. The largest source of energy in this period was gas, producing 39.84% of the energy in this region, followed by 34.49% nuclear. Coal still produced 19.44% and oil produced 0.16%. Renewable energy was a total of only 6.03%, a mixture of captured methane (0.30%), hydroelectric (1.29%), solar (0.48%), solid waste (0.52%), wind (3.30%), and wood or other biomass (0.15%). The summary also notes air emissions, which included small amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, but still a very large amount of carbon dioxide, 791.5 pounds per megawatt-hour of electricity generated. Such notices are required by the Maryland Public Service Commission.
______________________________
We’ve written before about plastic pollution, which remains a very serious problem in the world’s oceans. I haven’t seen a switch to paper bags in the places I frequent, and I don’t have the feeling that anywhere nearly as much as should be done is being done to reduce plastic pollution. There are always it seems secondary stories that result from major environmental effects. Here is a recent example reported in the Washington Post that caught my eye. One of the chemicals which are found in the oceans where plastic waste is dumped is a plastic additive, oleamide.
A team of scientists in England examined a batch of 40 hermit crabs found in the waters off the Yorkshire coast to see how they reacted to the chemical, and they found that oleamide elevated the respiration rate of the crabs. It was already known to be a sex pheromone for shrimp. This is another example of how the dumping of chemicals can have unplanned effects on the environment, and thus why we should discourage and outlaw the dumping of chemical waste. The problem with plastic pollution is one of the most serious ocean pollution problems. Scientists project that at the current rate of plastic dumping there will result in more plastic than fish in the world’s oceans by 2050!
More than 8 million metric tons of plastics are dumped annually into the world’s oceans, and the World Wildlife Fund estimated that at least 90 percent of birds have plastic in their stomachs. Ask for paper bags at the supermarket!
Finally, here is an example of how good science can breed bad science. There is a drug named ivermectin which is an anti-parasitic medication. Somehow, it has emerged, without any scientific basis, as a treatment for covid-19. During one week in August, more than 88,000 prescriptions were written, up from 3,600 prescriptions. Its known use is that of a deworming medication prescribed previously for horses and cows! In spring 2020 an Australian study found it killed the virus in a lab setting. It is a very effective drug in treating parasites in humans and animals, so important that two scientists won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work on it.
Somehow, many people have embraced the drug as a coronavirus vaccine, although there is absolutely no evidence that this is so. Even some doctors have promoted it, but there is no proven benefit to taking this drug. Why are there significant numbers of people who believe in this drug as a treatment for COVID-19 when there is no proven scientific evidence it is so? Well, it has become an alternative for anti-vaccine promoters who want an excuse to avoid the vaccine, which they fear.
The major reason that I took on the writing of Real Science was to help dispel false information that claims to be science. This is another example, and it is one that has great consequences if it prevents people from seeking appropriate medical treatment. I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever – get vacinated, and seek counsel and take the advice of a competent physician on all medical matters before taking action on them, in this case, the vaccine.
Read other articles by Michael Rosenthal
