OK #energytwitter: This week's nerd thread.

Why climate change is real, and man made. And why you should treat anyone who insists otherwise with the same respect you treat someone who insists that gravity is also a left-wing conspiracy. (Warning: this thread contains science.)
1/ First, you gotta understand the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If you put 5 1 lb weights in a bag, the bag will weigh 5 lbs. If you put 500 1 Btu pieces of energy in a bag, the bag will contain 500 Btus.
2/ Energy can however be converted. You can take electric energy, put it through a resistor and make heat. You can take chemical energy from gasoline and turn it into mechanical power in your car engine. But the energy that comes out = the energy you put in.
3/ So way back in 1820, Joseph Fourier, armed with the 1st law had a math problem. He measured the energy coming from the sun to the earth (as light) and estimated how warm the earth should be when that light was converted to heat. His math said the earth should be ~0F.
4/ The moon, which is the same distance from the sun is that temperature. But the earth was closer to 57F. How come we are so much warmer than the moon?
5/ The answer, it turned out was CO2. In 1908, Svante Arrhenius figured out that CO2 (and water vapor, and methane) acts like a blanket around the earth. But it's a weird blanket.
6/ Weird because while those gases are invisible to light, they absorb heat. So when that light hits the earth and gets converted into heat (remember that 1st law), the heat bounces back and gets trapped by those gases. Ergo, the "greenhouse effect".
7/ Arrhenius then did the math and calculated that if the CO2 content in the atmosphere were 50% lower, the earth would be 4C cooler. And if were doubled, the earth would be 4C warmer.
8/ This was in 1908, mind you. 5 years after the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk. 20 years before the TV was invented. 40 years before the transistor was invented. For all practical purposes, the science of climate change has been settled since that date.
9/ Back in 1820 when Fourier first identified this math problem, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 284 ppm, which was roughly where it had been for the prior 100,000 years, and that CO2 was the result of volcanoes and breathing animals.
10/ By 1908, CO2 was up to 299 ppm. 311 ppm by 1950. By the time I was born in 1971 it was up to 326. Today it's over 410 ppm. That 100 year spike is totally ahistorical, and totally due to our species.
11/ Remember, prior to Watt inventing the steam engine in 1776, our species access to power was limited to our access to muscles. But the steam engine gave us concentrated power, first was we converted wood and peat to mechanical power, and then from coal.
12/ William Drake tapped the first oil well in Titusville PA in 1859. The access to all that concentrated energy has massively increased our standard of living. (Amazing what you can do when you don't have to churn butter all day).
13/ But by depending on fossil fuel combustion to provide that energy, we took carbon that had been locked underground and barfed it into the atmosphere. That is why the CO2 concentrations have spiked over the last 150 years.
14/ And Arrhenius and Fourier's math still holds up. Put more CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature goes up. This is why we call it man-made global warming.
15/ As an aside, can you imagine asking an ethics review board to allow you to do an experiment where you test Arrhenius and Fourier's hypothesis by injecting massive CO2 into the atmosphere and seeing if it gets hotter? That's essentially what we've done.
16/ Also: carbon normally has a molecular weight of 12, but there is an isotope at 13. Plants prefer C12 when they photosynthesize. CO2 calculated in ancient ice cores shows a shift to more C12 post-industrial revolution - because we were burning old plants (aka, fossil fuel)
17/ So we KNOW that our species burned the carbon that made the CO2 that made the temperature go up. And we know that Arrhenius - and Nelly - were right. It's getting hot in here.
18/ And we keep emitting. We are adding almost 3 million pounds of new CO2 into the atmosphere every SECOND. That works out to the energy addition of 4 Hiroshima class nuclear weapons. Every second.
19/ But that 1st law still holds. We took chemical energy stored in the earth and converted it into heat energy. The heat doesn't go away. It melts ice. Heats the air. Heats oceans. Fuels hurricanes. It makes our entire planet a lot more volatile and dangerous.
20/ If you care about national security, this should scare you because climate destabilization (see: North Africa) destabilizes governments and creates refugee crises and large numbers of unemployed young men. The stuff of which wars are made.
21/ If you care about inter-generational equity this should scare you WAY more than deficits because the mess you are leaving our kids to clean up there is no way to inflate this problem away, or find an understanding lender to write down.
22/ But it's also a great opportunity. Because the standard of living we all depend on doesn't depend on fossil fuel. It depends on access to USEFUL energy. Transportation. Heating. Cooling. Light. And we can make all those forms of energy without burning fossil fuel.
23/ And if you don't burn fossil fuel, you don't have to pay for it either. The sun, the wind, the tides... those are all free. Which means that we have a massive ECONOMIC opportunity to fix a massive climate problem.
24/ The science is settled, and has been for a century. The opportunity is before us. Give the deniers a tinfoil hat and a padded room if you must. But more importantly, let's get to work. /fin
One postscript: I owe Charlie Bayless a huge debt for teaching me how to explain this stuff. Much of this is a blatant plagarism of stuff he's told me through the years. He's not on Twitter, but worth reading everything he's ever written on energy & climate.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sean Casten

Sean Casten Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SeanCasten

1 Sep
This week's energy wonk-thread: Why discussions about "when renewables will reach cost parity?" and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) calculations are nothing but - per Antonin Scalia - "interpretive jiggery-pokery" #energytwitter
1/ First, for those not familiar with the term, google it. Lots of academics & think tanks who write lots of stuff about if/when renewable sources will reach cost-parity with existing, dirty power sources. google.com/search?q=renew…
2/ It sounds like a really helpful metric. It's not. And it's irrelevant to people who actually build, own and operate power plants.
Read 26 tweets
27 Aug
What do you do when you see a bully on the street, beating up on the less fortunate? You take on the bully.

Today's bully is the NRA, and the right-wing hate they throw at anyone who fights to put preserving American lives over the Wayne LaPierre's slush fund. Thread:
1/ First, it's true I said right-wing hate. I don't want this to be partisan. I don't want to be partisan. But just because a bully is partisan doesn't mean you shouldn't take them on.
2/ As @LeadershipNP has shown, the NRA overwhelmingly dominates all right-wing political giving. No one else on the right comes close, and no group on the left matches their scale.
Read 39 tweets
25 Aug
Well, I promised to do one of these a week. And my mother raised me never to lie to Twitter. Or something like that.

Today's energy nerd thread: Green Jobs. What's true. What we want to be true. And what we should be talking about.
1/ First, what's true: there are a lot of green jobs being created. Renewables, energy efficiency, EVs. Way more jobs were created there in the last decade than in dirtier sectors.
2/ And moreover, significant parts of the fossil sector haven't been major employers for a LOONG time. America has long employed more bakers than coal miners. Why we don't have politicians shooting ads in front of a row of flour-caked pastry chefs will always be a mystery.
Read 27 tweets
13 Aug
In light of the surprising popularity of last week's hydrogen economy rant, I'm going to try and make this a thing. Today's deep dive: why carbon capture and sequestration is a boondoggle that will never play a meaningful role in carbon-constrained electricity markets. Thread:
1/ For the uninitiated: carbon capture & sequestration (CCS) is the technology to capture CO2 from combustion tailgases, purify it then store it permanently (typically underground), enabling fossil-fueled sources to be CO2 free.
2/ It is distinct from direct air capture (DAC) that pulls CO2 out of the air and while it can be used in non-power applications (e.g., in cement plants) the useless boondoggle is in power generation applications.
Read 25 tweets
9 Aug
Let's chat a bit about how economically illiterate and incapable of leadership you have to be to propose a payroll tax deferral by Executive Order as Trump did yesterday. Thread:
1/ First, to state the blindingly obvious to all who aren't named Trump or sycophants to him, the economy and future employment prospects are not good.
2/ Job growth is slowed. We are at >10% unemployment. And we aren't going to turn the corner until we get the public health crisis under control. Other countries have shown us how to do that, but Trump is incapable of learning from their experience.
Read 19 tweets
6 Aug
OK, so I need to do a brief rant on something hugely important that almost no one cares about. Humor me.

To wit: in the absence of an as-yet unidentified break through in storage tech, hydrogen is never going to be anything other than a niche player in energy mkts. Thread:
1/ First, this rant promoted by this article in E&E News this morning. The answer is to their question is No.
eenews.net/stories/106368…
2/ Or more precisely, not unless someone finds a way to store hydrogen cheaply, at high mass & energy density and with super high round trip efficiencies. Which as of this moment Does. Not. Exist.
Read 23 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!