Roger Pielke writing for Forbes:

“So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 Turkey Point nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a Turkey Point nuclear plant worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050”.

What if we put that in terms of wind turbines?

Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.

Great.

Of course, any analysis like this has to start from hypotheses about what the near future will be like, and in particular the hypothesis that energy demand will continue to increase, but in the scope of his stated hypotheses, what he suggests seems to make sense more than not.

What if I then tell you than Roger Pielke has one butt cheek on either side of the slippery fence between human-caused climate change denial and acceptance?

On the one hand he says that he accepts the science:

“The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions”.

On the other hand, he has been involved in some sloppy science arguing that the rise in damage cost from extreme events is due to humanity becoming wealthier, rather than from climate change. This is particular drew scorn from scientists, and makes one just a little suspicious of his motives.

He has denied however receiving any funding from the fossil fuel industry.

His position is therefore a wet dream for crude oil lovers everywhere, throwing a subtle spanner in the works that causes people to stop, think, be confused/scared/give up (because they are not experts), and carry a hint of scepticism into their daily lives.

So where does this leave us with the one new nuclear power plant or 1500 wind turbines a day for the next 31 years?

I’m guessing that in the absence of any huge divergence from his hypotheses, he’s probably more right than wrong.

So, what about those hypotheses then? Will they become false because of climate change or our actions to mitigate its effect?

Will capitalism crash suddenly and/or some significant part of the world population die off in an apocalyptic sequence of very bad climate events?

Or will a miraculous scientific invention (fusion, carbon capture, etc.) save the day?

Any of these would certainly break his model, for good or for bad—for humans.

But for the moment, his hypotheses stand, and anyone with a kind of fantasy that we’ll get to net-zero carbon dioxide emissions easily with renewable energy needs to have a good check-up with reality, and remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Photo Credit: Anna Jiménez Calaf on Unsplash]