Researchers reveal a culprit other than greenhouse gases.
A new paper argues that cutting greenhouse gas emissions, switching to nuclear or geothermal power, and even sequestering carbon in the earth won’t stave off massively disruptive climate change. Greenhouse gases are less a threat to stable climate than is the excess heat produced when fuel is burned to create energy, say Swedish researchers Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet.
About half of the energy that humanity creates becomes waste heat. Depending on the method of energy creation or manner in which it’s used, such as to raise the temperature of water, waste heat can be as high as 70% or 80%. In terms of electricity usage, even extremely efficient devices, appliances, and gadgets give off a lot of warmth in their operation. This is why your laptop needs a fan and why a car that’s been turned off is still hot to the touch after it’s been driven. But most of this excess thermal activity comes from energy generation itself: the burning of fuel to create electricity. It’s commonly believed that this excess heat escapes into space, but that’s only true at very high temperatures, Nordel and Gervet contend.
“In most cases,” they write in the International Journal of Global Warming, “net heat emissions mean that low-temperature waste heat is dumped into sea water or the atmosphere or heat leakage from buildings is transferred to the surrounding air or ground.”
According to this view, nuclear power, which doesn’t create any carbon emissions, is still a contributor to global warming. One of the primary byproducts of nuclear fuel generation is hot water, since water is used to cool the nuclear reactor and heats up during the process. Much of that hot water is dumped into lakes and streams; the process could potentially raise the temperature both of these bodies of water and of the ground.
“All this energy dissipates into heat when consumed and must contribute to the heating of our planet,” they write.
Nordell and Gervet’s idea breaks from mainstream thinking on global warming. Most experts see extraterrestrial heat, namely from the sun, trapped inside the earth’s atmosphere by greenhouse gases as the singular cause of rising temperatures. However, the two Swedish scientists aren’t alone in their contention that heat itself, not just gas, could change the climate.
“The second law problem says that if you create and use energy you have to eject waste heat,” says Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at the NASA Langley research facility. He says that, as more humans create and use more energy, eventually the waste heat “will reach a level, that in order for the planet to reject it into space, the whole planet will have to warm up.”
Only wind and solar power don’t produce significant amounts of waste heat, Bushnell adds. Although photovoltaic systems use the sun’s heat already being sent to earth, they’re extremely inefficient: Only about 10%-20% of the heat that hits a photovoltaic panel is converted into energy. Even photovoltaic systems that have been improved through nanotechnology won’t ever be more than 70% efficient due to thermodynamic barriers.
Bushnell’s assessments are supported by Tufts University astrophysicist Eric J. Chaisson, whose July 2008 paper titled “Long-Term Global Heating From Energy Usage” concluded that waste heat – including waste heat from nuclear power generation – would continue to warm the earth even if humans were able to arrest the greenhouse effect. Because we’re dependent on energy and the vast majority of human energy production also produces waste heat, human civilization will eventually reach a limit in terms of how much it can grow without destroying itself.
“It just came to me as a nobrainer,” Chaisson said in a interview with the Boston Globe.
Chaisson notes a ninety- to hundredfold fold increase in the amount of energy that humans use since the days of our hunter-gatherer forebears, due to activities like driving, texting, microwaving, and watching DVDs (hopefully not simultaneously).
“The per capita energy rate will probably continue rising for as long as the human species culturally evolves, including conditioning our living spaces, relocating cities swamped by rising seas, and sequestering increased greenhouse gases – which implies that even if the first two reasons for growth end, the third will continue increasing society’s total energy budget, however slowly,” he writes.
Unlike Chaisson, Nordell and Gervet don’t speculate about how soon waste heat will have dire effects on the planet – only that it contributes more to temperature change than does the greenhouse effect. Chaisson argues that curbing climate change from greenhouse gases is a much more pressing challenge than is curbing waste heat.
“I do think that the Swedish authors have greatly overestimated the effects of anthropogenic heating currently, and they seem completely unaware of other, detailed work on the same topic that has been done within the past year by other researchers,” he told THE FUTURIST (in an e-mail sent from atop a glacier).
In his various writings, Chaisson argues that the waste-heat phenomenon is best viewed as a reason to invest in passive solar technologies and energy efficiency today so that they will be in place a couple of hundred years from now when it matters.
Dennis Bushnell agrees. “It’s good physics,” he says of Chaisson’s paper, “and it’s absolutely true. But the numbers on this are such that we don’t have to worry about waste heat for hundreds of years.”
– Patrick Tucker
A large region of oxygen-depleted water known as a dead zone exists just off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. Dead zones are so named because marine species cannot survive in such extreme conditions. The red and orange areas are the most oxygen-depleted and algae-choked. They also have the highest concentrations of fertilizers and runoff.
Sources: “Global Energy Accumulations and Net Heat Emission” by Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet, International Journal of Global Warming, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2/3, 2009, pg. 378.
“Long-Term Global Heating from Energy Usage” by E. J. Chaisson, EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 89, No. 28, July 8, 2008, pg. 253.
Originally published in THE FUTURIST, November-December 2009