So-called Renewable Energy: Warming the Planet to save the Planet from Warming.

I strive to provide regular disinformation antidotes, whenever I witness destructive group think tendencies on matters relating to energy and the environment. All too often, we see unsubstantiated claims being repeated often enough that they become canonized as truth without ever passing the test of criticism.

The main focus of this article is to address the claim that so-called clean energy technologies are fundamentally geared to reduce anthropogenic surface warming effects associated with our CO2 emissions.

I will argue that technologies such as wind, solar PV and electrolytic hydrogen are at best neutral in reducing anthropogenic warming and may in fact have a net warming effect on the Earth’s energy balance.

Starting first with hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the lightest of all molecules and it is notorious for its ability to leak from flanges, union joints in pipes and valves. In fact, it's so small it's able to migrate through many metals in a process that gives rise to a type of corrosion called hydrogen embrittlement.

Once hydrogen escapes to the atmosphere, it rapidly reacts with and consumes natural oxidants like ozone and hydroxyl radicals.

Note that ozone and hydroxyl radicals are critical components of our lower troposphere’s self-cleaning processes that work to suppress the build-up of natural and man-made pollutants. Furthermore, these atmospheric constituents are integral to nitrogen and sulfur cycling and as such are foundational to a healthy environment.

Due to the "leaky" and “reactive” nature of hydrogen, fugitive emissions from production and storage vessels also acts to enhance the global warming potential (GWP) of methane by consuming oxidants that function in removing methane from the atmosphere through photochemical oxidation reactions.

If the half-life of methane in the atmosphere increases due to lower photo-oxidation rates, its GWP increases. Or so “the science” says, which assumes that rising methane concentrations are a result of human influence, which I do not believe they are.

That is another story for another day.

An example of hydrogen fugitive emissions is boil-off from liquid hydrogen vessels, which is then vented to the atmosphere and by as much as 1% of the mass per day of the liquid volume in storage. Such boil-off is common in cryogenic fluids, and is especially pronounced in cryogenically stored liquid hydrogen vessels, due to its extremely low boiling point of -253 C.

Likewise, normal purging and venting procedures used in large scale electrolysis plants can result in 4% to 9 % loss of all hydrogen produced. Such losses are the highest when electrolysis units are powered by intermittent sources such as wind and solar farms.

These fugitive losses, if large enough within a regional airshed, are said to give one tonne of hydrogen an equivalent warming effect as 11 tonnes of CO2.

Ironically, the same advocates for hydrogen as a tool against anthropogenic global warming, rage against fugitive methane emission from oil and gas facilities as a major reason against continued reliance on natural gas. They argue that shale gas’s actual CO2 equivalent emission factor is as high as thermal coal power plants, because of the high fugitive methane emissions from fracking and LNG facilities.

Yet they completely ignore the application of the same logic in the context of electrolytic hydrogen production.

Next on the list, let’s deal with the question of whether wind power offsets or causes surface warming?

In this write-up, I will not address the life cycle CO2 emission factor for wind power, nor will I dive into the negative impacts that cycling natural gas power plants has on their efficiency.

What I will focus on, is the direct impact that turbine wakes have on the environment in which they are cited.

David Keith, professor of Applied Physics at Harvard`s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences produced a number of studies that suggest if wind power is expanded to the point of being the largest source of power generation in United States, the resulting slowing of surface wind speeds and alteration of atmospheric circulation would result in a nighttime warming of more than 1.5 C over the first century of operation at such a scale.

Atmospheric wakes created by wind generators reduce convective cooling of the surface.

In fact, his work shows the produced warming over the first century would be larger than if coal power were the primary source of power generation.

Yes, you heard that correctly.

David`s study highlights the wind shadow effects of large wind farms is over 100 times larger than the US EIA and the UN's IPCC predicts, and thus the under estimation that this technology has on surface warming.

Yet, we are told by our politicians and climate activists that we must decommission legacy coal power plants and replace them with wind power to save the climate.

Now onto the question of whether utility scale solar PV plants warm or cool the environment?

The straight up answer is that they cause warming of the environment and here is the rationale behind this critical assessment.

With solar PV, the climate warming potential associated with massive “black tops” is their color and shadow effect on underlying grass gives rise to warming of near surface air masses. The study titled The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: Larger solar power plants increase local temperatures suggests that large solar PV facilities can increase local temperatures by as much as 4 C and that the mechanism is indeed through alteration of the surface albedo.

The physics at work here is like the well-known Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect that naturally develops as grasslands and forests are replaced by parking lots and black rooftops in urban and metropolitan city centers.

The UHI effect on surface warming is based on two principles.

First, by replacing one reflective surface with another that is less reflective, more solar radiation is absorbed and attenuated into IR radiation or heat. A green surface reflects more sunshine than a black surface.

Second and most important, solar PV surfaces reduces the cooling effect of photosynthetically driven evapotranspiration from plant material when exposed to sunshine. Those who have worked in a commercial greenhouse, know how effective this cooling mechanism is in limiting HVAC energy consumption.

This principle is also seen during droughts, where reduced soil moisture and evapotranspirative cooling of airmasses over grasslands and forests, results in higher surface air temperatures. This causality principle is often forgotten today, when so many argue that warming air temperatures cause droughts, when the norm is so often the reverse.

Another factor at play in the UHI of large scale solar PV facilities is that with the reduction of evapotranspiration of grasslands or from bull-dozed forests, also comes a reduction in cloud nucleation particles created by volatile organic compounds (VOC) released during active photosynthesis. In other words, VOCs created through photosynthesis plays a critical roll in the creation of low lying clouds and for inducing regional rainfall.

When we look at the largest solar PV facility in Canada, such as Traverse in southern Alberta, one quickly comes to terms with the scale by which these UHI alterations will have if allowed to develop unchecked.

The Traverse footprint is over 13 square kilometers (3,300 acres) and its average power output is approximately 465 MW nameplate capacity x 24% capacity factor or 111 MW. Alternatively, it can be said that Traverse produces around 34 kW per acre.

Comparatively, the Cavalier Energy Centre (combined cycle gas turbine - CCGT) foot print is approximately 20 acres located just south of my ranch and its average power output is approximately 120 MW nameplate capacity x 80% capacity factor or 96 MW. Alternatively, it can be said that Cavalier produces around 4,800 kW per acre.

Thus it is fair to say that a solar PV facility requires over 100x more land than a conventional CCGT power plant.

The entire basis of the push to displace dispatchable thermal power generation technologies with wind, solar PV and electrolytic hydrogen is based on the argument that the latter act to reduce anthropogenic surface warming from CO2 emissions. As discussed in this article, these arguments ignore the clear warming influences produced wherever wind, solar PV and electrolytic hydrogen plants are commissioned.

In closing, all life-cycle CO2 emissions (i.e., kg CO2 per MWh) estimates for wind, solar PV and electrolytic hydrogen rely on assumptions on the CO2 emission intensities associated with the entire supply chain from mining, refining, manufacturing and construction. The Achilles Heel of these estimations is the lack of transparency of the Chinese industries that dominate upwards of 80% of this supply chain.

The People’s Republic of China is a coal dependent economy - another story, for another day.

If you enjoyed this write-up, please share and subscribe if you have not already. While I provide this service free of charge, I most definitely appreciate it when my Readers purchase a monthly ($8) or annual ($80) subscription.