More Examples of Unexpected Impacts

Once again, a long time has elapsed between blogs.  But this time, I am returning to a theme that I have harped on before--the fact that nothing is really "free"; every energy source, every material, every structure in our highly industrialized environment comes with pluses...and minuses.  I had thought I had beaten this theme to death, but in recent weeks, discovered 2 new examples--at least they are new to me--that I think bear mentioning.  

 

The first example I came across was a discussion of the environmental impacts of hydorfluorocarbons (HFCs).  HFCs are commonly used in refrigerators and air conditioners.  The article ominously notes that HFCs can be hundreds to thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, exacerbating the climate crisis.  In fact, they call them "super-pollutants."  But the point that really got my attention was the last sentence of the article, which stated that HFCs were first introduced in the 1990s, before their powerful heat-trapping properties were understood, to replace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that had been found to erode the ozone layer.

 

To me, then, in addition to the argument made in the article that there is a need to find a replacement for HFCs, the article drives home the point that everything we do has some impact, and that we need to be more aware of this.  After all, this is not be the first time that we thought that advances in technology were enabling us to replace something polluting or damaging with something better, only to find that the "better" technology came with its own shortcomings.  The classic example is that everyone thought automobiles would replace the "pollution" from horses on city streets, only to find that automobiles generated a different kind of pollution.

 

The other example I recently learned about deals with some of the possible causes of the increased strength of hurricanes.  Most of the discussion I had heard to date related to the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).  However, this article cites another cause in addition to GHGs--the Atlantic has also experienced a reduction in aerosol pollution.  Some of that may be due to a reduction of Saharan dust in the last few decades, since hotter sea surface temperatures are weakening trade winds from Africa that transport the dust.  But some of it is due to a reduction in sulfate pollution from industry following the passage of the Clean Air Act in the 1970s.  From this article, it is not clear how much of the effect is due to the reduction in sulfate pollution, but the fact that it has this impact suggests that, once again, something we did with the intention of fixing one problem might be making another problem worse.

I would like to think that we have gotten smart enough to realize this and to be able to analyze systems to figure out their potential negative impacts before we unleash them on the world.  Or to phase in new technologies to assess their impacts before we have totally committed to them.  Perhaps that is not realistic.   But we should certainly try to anticipate "unexpected" impacts as much as possible, and we should monitor the impact of changes--whether introduced by laws to replace one process or material with another, or simply by the introduction of new technologies--so we can catch the impacts sooner and make necessary adjustments.

 

I am particularly interested in this issue because, for years, I have seen solar and wind power compared to nuclear power.  Without getting into an in-depth discussion here of all the issues, the general impression is that solar and wind are "natural" and therefore, are clean, while nuclear is not.  These arguments ignore the fact that solar and wind power require a lot of materials, some of them exotic, and that these materials need to be mined, manufactured, and disposed of.  And these sources are intermittent, so some form of storage or backup power is needed.  This doesn't mean that we should abandon solar or wind power.  Far from it.  But we need to incorporate it into our electricity supply systems with a full understanding of what is needed to make it work, and of all the impacts, and we need to balance these against nuclear power and other energy sources. 

 

I am not trying to say that we can never introduce new technologies just because they may have negative impacts.  I am just issuing a reminder that everything has impacts, positive and negative.  We do need to be more proactive in figuring out those impacts and in addressing them as early as possible.  And we need to try to move away from the mindset that one technology is "good" and another is "bad," and look instead for balance between alternative technologies to meet our needs while minimizing negative impacts. 

***

 

 

 

More Unintended Consequences:

Air Pollution versus Climate Change

I recently attended an "off the record" meeting on the subject of energy and environmental challenges.  One focus of the meeting was on the role that nuclear power could play in addressing environmental challenges, and that was why I was there.  But since the topic was far broader than just nuclear power, turned out to be very instructive to me in revealing some similarities that exist in totally different areas.

Since the meeting was off the record, I can't discuss any of the findings and conclusions of the meeting, and I can't attribute any comments or positions to the individuals who made them.  However, some of the discussion referred to information available in the open literature, and that is certainly not off limits.  What particularly impressed me was that there were several examples presented that fit well with my observations about unintended consequences, and about the fact that every technology and every activity has some pros and cons.

I usually think of the pros and cons of different energy sources--coal versus nuclear power, renewables versus baseload power, etc.  But one of the presenters pointed out that there are analogous tradeoffs within the environmental sphere.  In particular, the concern was raised that measures taken to reduce conventional pollution or impacts on the environment could make climate change worse.

The specific example offered at the meeting was that of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).  In the 1970s, evidence began to show that CFCs, which were widely used in aerosol cans and other applications, were damaging the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere, and that this had adverse consequences for human health, particularly deaths from skin cancer.  A series of national and international measures taken since then has significantly reduced the use of CFCs, and the evidence is that the ozone layer has rebounded.

The problem is that the CFCs were replaced by other chemicals, particularly HFCs, that we now realize are having other consequences.  In particular, it turns out that HFCs are greenhouse gases (GHGs), and may therefore be contributing to climate change.

This is not a breaking news item.  When I went to look it up, I found literature dating back several years discussing the problem.  But for whatever reason, this particular issue  hasn't been on my radar screen lately.  When the presenter mentioned it, though, it immediately struck a resonant chord.  It was really the same exact story I've been grappling with, in my work and in this blog, for the last several years.  It was just a different example.  Coal emits carbon, building dams kills fish, nuclear power plants generate radioactive waste, windmills use rare earths, solar arrays take up large amounts of land.  (And yes, I know this list is incomplete.  I'm just using some examples for illustrative purposes.)  And when we try to substitute one energy source for another, we end up replacing one set of consequences with another.

I pointed out to the group that this was a familiar story.  I also reminded the participants that some of the early enthusiasm for the automobile, when it was first introduced, was that it would reduce the "pollution" from horses in the city.  And when automobiles were few and far between, the tiny amounts of emissions they generated seemed inconsequential, especially compared to the waste from horses that covered the streets of cities.  It was only when automobiles multiplied that people realized that they, too, had environmental consequences.

Of course, the observation of the similarity doesn't necessarily offer a good solution, but it does suggest that we need to look at the bigger picture when we introduce new technologies, particularly if our intent is to use them to address an existing problem.  Admittedly, people like simple solutions, and this observation clearly acknowledges that there are no simple solutions.  While I can't comment authoritatively on the merits of CFCs versus HFCs, in the energy supply field, I know that every technology has its pros and cons.  Therefore, we will continue to have to balance cost, reliability, resource use, emissions, and a host of other factors from different energy sources to achieve a solution that best balances out the pros and cons of each energy source.   

***