Cleantech apocalypse: Cons of green energy

Could clean energy, rather than being the saviour of our civilisation, actually lead to TEOTWAWKI (as in, “The end of the world as we know it”)? We don’t think it’s likely, but we thought we’d explore a few conceivable cleantech apocalpyse scenarios anyway:

Earthquakes

Enhanced geothermal energy could provide a clean and steady source of power, but it could also set off earthquakes in seismically active areas … the very regions that offer the most geothermal potential. Enhanced geothermal involves drilling deep — two miles or more — into the earth, fracturing the rock layer then pumping water into the cracks to produce steam. A former oilman, Markus O. Häring, tried to develop an enhanced geothermal system in Basel, Switzerland, but shut the project down after drilling set off an earthquake. And officials in the US recently put a similar project in northern California on hold so they could assess the potential risk of earthquakes there.

Death by CO2

While the quest for carbon capture and storage — which could enable coal-fired power without the carbon dioxide emissions — is all the rage, real-life tests have fallen victim to what some have called NUMBY-ism (as in “Not under my backyard”). Earlier this summer, for instance, Vattenfall revealed that it had been pumping captured carbon dioxide from its Schwarze Pumpe test project in Germany right back into the atmosphere, because residents around the plant expressed fears about the safety of underground carbon storage. A carbon capture project by Royal Dutch Shell was also delayed in Barendrecht in the Netherlands for the same reason.

Sudden releases of carbon dioxide have occurred naturally in the past, with deadly consequences. In 1986, Lake Nyos in Cameroon emitted a massive amount of carbon dioxide — a landslide might have been the cause — which killed 1,700 people and 3,500 animals in the region.

Overheated nukes

While many people oppose nuclear power because of “China Syndrome” or Chernobyl-like fears, a more likely worry is that nuclear plants might have trouble operating in a warming world. Extreme heat in France this summer, for example, forced EDF to reduce its nuclear power output because river water had become too warm to provide adequate cooling for reactors. As climate change increasingly rears its ugly head, we can probably expect to see a lot more such summertime shutdowns.

Water worries

While a growing number of scientists are saying we might have to consider geoengineering — tinkering with natural systems to reduce incoming sunlight — to combat climate change, more and more studies are finding such fixes could have unintended and dangerous results. Last year, for example, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory concluded that geoengineering could slow down the global water cycle. Nature itself provided evidence in 1991, when the Philippines’ Mount Pinatubo erupted, sending massive amounts of sun-blocking ash into the atmosphere, leading to a “substantial decrease in rainfall over land and a record decrease in runoff and discharge into the ocean.”

More fuel, less food

The race to produce first-generation biofuels, largely corn- and soy-based ethanol, was widely blamed for the rise in prices for basic foods around the world. While other factors also contributed to the problem, biofuel proponents say such impacts are less likely with next-generation biofuel stocks such as jatropha, camelina and algae.