Nick Gier in “Opinion: Solar energy surges in developing nations” (Daily News, March 17/19) states that the scrapping of the 2009 EPA endangerment finding does “not address the overwhelming evidence against the dangers of CO2 emissions.”
I would encourage him to do some research on CO2. We all breathe out several pounds of CO2 every day. CO2 in ambient air is not a health problem. It’s not visible and is vital for plant growth. Without significant CO2 in our air, we would not have food to live on. Plants for the most part would thrive even better if the percent of CO2 in the air were several times higher.
The air pollution Gier talked about in his column for the most part was not CO2 but particulate caused by a number of primitive activities such as cooking and heat over an open fire, using animal dung as fuel, using engines that did a poor job of combusting the fuel, poor farm practices and more. This kind of air pollution is cleaned up by developing nations as they are able to afford cleaner, more efficient practices of burning fuel of all kinds and having funds to spend on upgrading various primitive operations from farming practices to mining and home heating. Green energy programs, when done efficiently, are one way to reduce air pollution but more efficient combustion of fossil fuels is also a way, which is economically and environmentally more efficient, especially in those parts of the Earth that do not consistently get direct sunlight and adequate daily wind. Hydropower is a dependable green energy that is not included in what is said here.
The biggest problems with wind and solar energy are: 1) the environmental problems associated with mining for the basic materials to make the panels and turbines, 2) the intermittent aspect of these energy sources, 3) the huge amounts of land required, 4) they are relatively short-lived and 5) associated environmental drawbacks such as waste disposal and the killing of relatively large numbers of birds in their operation.
I am not a climate change denier but I am a realist. I would love to see green energy become economically viable but until we can harvest solar energy in space and transmit it cost-efficiently 24/7 to Earth, green energy, whether solar or wind, is going to be a niche energy source that is economically and environmentally viable only in limited cases.
The United States and some other developed countries have spent trillions of dollars attempting to replace conventional energy sources with green energy. Worldwide there has been limited success because of the drawbacks mentioned above. Since wind and solar energy harvested on Earth is intermittent, power companies must have backup energy to supply the needed energy when there is no sun and the wind is not blowing. This typically means having fossil fuel or nuclear power plants as the backup energy source since we have not yet developed batteries that can economically handle the needed storage. Thus power companies are forced to pay for both energy sources, which is far more expensive than either one alone and raises rates for all. In addition, the energy needed for mining and manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines, which is significant, at this time must be drawn from fossil fuels.
As a result of these drawbacks, less than 10% of U.S. energy is from solar and wind at this time, in spite of the huge investments toward conversion. Europe, especially Germany, has also made huge expenditures into green energy with negative success, resulting in large increases in the cost of public energy in general and significant weakening of their economies. California in the U.S. is a good case study of the failure of green energy to live up to expectations. I am all for technology that will help clean up and maintain a healthy environment but it will not happen unless it is economically viable in either developing or developed countries.
To my knowledge, none of the large AI facilities being built or planned, which require huge amounts of energy, will be powered even in part by green energy. This is because the energy source for these facilities must be dependable 24/7 and green energy is definitely not at this time.
I encourage Nick Gier and others to keep pushing research for green energy solutions but to recognize the truth that green energy is only a niche solution at this time and it will not allow developing countries to achieve developed status.
Kirkland is a retired environmental engineer and businessman, spending time at the University of Idaho, Washington State University and the Moscow Recycling Center. He also participated on the Moscow City Council and was an elder at various churches for more than 40 years.

source