| BRIGHT GREEN LIES How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, & Max Wilbert Rhinebeck, NY: Monkfish Book Publishing Co., March 2021 |
Rating: 4.0 High |
|||
| ISBN-13 978-1-948626-39-2 | ||||
| ISBN-10 1-948626-39-X | 478pp. | SC/GSI | $24.95 | |
As I noted, much research went into this book. It describes a number of practices that are environmentally benign by the standards of the authors, as well as details of some local protests against corporate overreach.
However, the stated aim of the authors is to make the case for giving up industrial civilization, and for limiting human population to (probably) less than one-tenth of its current size. To have even a hope of making this case, they must offer arguments that are impeccably factual and logical, and should lay out a plausible scenario for living satisfactorily as well as sustainably in this new world.
They do neither.
I won't attempt to point out everything the authors got wrong. Those familiar with Jeff Gibbs's film Planet of the Humans will probably appreciate the magnitude of that task for a 478-page book that praises Gibbs, and which has his endorsement. But here are four specific mistakes.
The production of steel and metallurgical coke is the third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, after fossil fuels and electrical generation, with a large gap to fourth.
Could steel be made without coal? There have been experiments to see if it's possible. The University of New South Wales in Australia developed a method that uses car tires instead of coal (or course, car tires are mainly made of synthetic rubber, which is derived from fossil fuels). Another process, called the Hisarna method, uses coal directly rather than requiring coke, which reduces the coal demand by 20 percent. The only hope of making steel without coal lies, at this time, with a process called molten oxide electrolysis. Originally developed as a theoretical process to produce oxygen on the moon, molten oxide electrolysis takes place in a vat of molten iron oxide kept at more than 2900°F. and is sealed using a special alloy of chromium and iron.
None of this is sustainable. Nor does this process address any of the other issues with steel production, such as direct land destruction from mining, heavy equipment use, impacts on forests and indigenous communities, sexual exploitation, and so on.
The Swedish company HYBRIT announced the first batch of steel made without coal in August 2021. (Their process had been under development for a year.) This is done by using hydrogen made with renewable electricity to reduce the iron oxide to metallic iron. Commercial production is expected by 2026. Wildsight and OilPrice describe the process, and The Narwhal has an in-depth article on the prospects for transition.
This is, of course, not yet a slam dunk. But if hydrogen can be made in sufficient quantities using renewable or nuclear electricity, or by the new catalytic processes other companies are trying to develop, it may well become a sustainable way of smelting iron ore as well as ores of other metals.
As I also noted, the authors regard any form of artificial energy generation as evil. Wind, solar, and tidal are as bad in their eyes as coal, oil, and nuclear. This passage from page 132 focuses on what is usually called Wind Turbine Syndrome: The ability of turbine operation to cause harm through sound.
"The lands near wind-energy-harvesting facilities are usually closed to humans. This is particularly true for areas near the blades themselves. Sometimes the blades fly off and careen hundreds of yards. And as a visit to any industrial wind-energy-harvesting facility will show you, the land around turbines can be considered wildlife habitat only in the most meaningless and degraded sense. When it's not cultivated for monocrops or grazed for livestock, it's a maze of compacted access roads,crumbling soils, and slash piles. And it's loud. Decibel levels of 33 to 43 have been recorded a mile away from turbines. That's loud enough to interfere with not just animal communication but with their 'health and survival.' Spring will be silent except for the deafening drone of machines, and environmentalists are leading the charge."
A reader can easily discover that these sound levels will barely be noticed by most forms of life. A level of 30 dB is described as equivalent to a whisper; a 40-dB level corresponds to the noise from a babbling brook. (Another source equates it to a mosquito's buzzing.) It's hard to trace back across that mile to the likely levels right at the turbine, but if they are objectionable, wildlife will presumably be able to avoid them.
They do kill birds in significant numbers, and bats in even more significant numbers. This passage from page 137 focuses on bird kills at the wind farms in California's Altamont Pass, one of the earliest concentrations of wind turbines in the country.
"A 2004 study from the Altamont Pass Wind Farm in California (nicknamed the 'Cuisinart for birds') estimated that this facility alone killed 116 golden eagles, 300 red-tailed hawks, 333 American kestrels, 380 burrowing owls, 2,526 rock doves, 217 northern flickers, 2,557 western meadowlarks, 10 great horned owls, 49 barn owls, 48 ravens, 24 ferruginous hawks, and 215 mountain bluebirds..."
The study is titled "Developing Methods to Reduce Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area." As the title implies, the APWRA is not a monolithic facility owned by one entity. I live in the area and have driven through the Altamont Pass on several occasions. It was a veritable forest of wind turbines: hundreds of wind turbines of diverse designs, some spinning, others still. I've been aware that efforts were under way to replace these older, smaller turbines with large new ones. Fewer large turbines can produce the same amount of energy while reducing the number of menacing blades, and their slower blades are less deadly to birds. This follows the recommendations of the study: "The researchers conclude that the most effective solution to reduce bird mortality would be to replace the numerous small turbines currently installed with fewer, larger turbines. A repowering program is beginning in the APWRA that replaces many of the existing turbines at a ratio of approximately seven to twelve older, smaller turbines with one newer, larger turbine." It also recommends ancillary measures like ending the rodent control program in the area. The report, by Smallwood & Thelander, is online, as is a condensed version. There is also a review by Jan Beyea.
Because of the missing parts of the archived study, I cannot verify the numbers cited by the authors. However, a 2010 report from the Golden Gate Audubon Society notes that Golden Eagle deaths fell from 58 to 33 over the period 2005 – 2010. This suggests the numbers cited in Bright Green Lies may have been on the high side.
Here, on pages 365-366, they express a preference for large-scale, centralized power plants. That's about the last thing I would have expected from them.
"Technically, it's possible to generate power from small-scale renewable electricity projects located on individual homes, small businesses, and communities. But centralized electricity generation at large power plants is between two and five times more efficient. Further, key 'renewable' energy sources are variable. Windstorms cause spikes in power output from wind energy harvesting facilities, while calm weather can leave them generating no power at all. Solar energy, too, varies."
Consider a detached house on an acre of land. Imagine that it's been provided a solar panel with battery energy storage and a wind turbine in the back lot. Except for the wind turbine, such a setup exists today in many off-the-grid homesteads. It may be less efficient than a conventional power plant; but efficiency is not really the point. The point is to get to carbon-free energy as fast as practicable, in as many places as possible.
And anyone who's been paying attention understands that wind and solar are intermittent power sources. That is why we argue for geographically dispersed sites all feeding into a smart grid with redundant storage systems. If well designed, the smart grid could smooth out the disruptions caused by fluctuating power sources to provide stable, reliable service to consumers. It might even be more resilient than conventional grids against solar-flare EMP effects.
There are a host of instruction videos on YouTube, covering everything from living in a tiny house without electricity (except for an emergency generator) to fully powering a modern house with solar & batteries. Two of the latter sort are linked below.
The bottom line with Bright Green Lies is this: Carefully examine everything the authors tell you.
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.