Can we stop global warming?

It is possible to stop global warming. Will we? Renewable energy from wind and solar has the potential to replace most fossil fuel uses. What’s required is an unprecedented level of planning, financing, project management and cooperation at the state, federal and international levels. Efforts to date have several shortcomings.

First, it’s premature to shut down nuclear and fossil fuel power plants, pipelines and other facilities until sufficient reliable renewable energy is available. Energy austerity is undesirable. Prematurely reducing fossil fuel use leads to shortages and higher energy prices. In addition, the infrastructure to support renewables, such as transmission lines, distribution networks and battery storage, has to be put in place.

Second, land use planning is a growing problem. A lot of land has to be set aside for solar and wind farms as well as transmission lines. Solar panels and wind turbines should not be sited on farmland or locations unacceptable to the public. Large solar and wind farms should be placed at optimum locations and connected to the grid with new transmission lines. Much of the best land needed for solar and wind is owned by the states and the federal government and can be leased for development as is already being done for oil and gas projects.

Third, electrical transmission and distribution systems are inadequate. We have to double or triple the miles of transmission lines to electrify transportation, home heating, industry and other fossil fuel uses. A national transmission network is needed. Some states lack the potential to produce all the renewable energy they need and will have to import electricity, as is happening today with fossil fuels. The longest oil pipeline in the U.S., about 1,800 miles, transports oil from Texas to New York.

Local electrical distribution systems don’t have the capacity or flexibility today to support future renewable electricity demand for electric vehicles, heat pumps for home and hot water heating and for industry. A much smarter distribution system is needed to, for example, shut down non-essential electrical loads when demand temporarily exceeds supply.

Expanding and upgrading transmission and distribution systems in the U.S. will cost $2 trillion or more over a 30-year period. We need to finance these investments without large increases in the cost of electricity. Today’s rate payers shouldn’t bear the full cost of transitioning transportation, space heating and other uses to renewables. Possibilities could be a transportation tax or a fee on fossil fuel sales using the revenues to fund transmission and distribution system upgrades.

Finally, what’s the plan, who’s in charge? Congress needs to approve better ways to plan and implement large projects at the state and federal levels. A grab bag of state and federal agencies operating without any overall coordination will not get the job done.

We are already seeing the results of poor planning and implementation such as the last-minute decision by California to keep the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in operation. The state had over six years to replace the output of this power plant with renewable electricity.

There needs to be project management organizations to manage the overall state and federal efforts and to implement government infrastructure projects. These organizations should have the scope, authority, staff and budget needed and should monitor and report actual progress. Some existing organizations, such as the Department of Energy, could be given this responsibility.

There should be publicly available master plans at the federal and state levels defining what’s needed, what it will cost, how projects should be funded, implementation schedules, new legislation and other actions required.

If state and federal governments get the incentives right, eliminate bottlenecks and complete infrastructure projects that are the governments’ responsibility, the private sector should provide most of the effort and investment needed.

Have we forgotten how to do big things? The authors have vivid personal memories of the space program in response to Sputnik satellite launched by the Soviet Union in 1957. In 1961, President Kennedy committed us to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade even if we weren’t sure how to do it. This was accomplished on schedule in 1969 — over 50 years ago. As President Kennedy said, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Stopping global warming will be hard. It can be done.

Finally, we must recognize that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) goal of keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is not achievable. We need a realistic, fact-based schedule to stop global warming, including a realistic assessment of how much longer fossil fuels are needed.

William Fletcher is a mechanical engineer and former senior vice president at Rockwell International. He served as an officer and engineer in the Navy working on the design and operation of nuclear-powered ships, as well as an engineer involved with the design and construction of commercial nuclear power plants. Later, he focused on industrial development and automation. His international experience includes several overseas assignments including an assignment in Saudi Arabia planning the large Jubail industrial development project.

Craig B. Smith, Ph.D., is an engineer and former faculty member at UCLA. During his career he was responsible for planning large energy conservation programs for utilities, schools, corporations and the City of Los Angeles. He is the former president and chairman of the international architect/engineering company DMJM+HN. He is the author of several books on energy efficiency and management.

Fletcher and Smith are co-authors of “Reaching Net Zero: What it takes to solve the global climate crisis.”