Let the sun shine 13 January 06

I’m putting together a packet, including a print-out of that web page (on reused paper, of course), to send to my mayor.

Preliminary results show that CO2 rose sharply again this past year. See:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=50843

The folks at RealClimate have raised problems with the term “runaway” GW, insisting what is happening on Venus cannot happen on earth. Then I realized they were thinking “permanent” runaway GW, from a geological POV, and I was thinking “limited” runaway GW from a human POV. That is, unlike on Venus, on Earth it would only be runaway from our human control and for a limited time.

So what we may have soon (or even now) is a runaway GW condition over which we have no ability to stop, even if we reduce our GHGs to zero. The warming triggers nature to emission more & more GHGs, causing more warming. It would last for many thousands of years & would involve massive extinction, and massive human death & suffering.

I suppose, however, even if it’s too late to prevent this, that our reductions could somewhat soften the blow a bit. So this should not be an excuse for denialists to live it up by emitting GHGs willy nilly.

And for those who would accuse me of causing a “state of fear,” I would hope that they could somehow enter a “state of love” & join in efforts to reduce GHGs. Maybe by having their cities & states strive to become carbon neutral (as above). Or at least not block other people’s efforts to do so (by convincing them there’s no serious problem).

I’ve also heard of some technology that might take GHGs out of the air – though I don’t know if this is feasible or the manufacture & operation of such makes it “carbon neutral” with no net carbon reduction.

Lynn,

Thanks for posting this and I agree with what you are saying. I think it is important to stress that humans activities are still the sole reason for the rise in CO2 emissions (see previous Relaclimate posting on this). My understanding of the frightening figures from Mauna Loa is that they show that the biosphere and/or the oceans no longer absorb over 60% of human emissions (due to positive feedbacks, I presume). So far, we have had this cushioning effect by which the planet somehow ‘hides’ most of our emissions and keeps them out of the atmosphere. That cushioning effect is becoming much smaller now.

Also, I wonder how much of the accelerated rise in CO2 emissions is due to humans burning more fossil fuels than ever, those peat fires in South-East Asia (which I posted about here before), and accelerated deforestation, not just in the tropics but also in Siberia. I hope that Real Climate will post an article once the updated Mauna Loa figures are released in March.

Anyway – I am not trying to say that we are not heading for a runaway greenhouse effect, in the ‘limited’ but devastating sense you describe. I just think it is important to be very clear in the public debate that AT PRESENT we are only seeing an ever greater proportion of our own emissions ending up in the atmosphere. Nothing (yet) beyond our control, nothing we cannot (still) act on if we choose to.

Almuth

The mean value of the carbon dioxide increments measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 is 1.4 =/- 0.5 ppm. The line of best fit of the data is logarithmic; its slope is about 0.4% per year. Some years the increment is more than 0.4% and other years it is less. The annual increment of the line will increase naturally as the total concentration increases, because the percentage is of a large value.

The IPCC, in its projection modeling assumes that rate of increase over the next 100 years will be 1% per year. I cannot understand how we will emit enough carbon dioxide to maintain that high a rate, even if we do nothing to reduce emissions. Are we not running out of petroleum? Are we not reducing our use of coal?

What in the data supports the claim that we are seeing more and more of our emissions showing up in the atmosphere?

Lynn,

Yes, this is perfectly possible by combining biomass firing/co-firing with carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies, power plants could have a net reduction in atmospheric CO2.

Both of these technologies are available. In fact just about all UK coal fired stations augment their coal burn with biomass (though a large portion is imported!). Some up to around 20% (Scottish and Southern Energy have just installed dedicated biomass burners to their Ferrybridge plant to increase the level of biomass they can burn).

Carbon Dioxide Capture from coal and gas fired plants is possible. Carbon Dioxide has been captured from coal fired AES Warrior Run and Shady Point plants in the USA for example, but only a proportion of the flue gas was treated (the captured carbon dioxide was used for fizzy drinks I believe – though on a large scale, it would have to be stored in suitable geological formations).

Sask Power, which is a member of the Canadian Clean Power Coalition, is also capturing Carbon Dioxide at a power plant in a research project with the University of Regina, which is very active in research on this topic.

It is not currently economic to impliment Capture and Storage, but my feeling is that the technology is at a stage where rapid improvement is likely in the next 5 years or so.

For more information, see the International Energy Agency’s Greenhouse Gas R&D programme. http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/

All the best Martin

I don’t mean to respond on your behalf, Almuth, but isn’t a switch to coal (or maybe shale oil), the big concern for the future in terms of carbon emissions?

Norb.

If we fix our emissions constant, the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will still increase, because we are emitting more than natural systems remove. So even if we stabilise emissions, the concentration goes up.

re. reducing the use of coal: globally that WILL NOT HAPPEN! because of the abundance of coal in China etc. They’re planning to produce their oil by converting coal!!!!

I saw a presentation by Shell’s Group Climate Change Manager yesterday.

Shell accept the evidence of anthropogenic global warming as convincing and expect a ‘business as usual’ scenario to lead eventually to a carbon dioxide concentration of 1000 ppm (cf 380 ppm now and 280ppm pre industrial)

They expect electricity to provide a much greater role as an energy supply channel than it is now, because it is emission free at the point of use and can be de-carbonised at the point of generation.

all the best Martin

Always on the look out for media coverage of global warming, climate change and the end of oil I came away from the newsagents this morning with the Guardian and the Independent. The Independent gives James Lovelock, his Gaia theory and his new book “The Revenge of Gaia” 3 plus pages of coverage including the front page. The Guardian has a piece by columnist Madeleine Bunting on global warming and the lack of a big effective campaign against it. (The Guardian also leads on the front page with “Iran issues stark warning on oil price”.)

Indy here http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece and here http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338879.ece and here http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece Guardian here http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1687196,00.html

While any coverage on these issues might be welcome I’m concerned with the effectiveness of the articles. The Indy’s front page has an alarming headline “Green Guru says: We are past the point of no return.” The pieces by Michael McCarthy on Lovelock and his ideas give a pretty good account of Gaia and Lovelock himself on page 31 expands and indicates the drift of his argument in his new book. But what does all this amount to?

James Lovelock’s warnings about the damage we are doing to this planet and its ability to sustain human and other life forms are important. But his Gaia theory does not stand up. It is fundamentally flawed because it is based on the idea that the planet regulates itself as if it was an organism and is controlled by some homeostatic process. Human beings are regulated by homeostasis – the planet is not.

This planet we live on is subject to a number of processes and inputs. Our presence and activities (burning fossil fuels) are one of those inputs. The planet has no self correcting mechanism that automatically counteracts our actions. We need this planet to be stable and exist within certain parameters if life as we know it is to continue. Our actions must change. A sense of urgency is necessary.

But there is a risk that Lovelock’s warnings and predictions are so dire that some will become fatalistic and give up. His advocacy of nuclear power doesn’t help and his anti wind farm comment is ill considered. He resorts to polemic and exaggeration in his article and gives denialists plenty of scope for dismissing all that he says.

Madeleine Bunting’s Guardian piece is well worth reading. This is hugely encouraging as she is not the paper’s environment correspondent but has written a very well informed piece which highlights some of the main difficulties we face in attempting to reduce CO2 emissions. Would that more people with influence read the literature and joined the chorus demanding action. At the heart of the matter is her understanding that we need to “change our own behaviour” and she puts the question “Are environmentalists failing?” Well we certainly haven’t succeeded yet.

My one reservation with the article is her implication that there are different approaches which divide us. Climate change is distinct as an issue not least because we need to challenge ourselves and our existing way of life. There are a wide range of actions which can be taken and these need not be in contradiction with one another. We can go on climate change demos. We can get involved in Green politics. We can buy cleaner electricity. We can stop flying. We can drive our cars less. We can invest ethically. We can shop with a “carbon consciousness”. And there are other actions we can take. Suggestions please!

Douglas Coker

PS Our pet contrarian is referring to peak/end of fossil fuels now. Has he done this before?

Since it is apparent we have more of a problem than simply reducing our carbon, then we must employ other methods to be successful. We have 2 more available modes to work with other than reducing our greenhouse gas emission rate or finding sinks for carbon.

They are:

1. Make earth more reflective sending heat back into space.

2. Find a place to send excess heat other than the atmosphere.

My first suggestion is still on the traditional focus of reducing emissions.

Existing power plants waste more energy in the form of heat than all the electricity they produce. Hence, power-plant waste heat is a vast untapped resource which represents the emissions of the fuel consumed which never went to any productive use.

This is not a new idea. Is called co-generation and it was discussed before on this blog. The old consensus was you had to have the waste heat nearby an end user in order to use it as an energy source. Typical applications involve using the waste heat to create steam for an industrial process rather than using more fuel for that purpose. The electricity produced is a byproduct which offsets electricity from the grid. This works.

This limited focus does not allow the use of existing power-plant waste heat to heat water for domestic use. However, I have an idea which can utilize power-plant waste heat to heat domestic water for an entire city without installing any distribution pipes! How can this be done?

I know of a way to do this. This idea was based on a recent observation concerning our hot water supply. I observed last month that we use more energy to heat hot water in the winter than in the summer because the inlet cold temperature is much lower in the winter dropping from 68 F to 45 F (20 C to 7 C) than in the summer and this can require 30 percent more fossil fuel in the winter.

What if the water utility used a ground source heat exchanger to simply raise the inlet cold water supply temperature a few degrees? What if solar energy were used? What if the waste heat of a nearby power plant were dumped in the cold water supply to increase the cold water supply temperature 10 degrees or higher?

Coupling a city’s water supply to power plant waste heat requires the use of two existing infrastructures and a delivery system already established in underground water pipes. Quite often, power plants are located near a body of water so the water can be used in a cooling tower and quite often, this same body of water is also used as the source of water supply for a city. Therefore, the problem of finding power plants located near the water supply should not be that difficult.

The water supply in the winter is very cold being exposed to ambient winter conditions. So, why not use a little plumbing and couple the waste heat from a nearby power plant to the cold water supply employing the concept of cogeneration in a unique and creative way to reduce the energy needs to heat hot water for an entire city?

If the cold water were simply “less cold”, then less heat is required by the end user and this would require less solar panels if the end user used a renewable system. This helps when solar energy is less available in the winter than in the summer.

Furthermore, the water pipes in the ground would also store and retain residual heat in the surrounding soil where the cold-water supply pipes have been buried. This is also using the earth as a heat sink rather than the power plant’s waste heat going directly into the atmosphere.

What if enough heat were recovered to also help heat the house in the winter? We could still use a ground loop to cool an overheated cold-water supply line to enable cold water to still be available for the consumer. In this way, the power plant’s waste heat could be further utilized.

Reflective pavement

Reflective pavement can lower urban heat island temperatures to reduce cooling loads, reduce energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reflect excess heat back into space plus be a useful sequestration storage site if the reflective pavement were made from artificially-produced calcium carbonate made from sequestered carbon dioxide from the same power plant I described above! I mentioned this once before.

Creating calcium carbonate from carbon dioxide is being studied at a University located in the state of Arizona. Calcium carbonate is highly reflective and it can be used as a road-pavement aggregate making it more reflective. The power plant would provide raw material in the form of carbon dioxide from the burned coal to create a useful product.

We have over 150,000 square kilometers of black tarmac in the USA and I will tell you than if you increase the reflectivity from black to grayish white, then the amount of solar energy reflected in the daytime is tremendous. Granted it is not enough to offset all carbon emissions but this idea also offers a reduction in cooling loads from reduced urban surface temperatures and a place to store sequestered carbon as a manufactured artificial mineral.

And did I mention dark roofs which could be more reflective as well or simply made green as in a “green roof” concept in which the roof is loaded with carbon absorbing vegetation to lower the roof temperature.

Ocean thermal-gradient electricity

If utilized, this idea could supply fresh water to arid areas and place excess surface heat directly into the deep ocean which can be used as a temporary heat sink until the atmospheric greenhouse gasses had a chance to reduce. Site below:

http://www.greenenergyjobs.com/otec-intro.php

After I found this site, I did some calculations and I observed that in order to use the thermal gradient of the ocean to create electricity, incredible amounts of heat from the ocean surface is transferred down to the deep ocean depths with incredible amounts of fresh water distilled in the process. I like this idea for all its worth. It even creates electricity with no emissions, no nuclear waste, and no land footprint. The energy and fresh water are produced at sea on a platform not unlike an oil drilling rig.

The heat transferred to the ocean offsets some of the surface heat buildup of the planet and this is a great beneficial side effect. The thermal capacity of the deep ocean is extremely high as compared to our atmosphere. With our current heat imbalance, it would require 6 centuries of current warming to raise the entire ocean 1 degree C. So, the ocean can be used to store some of our excess surface heat in the near term since our atmosphere simply does not have the required heat capacity that the oceans can provide us.

By employing creative multidimensional thinking and using a systems approach, we can offer better ideas which can allow for more effective solutions. If we do a cost-benefit analysis, I would think that the ideas I mentioned here would be highly rated as being most helpful when analyzed on all their merits instead of only one aspect.

It is always good to combine non-related infrastructures like using the underground water distribution piping as a way to transport waste heat! Why not? I really love that idea and I would love to work with anyone to make it a reality anywhere in the world. It warrants a feasibility study at least.

The real problem is not our ability to fix the current problem but our unwillingness to do so plus our collective unwillingness to reduce our total population. Our population always seems to grow with available resources and until we can curb this growth of human beings, then we will always have a resource problem and an environmental problem.

All the best,

Dan

I’m just trying to stay one jump ahead of denialist arguments. We really don’t know if we’ve come to the point of no return, or when we will, so we have to keep working to reverse GW. Also, nature’s emissions in response to the warming we’re causing, ultimately rest on our shoulders.

One way to look at it is our emissions directly cause a certain amount of warming, and indirectly cause (through positive feedback) greater warming. And acc. to David Archer up to 1/4 of our CO2 emissions could last in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years. So our “puny” emissions go on harming & harming & harming.

Great range of ideas: thanks for the links. The only caution I would suggest is that of pre-heating the incoming cold water main which is normally running at about 4-8C, the same temperature as your fridge. Firstly, loss of heat to the ground unless you use insulated pipes, but more importantly, a higher temperature will encourage the growth of micro-organisms, even in Chlorinated water. The best-known of these is probably Legionella Pneumophilia responsible for Legionaire’s disease if inhlaed in a water aerosol of less than 3 microns size (showers, car washes, cooling towers etc.)

There is a brilliant and safe and environmentally friendly compound that you can put in a drinking water supply that will zap all the bugs and allow you to run Hot water systems safely at 44C and to have cold water storage above 8C. I know the UK and the US companies that make it, and how it should be used. I was involved with a company years ago that used it in a wide range of applicatons where it outperformed almost every other biocide. We used it in a major UK hospital where the water supply was from a borehole and the plumbing system had become colonised with Legionella. They had had three deaths of post-op patients in 18 months from Legionaires (and put two of them down to other causes!) and were panicking. We fitted a proportional dosing system and got a zero bug count for 12 straight months.

The reason I and my former colleagues are not very wealthy by now is that when major chemical companies find that their clients don’t need all the barrels of chemicals they sell them to do different jobs, but only need one small one from a little outfit run by five guys and a dog to do a better job, they don’t take kindly to the threat of losing millions, or play fair, but that’s another story !

I like the reflective roofs and pavements idea, It could certainly help comfort levels within heat islands, and therefore reduce cooling loads resulting in less energy use and les emissions. That’s why most houses in the Mediteranian countries are painted white: and stay cool.

all best wishes

Colin

I saw this TV program. A man & his daughter had developed a “tree” machine. It’s a big fairly flat thing on a pole. As the wind blows through it, it takes the carbon out by combining it with something in a chemical process, which collects at the base of the “tree.” There’s no electricity or energy required. However, I’m thinking that there is energy/resources required in its manufacture, and I don’t think it takes a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere. We’d have to have vast “forests” of these ugly things, and make them very large to have significant impact. But at least they are working on these things.

Your ideas sound a lot more practical.

I think there would be some problems to overcome with regard to this idea and I appreciate the insights about water treatment.

The loss of heat to the ground may not be as significant if the goal is simply to heat the cold water 10 degrees higher from 4-8 C to near 20 C during the winter months in particular. This brings the temperature closer to the summer conditions where we live at least and it seems the water would not need treatment under these circumstances.

Heat loss is very high with a higher temperature difference and simply making the cold water less cold would be create about 30 percent the heat loss as compared with heating water to operating temperatures.

The earth surrounding the buried water pipes would require a long conduction path for this heat to escape to the surface so buried pipes already have an insulating effect after a time period where the surrounding earth warms them up a bit.

This principle is used in earth homes whereby the insulating aspects of the earth are used to insulate homes. The insulating aspects of earth are so effective that buried pipes do not freeze if they are buried deep enough even with harsh winter conditions above the ground.

The cold water supply is cold mostly because it comes from a body of water exposed to ambient conditions and this constant stream of cold water also cools the surrounding earth around the pipes and thus this colder earth helps to keep the cold water colder upon delivery.

The concepts of thermal inertia and insulation are being mixed here but the earth would help retain the heat and act like an insulator is the point I am making. The distance from the buried pipes to the earth’s surface and the average ambient conditions at the surface are the prime variables which influence the heat loss once the surrounding earth is heated to an equilibrium temperature gradient from the constant flow of warm water underground via the delivery pipes.

Colin, there is a way to make this idea work at some level and it has many merits because solar energy is simply not as available during the winter time. With a 30 percent rise in energy used to heat water in the winter, this is a good idea for using wasted heat energy from power plants. And the summertime cold water temperature could also be increased from 20 C to 23-25 C at least.

Another side benefit to this idea is that water heaters can be adjusted to lower operating temperatures since cold water is often mixed with hot water when used in most situations. The higher temperature setting for most hot water tanks is done only to insure an adequate supply of hot water during peak domestic use.

With higher cold water inlet temperatures, the tank operating temperature can be lowered. When it is lowered, less fuel is consumed to maintain the operating temperature from thermal losses from the tank to the surrounding air. This also lowers electrical energy used for mechanical cooling if the water heater is located within the conditioned space.

Insulating hot water tanks is also a good idea in this regard; however, I have observed that for water heaters using natural gas, most of this standby heat loss does not occur through the exterior tank walls but is vented up the flue pipe. Gas hot water heaters have to vent exhaust gases and when the burner is off, the hot interior surfaces of the flue pipe inside the tank wicks heat up the chimney away from the water and there is no way to insulate this.

If a damper is installed to control this heat loss by blocking this heat transfer when the burner is off, then this will prevent this escape of heat. If this were used, it would be 10 times more effective than adding more insulation around the tank exterior of a gas hot-water heater. Maybe the newer models have this feature. I hope. Our tank does not.

I do enjoy our dialogue on solutions far better than a dialogue on restating the problem over and over. Sometimes I think we have to spend more time making a good idea work rather than debate the problems with ideas we desperately need to save the climate.

We can never have enough good ideas and all of them may have merit and that includes nuclear. I prefer energy efficiency above all. I prefer renewable energy. I prefer sequestering carbon. But if I had a choice between 50 new coal power plants in China with unsequestered carbon dioxide, mercury, and sulfates going directly into the atmosphere destroying life and the climate, then I have to think that nuclear sounds like a better choice if that is the “only” other viable choice. I would rather deal with nuclear waste which hurts nothing “when contained” rather than see the climate destroyed.

I think all of us desperately need to think more rationally and prioritize what is most important and determine not only the best ideas to use but how ideas can be combined for a greater effect to increase the benefits as well as to lower the costs.

This is my mantra and it is aligned with natural capitalism concepts. Combining the waste heat removal from a power plant with the water supply is a way to utilize wasted energy greater than all the electricity produced. Even nuclear power plants have more wasted heat energy than the electricity they produce. It just is a stretch for many to imagine combining 2 different established infrastructures in ways to solve an energy problem.

Colin, when we were both engaged in WW2, technology and strategies evolved very quickly from necessity. Radar was created, the first real computer was created, and of course the nuclear bomb was created. If we all had the same focus on the energy and climate problems as we do for war, then I think we would see many things done which we could do today more easily.

I am glad for your contributions to this blog Colin and I do encourage others reading our dialogue to think more about solutions. In fact, I consider it a waste of time for any of us not post some form of idea along with the problems we spend time complaining about.

Now, a special message for others on this blog reading my dialogue with Colin

Let’s make this year count! I will encourage us all to redouble our efforts this year. Our problems are not going away. I encourage all to keep doing your very best and to think about solutions every day. Go to bed thinking about how to solve a problem which moves us forward and this includes how to best educate and motivate ourselves and others. It includes how to best influence others who can help.

In fact, there is no crime to get away from fatalism and embrace enthusiasm and optimism instead. Add to that passion and determination and you get a winning formula.

Instead of seeing the end of life, see this as the greatest challenge of all time and the greatest opportunity of your lifetime. Think about the idea of success instead of failure. Saving the planet was never meant to be an easy task and dedicating your life to solving these problems insures your place in the history books for millenniums to come.

Take all these problems and be defiant and bold. Think about the call to action like Colin has suggested with his WW2 comparison which I think was very helpful.

Was it Winston Churchill who said all he had to give was “blood sweat and tears”? Was it not Franklin Roosevelt who said “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” after the stock market crash? Will these words be even more relevant in the near future? I think so.

I have said enough and maybe I need to get back to my own projects. I live, breathe, and eat thinking about solutions every single day and I share only some of the macro ideas I could never implement without help. Some ideas are not new and some are just putting 2 ideas together for a greater benefit. I have many other ideas closer to home which I have not shared publicly. I do want to see all good ideas implemented. I want to see others, many on this blog, see their good ideas become a reality.

When you think about the climate and energy problems, just look into the mirror and you see the solution directly in front of you.

You have the power to change the course of future events. I hope the time I spent writing these comments help to motivate others.

I am very motivated and I consider this to be a noble and worthwhile obsession. What greater euphoria could anyone experience then to see us succeed! Is this alone not worth our very best effort?

I do not know any reason why we cannot succeed except that this was our collective choice. I choose to seek viable solutions which insure our success and to see these solutions implemented. We have a problem. We all have to make a decision on what we intend to do about it.

Best regards to you Colin,

And best regard to all to others on Mark’s blog!

Dan

Hi Lynne.

This is a new one on me.

However, there was a system proposed for lage power plants in which the carbon dioxide is combined with some kind of mineral. This could be along similar lines. It was found that more of the mineral was required than coal so it was more or less dropped as unworkable. Not to mention great big mines and the energy used in the mining process.

There is a system which uses the same or similar mineral (or metal particles), but recycles it in the process, to give a carbon dioxide stream which can be stored geologically.

Also possible is simply bubbling the flue gas through sea water, as happens at some plants already to remove the sulphur compounds to prevent acid rain Carbon dioxide dissolves into the sea water in this process. However, large scale take up would result in the sea acidifying – and it is getting too acidic already for some marine life.

That more or less leaves us with pumping it back to where it had been stored before. i.e. into the oil and gas wells.

This has the advantage of being able to extract more oil from wells which are running out in North America and Europe, which brings the oil companies on board who are needed to geologically store it.

all the best Martin

Here’s the link:

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&archive=1&storyid=781&first=5146&end=5145

The project is at concept stage, but quite a lot has been done on the science and it is technically feasible. Whether it is likely to be economically viable for a while yet is uncertain. By the time liquid hydrocarbon fuels get that valuable we may not be able to aford the energy to build one.

In the meantime, a lot more is being done with power station flue gas scrubbers. There is an interesting concept at: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/12/greenshift_lice.html

A group of my colleagues is exploring whether adding one of these to a biomass co-generation plant is a viable option. The technology is at prototype stage at the moment, but looks interesting. If you can replace fossil fuel burn at greater efficiency with biomass, you are going to carbon neutral status. If you then capture up to 80% of the emitted CO2 and lock it into the medium termcycle as a liquid biofuel or a soil conditioner to help grow more trees in poor soil, then the photosynthetic action of new tree growth will make the cycle carbon negative, which is the way we want to go for a while.

Interesting add-ons are the use of a much greater quantity of structural timber in the housebuilding industry and better energy efficiency through design improvements and the economics of marginal woodland management start to improve over soem food cropping (especially if you take production subsidies out).

There’s a lot going on out there!

all the best

Colin