The Necessity of Carbon Remediation and its Application

Over five years ago I discussed the issue that addressing global warming would involve both the reduction of new human based releases of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere (carbon mitigation) and developing a method of increasing the rate of removal of already existing CO2 in the atmosphere either spurred through natural and/or technological means (carbon remediation). This dual requirement is born from the inability of nature to currently manage existing and future CO2 levels to ensure the maintenance of a viable environment to accommodate both the existing global human population and any increases that are seen in the near-future.

For both carbon mitigation and remediation two elements take precedence: effectiveness and speed. Effectiveness is rather self-explanatory; if the applied strategies are unable to reduce the release of new CO2 concentrations and remove more CO2 from the air versus what is added over the life-cycle of the remediation processes then such strategies are not worth exploring. Speed is necessary because there is already a dangerous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the rate of carbon mitigation is not proceeding nearly fast enough relative to the capacity of natural sinks to remove CO2. Basically with each passing year the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing not decreasing and based on current mitigation patterns this reality is not going to change in the near future. Note while both mitigation and remediation are important, the remainder of this discussion will focus on remediation.

With the idea of speed in mind, while there are more cost-effective (i.e. more economically attractive) remediation strategies available, largely those involving planting trees or synthesizing bio-char, these methods are significantly slower than various technological methods. In addition to the issue of speed, the efficiency of natural methods like planting trees could be called into question for there is the potential for natural sinks to decline in overall CO2 capacity between less CO2 absorption from trees, a more acidic ocean beginning to out-gas due to changes in the concentration gradient or even decreased levels of material weathering.

Even if there was no threat of lost absorption capacity from natural sinks, it is difficult to conclude that natural sinks will be able to remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere, even in a scenario of rapid emission reduction due to the already existing concentration, before the occurrence of serious negative environmental outcomes. Therefore, while it may not be a popular notion for some environmentalists and some economists, the simple reality is that technology will have to be at the forefront of removing existing CO2 from the atmosphere leaving nature to play more of an auxiliary role.

Of the two major strategies for large-scale carbon remediation, direct air capture and ocean fertilization, initial tests with ocean fertilization have not been positive. While the initial theory is solid, in practice the increased phytoplankton concentrations have been unable to demonstrate any real gains in CO2 removal, largely due to increased predation from zooplankton.1 These complications have soured the chief advantage of ocean fertilization, simplicity, leaving direct air capture as the theoretical best strategy for carbon remediation.

To ensure clarity, the term “Direct Air Capture” is being interpreted as: the technological removal of atmospheric CO2 from a non-point source (versus a point source which would be a power plant or automobile) by reacting atmospheric CO2 with a sorbent (usually an alkaline NaOH solution). This reaction with the sorbent typically forms sodium carbonate and water. The carbonate then reacts with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)) resulting in the generation of calcite (CaCO3) and reformation of the sodium hydroxide. The process of causticization transfers a vast majority of the carbonate ions (»94-95%) from the sodium to the calcium cation and the calcium carbonate precipitate is thermally decomposed to regenerate the previously absorbed gaseous CO2. The final step involves thermal decomposition of the calcite in the presence of oxygen along with the hydration of lime (CaO) to recycle the calcium hydroxide.2,3 Obviously some of the details can differ depending on the type of sorbent utilized and other side elements of the process, but the above description entails the general chemical operation of direct air capture.

Obviously direct air capture is not without its own challenges mostly due to the incredibly small concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for while 400+ parts per million (ppm) is very significant from an environmental standpoint, it is clearly not a large amount from a chemical reaction standpoint. This CO2 “deficiency” is largely responsible for the significant costs associated with CO2 removal via direct air capture, which have been estimated at a cost floor of $300 per ton of CO2 (which is optimistic in isolation) to a $1200+ per ton of CO2 ceiling (which is rather pessimistic).4 However, regardless of these potential costs it does appear that whatever the actual costs, it is one that humanity will have to foot the bill for if it wants to maximize its probability of surviving from a societal standpoint into the near future.

There are three major issues surrounding the proper functionality of the process of direct air capture not involving the specifics of the direct process of capturing the CO2: power use, water use, and end destination of the absorbed CO2. Not surprisingly each of these issues must be addressed to optimize the overall process of CO2 removal from the atmosphere and maximize its overall economics.

The consideration of the power source is important relative to speed and efficiency regarding the total net CO2 captured and removed from the atmosphere. For example, if a trace emission source is utilized (nuclear, geothermal, wind or solar) then the process can be reasonably estimated as 90-99% efficient (10-100 tons of CO2 will be captured and removed for every 1 ton of CO2 used to power the process). With this estimate the net cost per ton will be 1.01-1.1 times more than the gross cost relative to the power use component. However, if a fossil fuel source is utilized then, largely dependent on the exact fuel mix, the process will be 50-70% efficient and the net cost will be about 1.3-1.5 times larger than the gross estimated cost for the power use component.

Obviously due to this significant efficiency disparity the utilization of a trace emission source for the process is imperative, but which process is most appropriate? Speed is the most important element in the removal process because of the existing and future damage to the environment, something that money really cannot replace so the process must operate as close to 24 hours a day 7 days a week as possible. This requirement heavily limits the viability of using wind or solar as the energy medium, thus leaving two principal contenders: geothermal and nuclear.

Now while one could attempt to argue that wind or solar could work with the appropriate level of storage as backup, such an argument does not sit on solid ground with the existing lack of storage options and the empirical track record of such a design. While small pilot plans exist and have received flashy headlines and hype, the output of these plants is basically irrelevant to any expected energy requirements for air capture. Also recall that energy can only stored if it is in excess, which will not be true most of the time, for the solar and/or wind elements are already providing energy to various elements associated with the capture process. Pumped hydro shares the same problem, as well as limiting the location for the process because of its required topography.

In the past geothermal was thought to be the better choice over nuclear largely due to any potential nuclear waste issues associated with nuclear power, with enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) being the preferred geothermal methodology. Note that the issue of safety regarding nuclear power has long been a foolish reason to oppose it for safety issues only arise when the operator (be it government or corporation) is allowed to cut corners and/or does not adhere to proper and standard safety operating procedures.

Unfortunately, there has been few rigorous studies concerning EGS especially relative to any expansion of seismic activity pertaining to its application. In short the EGS process can produce an environment that increases seismic activity of low Richter scale earthquakes (the occurrence of 2 to 3 scale quakes appear to increase in probability). However, unlike fracking, which increase both earthquake probability and severity, little is known regarding whether EGS will increase earthquake severity (from 2 or 3 to 4+). This uncertainty, which could have been and should have been studied in earnest years ago, makes it difficult to support going forward with EGS. Thus, nuclear becomes the better choice with at least a generation 2 design as the standard in order to limit or outright eliminate resultant waste or one could utilize a small modular unit design.

Water utilization is also an important issue for regardless of the system, the chemical reaction involved in the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere requires water, commonly as a catalyst. However, despite the general nature of a catalyst (lack of consumption at the conclusion of the reaction) the open-air nature of the reaction system results in a significant percentage of the utilized water being lost to the atmosphere as water vapor making inherent water recovery within the process itself more difficult. Therefore, there are two important questions involving water use in the process: 1) How will the initial amount of water for beginning the process be procured? 2) How will atmospheric water losses be minimized?

The best solution for obtaining the required starting water is from desalination, which is suitable because direct air capture units can be built almost anywhere due to the natural mixing of the atmosphere maintaining relatively constant global CO2 concentrations over the long-term. Regarding the question of how atmospheric water losses will be minimized there are two potential strategies. First, the use of properly placed atmospheric condensers could recover a significant portion of the lost water and recycle it back into the beginning of the process. Second, depending on the economic and environmentally efficiency of the desalination process, there may be no need for any type of recycling, instead drawing all required water from desalination including that which is lost.

However, this method is inherently risky because of the potential detriments associated with desalination and any potential issues involving the hydrological cycle due to the new levels of water evaporation from the direct air capture process. Overall the better option appears to initially provide water via desalination and allow further desalination to fill-in any gaps in recycling missed by the water condensers. Fortunately, either option seems valid from an energy standpoint with the nearby nuclear reactor powering the direct air capture devices.

The infrastructure to transport water needs to be considered both from an efficiency and economic standpoint. The two most viable methods for the initial water application would be constructing a piping infrastructure to transport the desalinated water to the direct air capture units or simply using transport vehicles, like large trucks, to move the water to the direct air capture units. An important element to determining which method is best involves the rate of recycling from any water atmospheric collectors near the direct air capture units. The more water recycled the more attractive a less permanent infrastructure appears (trucks) due to the lower overall capital and even maintenance costs. However, while theory is fine, the overall scale requirements of the operation may require a more permanent source of water due to the sheer amount of water required regardless of recycling.

Also an important consideration is what to do with desalination byproducts, mostly the removed salt, some of the chemicals in the desalination process and the possibility of certain contaminants from pipe and process breakdown (copper, iron, zinc, etc.). At the moment many desalination plants dispose the brine in the ocean or a closed watercourse through a direct disposal strategy sometimes involving salinity concentration reduction by discharging the brine with wastewater or a cooling stream from a power plant.

Obviously there is concern about releasing a stream of heavily concentrated brine into the ocean for it can produce both eutrophication and significant pH changes creating problems for the local flora and fauna.5 Other common management strategies include minimization or direct reuse.5 Minimization commonly involves membrane or thermal methods whereas reuse involves recovering salts from the waste brine via crystallization or evaporative cooling and utilizing that salt for other processes or goods.5

While some are high on the idea of selling salt to offset the operation of a desalination plant such an idea seems optimistic due to the overall expected scale of the operation. Some have proposed ammoniating the brine and using it to increase the volume of CO2 capture.5 The concern with that strategy is providing the necessary ammonium to react with the brine to create a consistent and worthwhile process. Another option that has been floated is incorporating the brine into a set of molten salts that would be used in either nuclear power reactors or batteries. However, the viability of such an idea is still questionable.

Desalination is not the only aspect of the process that produces a byproduct. The more important environmental byproduct is obviously the CO2 that is extracted from the atmosphere. The most important aspect of this absorption is what process will be utilized to ensure that the newly capture CO2 is not reintroduced into the environment? Some of the more desired solutions involve dreaming of using the captured CO2 as an economic product within enhanced oil recovery processes, as a means to producing a methane or hydrocarbon based fuel for vehicles or a marketed product in a commercial industry (soda, etc.).

Unfortunately, those first two options return the captured CO2 back to the atmosphere at some percentage, which limits the overall efficiency of the CO2 absorption, increasing overall costs and decreasing the speed of net removal. Also the commercial option will not provide sufficient funds to the operation of the process. While this reality eliminates the idea that commercial product distribution can carry the finances of the process, tapping into commercial process should still be worthwhile as a means to eliminate a very minor portion of the captured CO2.

Another method to remove atmospheric carbon gaining in popularity is the use of bio-char. In essence bio-char is black carbon synthesized through pyrolysis of biomass. Bio-char is effective because it is believed to be a very stable means of retaining carbon, sequestering it for hundreds to thousands of years. Depositing the captured CO2 into one-sided greenhouses could be another method to disposing of some of the captured CO2 then turning the grown flora into bio-char would remove the CO2. While a possibility, again the scale of absorbed CO2 limits the total value of this process.

A new method for potentially removing CO2 is utilizing it in an electrolytic conversion to create molten carbonates and later converting those carbonates into Carbon Nanofibers and potentially later even Carbon Nanotubes.6 While this process has yet to be scaled to what would be classified as commercial levels, it does demonstrate some level of promise. The versatility and usefulness of carbon nanotubes or fibers have more commercial value than pure CO2 as a commercial product. However, similar to the other potential options listed above, it is difficult to presume that most of the captured CO2 will be eliminated via this process.

Mineral sequestration via olivine, serpentine or wollastonite has drawn attention as a possible avenue for CO2 “storage”. However, this strategy does not appear economically or rationally viable for natural weathering is too slow and technologically induced weathering, by grinding down these materials to dramatically increase available surface area, is emission inefficient and costly. So despite some of these more flashy or “economic” choices, overall it is reasonable to suggest that a majority of the captured CO2 will be stored long-term in underground rock formations.

With all of these additional considerations to take into account it does not appear wise to simply build these air capture units at random. These units clearly need to be constructed in an orderly and cohesive manner, perhaps even in a localized autonomous network. This network needs to contain a water source, a power source and a means of utilizing the captured CO2 in addition to having recycling pathways for all necessary materials used in the selected air capture reactions.

Overall it is also important to understand that one should not attempt to portray this type of above complex or even direct air capture in general as some new budding industry that will produce a profit. While certain elements will provide some form of revenue, envisioning a new profitable industry does not appear appropriate at this time. So if profitability is not viable, what is the economic argument for direct air capture? The response is adjusting how one looks at the economic issue. The economics of direct air capture and any resulting complex is not profitability, but prevention and to some extent, survivability.

For example, Person A does not eat broccoli on a regular basis because he is paid a sum of money by Person B to do so, but instead consumes broccoli because it is a healthy food and there is reason to believe that the consistent consumption of broccoli will result in a reduced probability of various diseases and ailments in the future relative to a person who does not consume broccoli (all other elements being accounted for). Therefore, the economic benefit for consuming broccoli is derived from lower future costs associated with healthcare and perhaps a reduction in lost wages due to less work missed versus immediate short-term incentive/reward.

No reasonable person disputes the fact that global warming will increase the probability and severity of future extreme weather events in addition to producing detrimental changes in general climate and weather patterns. These changes will produce significant levels of environmental and economic damage and will eventually threaten the very viability of human society. Therefore, a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that it is important to lessen the detrimental impacts of global warming as much as possible. Such a reduction would also result in the savings of billions of dollars in the short-term (10-20 years from now) and trillions of dollars in the long-term (20-50 years from now). Therefore, similar to the broccoli example, the prevention model is how people should look at direct air capture versus attempting to inappropriately sell it as some form of short-term “money-making” venture. The “profitability” comes from the money saved in the future by reducing the probability of detrimental outcomes associated with global warming.

With this mindset, how would such projects be funded? It is difficult to see venture capitalists getting involved because most only have a nose for eventual profits and as discussed above, this project will not produce profits in that manner. Ironically the only venture capitalists that might get involved are those who are very young and/or have large stock holdings in insurance companies. In a just world every major corporation in the world would have to pay into some form of “carbon remediation and mitigation” fund as a form of restitution for championing a carbon heavy global economy. Money from this fund would then be used to fund direct air capture in addition to other direct CO2 mitigation projects. One could argue that the funds procured from a carbon tax would also serve this purpose.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of such a program where corporations foot a lot of the bill is unlikely for it is difficult to envision most multi-national corporations agreeing to fund such a program; most companies typically do not do something unless profit is available, which here it is not, or if government is footing the bill. Therefore, it appears that various world governments will have to foot the bill. With that said what governments should go first so to speak: Well the United States is definitely a candidate as it is responsible for the most cumulative CO2 out of any other country. China is in a very close second being responsible for the most CO2 in the last few decades in addition to choosing coal and oil to grow their economy without taking into consideration the environmental realities of that choice when nuclear, wind, solar and/or geothermal were also valid, albeit slower, choices. However, in the end such funding would have to be worked out by international treaty, which does not lend much confidence when considering the success of past international environmental based treaties.

In the end, it is understandable that if the economic cost of developing an air capture complex of sorts was quantitatively calculated that it would be high; however, the nature of the complex is that all of these elements will be required in the future based on the current environmental-use path humans have embarked upon with regards to expelling CO2 into the atmosphere, thus the cost is not based on luxury, but necessity. The idea behind such a complex for direct air capture is to lower overall net costs by tying many of the air capture units into the same required operational elements, thus making the direct air capture strategy more economical on an overall scale; saving money for investment in other environmentally necessary avenues like emission reduction. Overall while the manifestation of such a complex may not be exactly as described in this blog post, the reality is that as it current stands such a complex will be needed in one form or another.



Citations –

1. "Lohafex project provides new insights on plankton ecology: Only small amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide fixed." International Polar Year. March 23, 2009.

2. Zeman, Frank. “Energy and Material Balance of CO2 Capture from Ambient Air.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007. 41(21): 7558-7563.

3. Perez, E, et Al. “Direct Capture of CO2 from Ambient Air.” Chem. Rev. 2016. 116:11840-11876

4. American Physical Society. Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals: A Technology Assesment for the APS Panel on Public A?airs; APS: 2011.

5. Giwa, A, et Al. “Brine Management Methods: Recent Innovations and Current Status.” Desalination. 2017. 407:1-23.

6. Ren, J, et Al. “One-Pot Synthesis of Carbon Nanofibers from CO2.” Nano Lett. 2015. 15:6142-6148.

Where is my Solar and Wind Only City?

Two years ago this blog proposed a challenge to solar and wind supporters that if solar and wind were indeed the energy mediums of the future and did not require the assistance of other energy mediums (most notably fossil fuels like coal and natural gas) then they should empirically demonstrate this potential by transitioning a single medium sized city (10,000 – 15,000 individuals) to a grid where at least 70% of the electricity, not even all energy, was produced by solar and/or wind sources. Unfortunately despite the passage of two years and the so-called further expansion of solar and wind technology no such experiment has been conducted.

This lack of attention to detail in producing a model city that would empirically represent and support the actual ability of solar and wind to produce the bulk of electricity and even possibly all energy in the future beyond simple hype is troubling. Are solar and wind proponents so irresponsible that they are willing to gamble the future of society on merely their hopes, dreams, and personal preferences rather than raw data? Do they think that incorporation of solar and wind to a grid steadily advancing from 10% to 20% then 30% then 40% then 50%, etc. will run perfectly with no significant problems? If so, then the solar and wind supporters who believe these things should be stripped of all of their credibility and influence; those who do not believe in such a perfect transition should begin immediately petitioning to accept the challenge.

To the solar and wind proponents who object to the above characterization due to the notion that in March Georgetown, Texas (population approximately 48,000) proposed a plan to get all electricity from solar and wind sources, in essence meet this challenge, hold your horses. While it is true that there has been an initial arrangement between the Georgetown Utility Systems and Spinning Spur Wind Farm (owned by EDF Renewable Energy) and SunEdison to purchase 294 MW (144 MW wind and 150 MW solar) from their installations, this is only an initial arrangement, no actual testing or application has occurred yet.

A more pertinent issue regarding the use of Georgetown as an example is that there is no specific information pertaining to the details of how Georgetown Utility Systems will manage this change in supplier. Basically the only public reporting on this strategy have been puff-hype pieces with no real substance or details. Both Spinning Spur Wind Farm and the yet to be identified SunEdison site have not been fully constructed, are not operational and do not have any secondary storage capacity; thus any electricity produced by these institutions will be live and when those institutions are not producing electricity there will be no electricity to provide to Georgetown.

Initially there are at least three major questions that must be addressed to legitimize Georgetown as a model for a solar/wind only powered city. First, where is the detailed analysis of how electricity, and possibly even energy flows, would be properly compensated to avoid brownouts in times when there is insufficient electricity being produced by solar and wind sources? Simply saying “the sun shines in the day and the wind blows when the sun is not shining” is laughable and severely damages credibility. Anyone who thinks that there will not be periods of intermittence from both Spinning Spur and the SunEdison site is harboring an inaccurate belief. Basically show that 100% renewable can be done using math, not flowery words and misplaced hype; note that it is important to also include any transmission and inverter losses in the calculation and separate nameplate capacity from actual operational capacity.

Second, it stands to reason that proponents of a solar/wind only city will not allow the use of natural gas or coal to act in a backup capacity during these periods of intermittence; therefore, during periods of excess solar and wind, electricity must be stored in a battery for use at a future time. So what type of battery structure(s) is going to be utilized to store that excess energy and what is the economic feasibility of using this structure? If no battery infrastructure is believed to be feasible or economical then what type of energy medium will be tapped to act as backup in lieu of a fossil fuel medium and how will it be properly incorporated?

Third, how will consumer costs for energy change from the transition away from fossil fuels over time, i.e. what will costs be in year 1, what will costs be in year 10…? To simply say it will cost less is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that it will cost less both now and in the future and if it will not cost less in the future what forms of compensation, if any, will be provided to the residents of Georgetown?

Overall these are just the three most basic questions that must be addressed before anyone should accept the idea of Georgetown, Texas being a legitimate 100% solar/wind powered city when their plan is put into place a few years from now. If these questions are not answered with accurate specifics that are later properly executed over time then Georgetown loses all significance as both a legitimate and symbolic experiment for the validity of a solar and wind “future”.

Of course it must be understood that the results in Georgetown are only an initial step, success only provides support to the possibility, not any guarantee for national eventuality. So how about it solar and wind supporters are you actually ready to put your theories to the test or are you simply content with the unscientific and irrational belief that everything will magically work out without the need for essential specifics, realistic assumptions, honest economics (which is incredibly lacking in most pro-solar and wind papers) and valid proof of concepts?

Restoring the Arctic

There are numerous environmental concerns surrounding the progression of human-derived global warming. One of the most pressing is the persistent loss of Arctic ice. Due to a vast majority of global warming related heat being absorbed by the ocean all oceanic temperatures have increased, regardless of location, with the Arctic receiving the greatest temperature increase due to its lower base temperature. This increase has been significant enough that the ice extent at the summer minimum, which consistently occurs in September, has resulted in a net loss of 11% per decade since 1979 with a loss of 1.1 meters of mean ice thickness between 1980 and 2000.1,2 This loss of thickness has produced a general shift in the ice type from older multi-year ice to new single year ice resulting in an overall replacement of about 40% of the thick and old multi-year ice with single year ice.3 Coinciding with this empirical evidence various global and regional climate models have predicted that the situation will only get worse in the future.4

The chief purpose of ice in the Arctic, from a global warming standpoint, is to increase ocean albedo due to its reflective surface versus the darker surface of the water itself. When sunlight strikes the transparent/white surface of ice a vast majority of it is reflected back into the atmosphere. When sunlight strikes the dark blue, sometimes black, surface of Arctic water a vast majority of the light and its associated heat content is absorbed by the ocean rather than reflected back into the atmosphere. On a general level this heat absorption is a positive feedback effect where the more heat absorbed the more ice melts leading to even more heat absorbed, etc. Normally the ocean and its system of currents operate as a heat sink to control surface and atmospheric temperatures; however, this new massive heat absorption reduces sink efficiency allowing more heat to remain in the atmosphere increasing the detrimental effects associated with global warming. A secondary effect is that greater amounts of ice melt will increase global sea level rise in the future placing more coastal and even slightly inland cities at risk as well as negatively affecting Arctic wildlife by eliminating “land” surfaces for hunting and habitation.

With these near-future negative environmental events born from a lack of Arctic ice one would reason that it is important to find and execute a methodology that would increase Arctic ice volume and longevity. The most obvious means of increasing Arctic ice would be to eliminate the human derived excess heat, which would restore typical Arctic ocean temperatures seen in the 50s and 60s and even further past. One means of accomplishing this goal is to simply reverse the actions that lead to the heating. While reducing global carbon emissions is an important and critical step in addressing global warming, the realistic timetable for cooling the Arctic through carbon mitigation then reliance on natural processes is still decades if not even over a century away. Based on the rate of melting a more immediate solution will be required.

Recalling the albedo-heat feedback cycle from above, one method to break that cycle would be to increase the albedo of the ocean. Not surprisingly it is nearly impossible to change the natural color of the ocean due to its size and natural mixing, thus changing ocean albedo will require human intervention to change the surface albedo of the Arctic ocean. The easiest method is to mimic nature itself and increase surface ice by enhancing ice formation. Obviously enhancing ice formation will require large amounts of water; fortunately meeting this supply requirement is not a problem for water can be taken from the ocean itself and re-deposited on existing ice.

One of the principle reasons this strategy works is that ice is a quality thermal insulator, which can increase the speed of water freezing. In addition nucleation may also play a role in this ice formation enhancement where ice-forming nucleus tend to trigger freezing of under-cooled water droplets at higher temperatures when in solid contact versus liquid immersion.5-7 While the reason for this enhancement is unknown it is suspected that there are thermodynamically favorable interactions at the air-water interface8,9 leading to contact nucleation as a manifestation of an enhanced surface nucleation rate.5 Basically the liquid environment reduces the uniformity of the air-water interface reducing the efficiency of nucleation. Another important influencing factor may be that nucleation near the surface is greater because of a greater freedom of motion, thus the kinetic rate coefficient is larger at the surface than in the bulk (regardless of that bulk being solid or liquid); this change is important because the change in activation energy between phase changes is exponential.5 Overall the important point to take home is that water sprayed on to the surface of ice has a higher probability of freezing into new ice versus that water remaining adjacent or beneath the ice (all things being equal).

However, increasing ice formation will require managing the temperature increases that have lead to the reduced ice in the first place. There are two chief methods for addressing this temperature question. The first method is to take the water from the ocean and run it through a heat exchanger to remove a sufficient amount of heat to produce an appropriate freezing probability. The chief drawbacks to this method are the energy required to operate the heat exchanger and what to do with the heat absorbed from the water. The heat exchanger needs to be operated with an energy medium that has a very small carbon footprint otherwise the negative aspect of the added CO2 to the atmosphere through this method will more than likely exceed the benefits of adding more Arctic ice. In addition the heat removed from the water must be stored properly because if it is released to the environment it will either enter the atmosphere or the ocean, either result would largely mitigate any advantage to increasing Arctic ice.

The second method involves drawing ocean water not from the surface, but from deeper water near the bottom of the thermocline where the average temperature is much lower. The weakness of the first method is the reliance on the heat exchanger and its energy demands. Unfortunately while the second method eliminates the heat exchanger it cannot eliminate the need for additional energy usage because instead of using a heat exchanger a pump is required. The unknown question is which method will require more energy. Overall unless the first method is significantly more energy efficient, the second method should be favored because there is no excess heat to manage. While the power requirements for the pump and eventual energy consumption are easy to calculate experimentation will have to be conducted to identify the appropriate pumping rate, spray volume, and spray angle.

An important secondary question is what should be done about the salt in the supply water? One possibility would involve removing the salt because salt “decreases” the freezing point of water making it more difficult to form ice and could even result in ice sheet perforation. An alternative strategy would involve retaining the salt, which would strengthen down-welling currents when the ice melts. The best means to determine the best strategy would simply be to test this ice formation methodology and closely observe how the rate of secondary ice formation changes depending on the current temperature and time of year without any salt removal. If the formation rate is not sufficient then the salt will need to be removed.

If water cannot be used due to energy requirements the other major option for creating a change in the ocean surface albedo in an environmental neutral method is cover the water surface with bubbles. One of the chief advantages of this second option is that bubbles require little energy to create, thus the operational costs for such a system are low.10,11 Bubbles increase ocean surface albedo by increasing the reflective solar flux by providing voids that backscatter light.10 In addition modeling the reflective behavior of bubbles is similar to aerosol water drops because light backscattering is cross-sectional versus being mass or volume dependent and the spherical voids in the water column have the same refractive index characteristics.10 Note that ocean surface albedo varies with angle of solar incidence. Common values are less than 0.05 at 12:00, below 0.1 at 65 degrees solar zenith angle and a maximum albedo, which range from 0.2 to 0.5, at solar zenith angle 84 degrees.12-15 Based on this comparison information the principle formula governing brightening is:

DeltaF = DeltaA * Io * So * (1-Cf) * Tu * Td

where DeltaF = change in brightening; DeltaA = change in albedo on water surface; Io = solar irradiance; So = cosine of solar zenith angle; Cf = fraction of cloud cover; Tu = upwelling transmissive; Td = down-welling transmissive;10

Experiments have already demonstrated the creation of hydrosols from the expansion of air saturated water moving through vortex nozzles, which applies the appropriate level of shearing forces creating a swirling jet of water.11 Also by using an artificial two-phase flow smaller microbubbles can be created, which can even result in interfacial films through ambient fluid pressure reduction.12 Microbubbles can possibly form these films because they typically last longer than visible whitecap bubbles, which rise and bust in seconds. Note that whitecaps are froth created from breaking waves and can increase ocean albedo up to 0.22 from the common 0.05-0.1 values.16

While whitecaps from waves and wakes do provide increased surface albedo, the effect is ephemeral. Microbubble lifespan can be influenced by local surfactant concentration and fortunately the Arctic has limited natural surfactant concentration that would influence this lifespan, thus granting more control in the process of creating those bubbles (less outside factors that could unduly influence bubble lifespan). For example, if these bubbles are created through technological means additional elements can be added to the reactant water like a silane surfactant that could add hours to the natural lifespan.17 Bubble lifespan is probably the most important characteristic for this form of ocean albedo increase both from an economic and efficiency standpoint. However, while most surfactants and other agents like glycerin are typically not environmentally detrimental, the massive amounts required for increasing bubble longevity may make its use economically and environmentally unsustainable.

Another method for creating microbubbles comes from biomedical engineering where microfluidic procedures and sonication are used to enhance surfactant monolayers to stabilize microbubble formation.18 However, there are two common concerns about this method. First, it is used primarily in a laboratory largely for diagnostic and therapeutic applications, not in the field; therefore there may be questions about transition, especially for the dramatic increase in production scale that will be required for Arctic use. Second, while sonication increases stabilizing time, it limits control of microbubble size distribution, which could limit the total reflectiveness of the bubbles.19,20

An expanded and newer laboratory technique, electrohydrodynamic atomization, generates droplets of liquids and applies coaxial microbubbling to facilitate control over microbubble size. Unfortunately one concern with this technique is that as mentioned above ideal bubble size is in microns, but this technique is currently only able to create single digit millimeter sized bubbles.18 However, the increased size may be offset by the increased stability of the bubble (less overall reflection, but longer residence time). Comparison testing will be required to make the appropriate judgment.

The final method for increasing ice formation involves devising a piece of technology that can absorb excess heat from the Arctic Ocean. At first thought such an idea seems unlikely due to the size of the Arctic Ocean and its environmental inputs. However, it may not be as far-fetched as it seems. The key to making such a strategy viable is efficiency and scale within the utilized technology.

Scale is achieved through a design that is small enough that it can be produced at reasonable cost with a reasonable level of speed. Efficiency is typically achieved through producing a device that is self-cycling and thereby producing an autonomous operation. If human involvement is required beyond “pushing the start button” then efficiency is significantly compromised. Tie that efficiency loss in a single unit and multiply it by the units required for scale and the result can be devastating in both the terms of cost and viability.

If the objective is to withdraw heat from the ocean the most important element in the device is what agent will be utilized to accomplish this task. Ironically water is one of the best insulators of heat, which is why it is used for cooling purposes in power plants, thus removing heat could prove difficult. Fortunately there is promising research that supports the idea of incorporating zeolite as the heat absorbent material. Zeolite is a mineral make up of SiO2-, various AlO2 groups and alkali-ions and is capable of absorbing gaseous molecules including water due to its crystalline structure. When zeolite absorbs a gas it retains heat due to the absorption enthalpy.21 In addition because zeolite is commonly produced synthetically for use as molecular sieves and washing detergents it is cheap (50 – 75 cents /kg) and environmentally neutral.21

A good example of how zeolite is used in heat absorption is seen through their use in absorption refrigerators. Absorption refrigerators consist of two connected but independent vessels, the evaporator and absorber. The evaporator vessel acts as a quasi-vacuum containing only the vapor pressure of a liquid, which is usually water. When the valve connecting the two vessels is opened the water vapor moves into the absorption vessel and is absorbed by the zeolite reducing the vapor pressure. The loss of pressure causes a phase change as the water become liquid. Eventually the zeolite becomes saturated ceasing the heat transfer between the zeolite and the water. In the refrigerator model at a later time the zeolite is superheated condensing the absorbed water vapor and returning it to the evaporator vessel.

However, the secondary functionality of the above refrigerator design, zeolite recovery through heating, is not applicable in an oceanic environment. The water and resultant heat must be released from the zeolite so it can be reused, but this release will produce excess heat, which is similar to the problem of using a heat exchanger in the first strategy, there is no good place on the open ocean to store the heat without avoiding environmental release. One strategy to address this issue with a small movable device is when the zeolite becomes “full” the device can return, via a small battery powered motor, to a “mother” ship of sorts where the zeolite heat release process can be conducted. After restoring the zeolite to its rest state the device can return to the Arctic to withdraw more heat. After sufficient time the “mother” ship will be “full” of heat and would return to a land base, most likely Iceland due to its geothermal reserves as an energy source and well, to properly off-load the heat stores. Granted this method will place some limits on overall efficiency due to the trips between the Arctic and heat releasing stop over points, but necessary to manage the heat problem.

In the end the positive feedback associated with the warming-albedo reduction relationship is a legitimate threat to carbon mitigation and remediation strategies as a whole. Therefore, society needs to appreciate the time discrepancies associated with restoring colder temperatures to the Arctic Ocean in effort to preserve Arctic ice, especially during the summer. A technology-based solution will be required. Three possible strategies have been presented above in general detail to attempt to break this warming-albedo reduction relationship. One of the advantages of all of these strategies is that they can be experimentally explored with little overall detriment due to their ephemeral nature. Basically if the results are not similar to what is anticipated the experiments can be stopped with little environmental or economic damage. Overall something needs to be done about increased rate of warming in the Arctic and the dramatically increased rate of ice lost if global carbon mitigation strategies are going to be fully effective at reducing the detrimental effects of global warming.

Citations –

1. Perovich, D, and Richter-Menge, A. “Loss of sea ice in the Arctic.” Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2009. 1:417–441.

2. Rothrock, D, Percival, D, and Wensnahan, M. “The decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness: Separating the spatial, annual, and interannual variability in a quarter century of submarine data.” J. Geophys. Res. 2008. 113:C05003.

3. Kwok, R. “Observational assessment of Arctic Ocean sea ice motion, export, and thickness in CMIP3 climate simulations.” J. Geophys. Res. 2011. 116:C00D05.

4. Bjork, G, Stranne, C, and Borenas, K. “The sensitivity of the Arctic Ocean sea ice thickness and its dependence on the surface albedo parameterization.” Journal of Climate. 2013. 26:1355-1370.

5. Shaw, R, Durant, A, and Mi, Y. “Heterogeneous surface crystallization observed in undercooled water.” Journal of Physical Chemistry B Letters. 2005. 109:9865-9868.

6. Vali, G. In Nucleation and Atmospheric Aerosols; Kulmala, M., Wagner, P., Eds.; Pergamon: New York, 1996.

7. Pruppacher, H, and Klett, J. Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation, 2nd ed.; Kluwer Academic Pub.: Norwell, MA, 1997. Chapters 7 and 9.

8. Djikaev, Y, et Al. “Thermodynamic conditions for the surface-stimulated crystallization of atmospheric droplets.” J. Phys. Chem. A. 2002. 106:10247. doi:10.1021/jp021044s.

9. Tabazadeh, A, Djikaev, Y, and Reiss, H. “Surface crystallization of supercooled water in clouds.” PNAS. 2002. 99(25):15873-15878.

10. Seitz, F. “On the theory of the bubble chamber.” Physics of Fluids. 1958. 1: 2-10.

11. Seitz, F. “Bright Water: hydrosols, water conservation and climate change.” 2010.

12. Evans, J.R.G, et Al. “Can oceanic foams limit global warming?” Clim. Res. 2010. 42:155-160.

13. Davies, J. “Albedo measurements over sub-arctic surfaces.” McGill Sub-Arctic Res Pap. 1962. 13:61–68.

14. Jin, Z, et Al. “A parameterization of ocean surface albedo.” Geophys Res Letters. 2004. 31:L22301.

15. Payne, R. “Albedo of the sea surface.” J Atmos Sci. 1972. 29:959–970.

16. Moore, K, Voss, K, and Gordon, H. “Spectral reflectance of whitecaps: Their contribution to water-leaving radiance.” J. Geophys. Res. 2000. 105:6493-6499

17. Johnson, B, and Cooke, R. “Generation of Stabilized Microbubbles in Seawater.” Science. 1981. 213:209-211

18. Farook, U, Stride, E, and Edirisinghe, J. “Preparation of suspensions of phospholipid-coated microbubbles by coaxial electrohydrodynamic atomization.” J.R. Soc. Interface. 2009. 6:271-277.

19. Wang, W, Moser, C, and Weatley, M. “Langmuir trough study of surfactant mixtures used in the production of a new ultrasound contrast agent consisting of stabilized microbubbles.” J. Phys. Chem. 1996. 100:13815–13821.

20. Borden, M, et Al. “Surface phase behaviour and microstructure of lipid/PEG emulsifier monolayer-coated microbubbles.” Colloids Surf. B: Biointerfaces. 2004. 35:209–223.

21. Kreussler, S, and Bolz, D. “Experiments on solar adsorption refrigeration using zeolite and water.”

Geoengineering Reality and Debate Misconceptions

One of the most obvious realities that environmentalists continue to deny is the near inevitability that the application of at least one type of geoengineering technique will be required to mitigate the worst consequences of global warming. The rationality behind this denial appears to derive from fear that the application of geoengineering technique x will fail and increase the damage to the environment beyond what global warming will do alone. On its face this fear is understandable, but its viability demands the critical assumption that society can effectively and rapidly reduce global CO2 emissions in the very near future. With CO2 emissions increasing last year to the highest levels in human industrialized history and with almost all top tier developing economies (China, India, Brazil, Russia and Mexico) experiencing positive growth in their emissions the probability of a massive global emission reduction is extremely unlikely. Even the great global recession of 2008 to 2010 only produced a 2.6% reduction in global CO2 emissions between 2007 and 2008, but despite lingering global economic “sluggishness” global CO2 emissions have increased by approximately 10.67% from 2007 to 2011 (most reliable data) because of the above developing nations.1 The fact that in May the global concentration of CO2 exceeded 400 ppm for the first time in thousands of years should further limit optimism. The graph below demonstrate that most of the highest emitters in the developing world are going the wrong direction in absolute emissions by either increasing those emissions or not reducing them (basically remaining stable even through the recession).

Three things to note for the above graph: first, the CO2 emission data was calculated from the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) through either raw data collected from country agencies by the United Nations Statistics Division or calculated from emission per capita information and global census data. Second, CDIAC data and International Energy Agency (IEA) do have some differences due to the way the CO2 emission data is collected, thus the raw data is a little different, but both trend the same way at similar magnitudes.

Also both estimate methodologies typically only focus on emissions from fossil fuels and manufacturing processes (like cement), not from land use or forestry, etc., although this information is known to some extent. In addition recall that these values are only relevant for CO2 emissions, they are not CO2 equivalency figures, which would include other greenhouse gases like methane. Three, although the numbers for Brazil are more sporadic and lower than other countries, Brazil is still incredibly important to consider because it is the third-largest emitter of total greenhouse gases globally with a vast majority of those emissions derived from agriculture and forestry activities, most notably the destruction of rain forest to expand agricultural lands.2 Unfortunately after a brief period of reduced forest destruction the last few years have seen a significant increase in deforestation in Brazil.

Unfortunately in addition to their own personal denial, despite the above trends and data, some geoengineering opponents do not argue honestly when debating the virtues and vices of possible strategies. There are three common misconceptions that are utilized by these opponents to mar candid debate. The first misconception is when discussing solar radiation management (SRM) techniques opponents commonly use language that could insinuate that the cessation of the strategy, for whatever reason, will result in a greater than expected temperature increase versus if the technique was not used in the first place. While such a message may not be the intent of opponents the use of language requires specific word choice and with their selections opponents are either being unjustifiably lazy or are genuinely attempting to sabotage the debate.

For example common word use in describing the above problem is as followed: “if the SRM system fails then the Earth will warm even faster…” The actual meaning of this statement illustrated by the graph below; note that the actual numerical values in the graph are fictional and only the general trend in surface temperature change is important.

From the example graph for the first 10 years of the SRM deployment surface temperatures increased only 0.1 degrees whereas without SRM deployment surface temperatures increased 0.7 degrees. Once SRM deployment is stopped, for whatever reason, surface temperatures increase at a faster rate versus its rate of increase without SRM at all. However, there is no significant empirical or theoretical evidence to suggest that temperatures in the SRM scenario will increase to a higher maximum point than temperatures in the non-SRM scenario. This distinction is left somewhat ambiguous in the language used by geoengineering opponents. While the accelerated warming seen in the SRM scenario can be more detrimental to the environment than the gradual warming seen in the non-SRM scenario if the maximum temperature is inherently detrimental the rate of warming over that time period (15 years in this case) is irrelevant. Basically if plant/animal x cannot survive at the maximum temperature a non-consistent rate of increase does not matter because plant/animal x is going to die anyways. Finally this scenario of course assumes that the SRM technique fails in the first place.

The second misconception involves disparaging various geoengineering techniques because no single one solves all of the environmental problems created by global warming or human pollution in general. Therefore, because no geoengineering technique solves all of these problems no technique should be utilized at all. This foolish rationality is commonly demonstrated when opponents point out that SRM techniques will not have a direct rectification effect on ocean acidification. When there are multiple problems in a given scenario it is irrational to not administer a strategy that will potentially solve some of the problems solely because that strategy will not solve all of the problems, especially because in most situations a panacea solution does not exist. Even CO2 emission reduction may not be a panacea solution because of the rate in which reductions are required versus how fast these reductions will occur in reality in relation to positive environmental feedbacks.

The third misconception used by geoengineering opponents is that emission mitigation and geoengineering are mutually contradictory to the public in a way that pursuing one eliminates the desire or need to apply the other. In the recent past Joe Romm of the blog Climateprogress has seemed to push this mindset. Rational individuals realize that geoengineering is akin to a tourniquet; it is designed to ensure that the victim does not die from blood loss or infection due to a major wound until reaching an appropriate operating theater to properly repair the wound via surgery. The tourniquet is not designed as an alternative to surgery, thus it will not replace surgery similar to how geoengineering is not designed as a replacement for reducing CO2 emissions. However, when one receives a major wound not using a tourniquet is quite risky largely relying on dumb luck and positive circumstance to avoid heavy detrimental outcomes including death. Currently the Earth has a major wound and is bleeding profusely. Based on existing global emission rates it is difficult to envision a scenario where a “tourniquet” will not be required.

Some may argue that although China’s CO2 emissions increased between 2012 and 2013 the increase was very low (relatively speaking) and their government has acknowledged the severity of the pollution and emission situation thus reductions will occur in the near future. However, there are two problems with this attitude. First, it does not appreciate the fact that in the past China has produced questionable figures regarding their national carbon emissions undercutting certain values found in more provincial areas versus urban centers.3 This discrepancy in reporting makes it more difficult to trust figures produced by China, so even if it starts reporting carbon emission reductions will those reductions be genuine and how expansive will they actually be? Second, the above attitude does not consider that the scale difficulty in emission reduction is not linear. From arbitrary point x the first 30% is the easiest, the next 35% is rather difficult and the last 35% is incredibly hard based on existing technology and economic/resource availability; this exponential difficulty curve is even sharper for emitters as large as China and to a lesser extent the United States.

The attitude of quick emission reduction also rejects the reality that close to half (estimates vary widely) of the global population is still energy impoverished and despite the best hype (and in some cases outright lies) of its supporters, solar and wind are still more expensive energy options than natural gas and coal because necessary storage mediums and rare earth cost curves, among other things, are not included in cost evaluations; thus while global energy use has approximately doubled (largely thanks to China and India) between 2000 and 2010 (most recent figures) only 14% of that increase came from renewables and a majority of that was hydroelectric not solar or wind.4 So the amount of energy consumption that renewables have to replace has actually gotten worse since 2000 not better.

Unfortunately solar and wind supporters tend to get distracted by the high % increase values forgetting that those % increases are relative and their large values are due to low absolute energy origin points. They also confuse nameplate capacity with operational capacity where operational capacity is the actual amount of energy utilized by society and are commonly 20-30% of the nameplate capacity from wind and solar energy sources. In short those who believe that all society needs to do is rapidly deploy wind and solar infrastructure to solve global warming have not performed a complete and effective analysis of the global warming problem and are operating on flawed blind faith (such a solution could possibly work, but there is no solid theoretical evidence to suggest that it is the best solution or it would work while avoid large detrimental side outcomes).

It is interesting that geoengineering opponents have an incredible level of optimism regarding the ability of the global community to rapidly reduce CO2 emissions despite contrary evidence, yet have an incredible level of pessimism regarding the success probability of any geoengineering technique despite contrary evidence from nature itself that geoengineering can work successfully. The reality of the situation is that genuine scientifically controlled short-term geoengineering studies exploring various strategies need to be designed and applied to develop a better understanding of the potential outcomes beyond simple theory. For example the United Nations could spearhead a program to deposit a constant concentration of sulfur aerosols (typically sulfur dioxide) into the atmosphere over the period of six months and analyze atmospheric and surface changes during the experiment and for at least one year after its conclusion. Obviously due to wind currents it is irrational to hope for complete isolation, but the short time frame will limit unintended consequences from drift. Overall analyzing appropriate application methodologies for various geoengineering techniques is not defeatist, irrational, unnecessary or foolish, it is reasonable, intelligent, practical and a proper action by individuals who actually care about protecting the environment for future generations.

==
Citations –

1. Drawn from C. emissions data pursuant to those years;

2. International Energy Agency. “CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlights.” 2012.

3. Guan, D, et Al. “The gigatonne gap in China’s carbon dioxide inventories.” Nature Climate Change. 2012. 2:672-675.

4. Walsh, Bryan. “Nuclear Energy is Largely Safe. But can it be Cheap?” Time Magazine. July 8, 2013. http://science.time.com/2013/07/08/nuclear-energy-is-largely-safe-but-can-it-be-cheap/#ixzz2ZblqJrSH

3 Key Issues for the Future Global Energy Infrastructure

One of the concerns with the environmental movement is the myopic view that establishing a solar and wind energy infrastructure is the correct path without actually proving that it is the correct path. Unfortunately the lack of evidence for the viability of a solar and wind energy infrastructure should be a concern in environmental groups, but it is an issue they typically ignore. Instead most think that the chief problem facing the environment in the future is the current lack of will and sense of sacrifice in society, thus getting people to realize the severity of the situation is the only genuine issue of importance for everything else will fall in place afterwards. This post is a challenge to the environmental community to PROVE that the common strategy points they champion are the correct ones. The three key points that must be addressed by environmentalists are as followed:

1. Argue that both components of geo-engineering (solar radiation management and carbon remediation) will not be needed for decades in the future; as it stands the more vocal environmentalists claim that geo-engineering is a non-starter no matter what due to uncertainty fears with the popular opinion of planting trees and creating some small amount of bio-char being sufficient.

Note – Remember the elimination of coal as an energy source will eliminate a percentage of negative radiative forcing aerosols that are released into the atmosphere through coal combustion. So is there confidence that society can manage an addition 0.2-0.7 degrees C of warming while global emission profiles are still around 60-70% of current levels? If so, what is the origin of this confidence?

2. Argue that building a solar and wind energy infrastructure (65-80% is the range most environmentalists envision) is more economically and structurally viable than building a small modular nuclear reactor and generation III nuclear energy infrastructure.

Note – Be wary of citing anything from Mark Jacobson for this issue. Jacobson’s solar and wind analyses (along with basically everyone else) fail on three major levels:

A. They do not use detailed real numbers when calculating actual required energy and its integration into a future grid; instead he utilizes broad concepts like smart grid, widespread multi-geographical integration, demand-response management, etc. to “magically” eliminate future energy concerns or changes like network congestion and other grid-level system costs. Without using actual numbers in an in-depth analysis of costs and methodological action it is difficult to view legitimacy in his claims largely due only to scale issues let alone other problems. The few analyses that actually use numbers are plagued by optimistic assumptions addressed in the next two points.

B. They fail to address anything remotely specific about the required energy storage for a solar/wind energy infrastructure simply stating that some storage will be required (hypothesized amounts are not mentioned). Also little mention of what it will be (beyond pumped hydro which is supply short), how much it will cost, how it materializes and how its construction will affect other industries. The failure to discuss the intermittency aspect when calculating cost is especially prevalent when wind and solar supporters make claims like wind and/or solar costs in country x are now lower than coal costs. Wind/solar proponents seem not to understand that 1 GW of solar is not equivalent to 1 GW of coal when taking operational capacities into consideration over nameplate capacities (i.e. what occurs in the real world 10 –35% for solar or wind (depending on the country and time of year) of nameplate versus 75-90% for coal.)

C. They fail to address supply shortages that will be created when constructing a solar/wind infrastructure, especially for rare earths (most notably heavy REs like dysprosium), concrete, steel and aluminum. These shortages will significantly increase costs for the construction of this infrastructure largely because of the low generation per unit ratios that solar and wind installations have due to their scale capacity and intermittency limitations.

Due to these problems, only citing Jacobson demonstrates a lack of caring about these critical issues and thus place the future of the planet in the “hope and pray” column. Basically a mindset that is similar to that of a global warming denier.

3. How will the creation of a large (40%+) electrical vehicle fleet and a large (40%+) wind energy infrastructure be created at economic cost when both utilize the same rare earths (dysprosium, neodymium and praseodymium) to significantly limit costs? Basically as of now it is most probable that one will have to be sacrificed for the other, so if electrical vehicles and wind are deemed necessary for the future, how will this be achieved at feasible costs?

Answers to these questions need to be as specific as possible because simply stating broad concepts like “smart grid” or “rare earth substitutes” does little good without the specifics of how those concept would actually solve certain problems within the core issues. For those who would suggest that this blog do the work, this blog has posted a good portion of discussion about these issues coming to conclusions that oppose the common belief that pursuing a generic solar and wind energy infrastructure is viable and appropriate given the available time remaining to confront global warming. Also because these concerns embody elements critical to the viability of the common environmentalist argument for the future global energy infrastructure the burden of proof is on the environmentalists that support this infrastructure to demonstrate that it will have a significant probability of being successful. It is imperative that these issues be resolved as soon as possible with a significant probability of certainty because the time to act is now and acting with the wrong strategy is just as useless as not acting at all.

8 Simple Things that Environmentalists and the movement should be doing to improve their chances of stemming global warming damage

1. The environmental movement needs some type of uniform. Uniforms are significant elements in any real modern campaign for they are able to demonstrate strength and commitment in clear and unambiguous terms. Unfortunately the typical environmentalist is still stereotyped as unprofessional, almost “hippieish”, among numerous groups in society no matter how many suits are worn by their leaders. Adopting a uniform will instantly reduce the weight of these stereotypes. The commitment aspect of the uniform is also important for it conveys the power and significance/importance of the message. In most protests various parties are simply standing around in various outfits occasionally chanting something or waving some placard leaving observers to wonder about the involvement and dedication of those protesting. If all individuals were wearing the same shirt then there would be no doubts regarding the unity of the group.

Creating a uniform is simple in that major environmental groups can simply request designers to develop a symbolical and message appropriate t-shirt or long sleeve shirt and select the best one. 20% of profit would go to the designer and 80% of profit would go towards a travel scholarship fund, so that individuals who wanted to attend major protests, but were unable to afford it could apply via email or letter for a travel scholarship, which would provide some set amount for reimbursement. Another option would be to use the money to rent buses that could ferry individuals from nearby locations that were too far for foot or bike traffic to the site of the protest (think massive carpool).

2. Write correspondence to pro-environmental House and Senate members to attempt to initiate climate negotiations between China, India and the United States. The point of this exercise is to develop an agreement structure among the most important emitters even before Congress as a whole is ready to address official negotiations because such preemptive action will save time and resources by eliminating uncertainty, increase trust among all three parties and give each party an understanding of what the others have to do and are willing to do.

Note that these negotiations cannot be relegated to simple quid-pro-quo emission reduction arguments such as if the U.S. reduces its carbon emissions x% China has to reduce its carbon emissions x% also. There is little reason to conclude that either China or India would abide by such arguments because their governments view economic growth as a centerpiece to maintaining political power and order, which is directly tied to increasing energy consumption. At this point in time reducing carbon emissions would result in reducing short-term economic growth due to reduced consistent energy generation creating instabilities in both the economic process as well as the political process; therefore, the argument for reducing emissions must center around how either economic growth can continue in the short-term with a reduction in carbon emissions or how to uncouple political power from economic growth.

3. An environmentalist that genuinely cares about limiting the damage born by global warming needs to accept the fact that unless a miracle occurs, some form of solar radiation management will be required to create a greater time window for successful carbon mitigation (the recent 3% increase in global emissions in 2012 is further evidence that this miracle is not forthcoming). Therefore, strategies must be devised to address the potential detriments that could occur from various geo-engineering techniques instead hiding one’s head in the sand by taking the unrealistic stance that these techniques should never be applied. Overall geo-engineering is not as unknown or high risk as its opponents want to believe; to save the environment more than likely the sky will have to have additional quantities of sulfur and the Arctic will have to oscillate with bubbles for some period of time.

4. Identify every anti-environmental member of Congress then identify those who are up for reelection in 2014 and of those candidates those who only won their last election by 55% or less (i.e. those who are actually vulnerable). Select a pro-environmental candidate who can run against that individual and begin seeding a ground campaign strategy to inform all voters in the given district (House seat) or state (Senate) about how environmental changes will specifically affect the region in which these voters live. In late 2013 start executing this strategy by realistically, objectively and transparently tying together changes in the environment to lifestyle changes to demonstrate the need to vote for the pro-environmental candidate. Basically demonstrate how changes will occur and that mitigation strategies are far superior to adaptive changes.

5. Petition the government to create a federal water management strategy to reduce water waste. The federal water management strategy must entail the conversion of all flood or spray irrigation systems to drip irrigation (small farmers will receive government help, corporate farms have to switch on their own dime) as well as the installation of drip irrigation systems for farms that previously were only rain-fed. Also there must be strict management of nitrates and other fertilizer byproduct runoff to significantly reduce the probability of additional water contamination. Furthermore there must be consolidation between various federal operations concerning water quality to ensure interdepartmental communication reducing waste and improving response time to violations and questions.

Granted these are just a few of the ‘musts’ a federal water management strategy must have. Issues like gray water, desalinization and rainwater collection must also be addressed. Also water boarder conflicts would be ended with finalized terms produced from this federal strategy. The federal strategy would be applicable to all states. If a state fails to abide by the strategy that state would lose all federal funding. If a private citizen or company fails to abide by the strategy there will be a huge fine with repeat offenses leading to serious jail time. Finally this strategy must include the reality of global warming and how precipitation and temperature patterns would change accordingly.

6. Petition the various environmental groups which have a significant presence in the United States: Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, 350.org, Environmental Defense Fund, National Resource Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund for Nature, etc. to organize cooperative lobbying and protest activities. Each organization should create a liaison position to coordinate efforts with other organizations. Basically suppose eight organizations want to get serious about addressing global warming then each organization would establish at least four to seven new liaison positions to coordinate with the other organizations. Contact information for these positions would also be made public so members can give ideas and ask questions concerning coordinated efforts and activities.

7. Create and maintain a user-friendly database website that houses information for individual consumer information pertaining to energy efficiency. For example if a home owner wanted to receive information on how to update the quality of his windows he could go to this website enter his city and state of residence and receive information on all companies in the local area that would install energy efficient windows, the cost of those windows, any government rebates, energy savings versus commonly installed windows and how those windows would function. Also there needs to be coordination with the National Realtors Association so that homeowners are aware of this information when they purchase a new home. Clearly updating federal and state building codes to include these types of improvements before construction would be ideal, but focusing lobbying efforts on such a strategy would be difficult due to its ‘non-sexy’ nature.

8. Similar to number four environmentalists need to begin having a greater presence at a local level. For example two or three times at least 50 major cities should see environmentalists set up information booths to spread the word to the local community about important environmental events and significant environmental news and how these events and news affects individuals in that local community. Basically these campaigns need to make individuals consider the importance of the environment more when voting in local and national elections. A group like 350.org should be useful for this type of strategy, but they appear to absorbed in a “one or two specific super gatherings a year” strategy that has yet to bear any significant fruit.

Overall there are too many environmentalists that seem to want somebody else to fight for the environment and are too passive when it comes to actually getting out in their local neighborhoods and trying to engage other individuals face-to-face. This attitude will have to change if humans are going to move beyond some random chance probability with regards to saving the environment for future generations for too many individuals are too ignorant or intractable to realize the importance of global warming when left to their own devices. Clearly the suggestions above are only a select number of strategies that environments could engage in to promote their agenda, but environmentalists need to start doing more than just making meaningless comments on online message boards.

Fixing the Carbon Tax

This blog has previously questioned the foresight of those who support a carbon tax regarding its regressive nature. The regressive nature of a carbon tax is defined in that it creates a greater burden on the poor. Some have argued against this characterization claiming that there is an association between income and carbon emissions thus the wealthier the individual the greater amount of money he/she will have to pay in taxes. While this assertion is correct it only focuses on the absolute nature of the tax, not the relative nature of the tax. The regressive issue correlates to the percentage of income that poor individuals spend on energy and fuel related activities. The addition of the tax increases this burden further complicating the decision making process between food, energy and medical supplies. The percentage of expenditure is what matters in this situation not the total amount spent because the rich have a higher probability of affording the increase versus the poor because the rich have more disposable income. It does not matter that one has to spend $1,000 more if one has $30,000+ more to spend.

Proponents believe this regressive characteristic of a carbon tax can be countered by establishing a dividend system making the carbon tax revenue neutral for the government. Basically all of the money collected from a carbon tax will be offset to the public in some way. Some plans propose relief of payroll or sales taxes, but neither one of these options would be effective. Payroll tax relief is not appropriate because it does not account for individuals without jobs and it could also negatively influence Social Security funding. Sales tax relief is not appropriate because the chief goal of the carbon tax is to eliminate carbon emissions and one side element to reducing emissions is not just to convert to trace emission sources, but to also create more efficiency and less consumption. The provision of sales tax relief could create a psychological conflict similar to Jevon’s Paradox regarding consumption and carbon emissions if a person attempts to ‘maximize’ their tax relief.

Others want to distribute an annual dividend similar to those issued by certain companies and the State of Alaska equally divided among all adult citizens with half shares (typically) going to children. For example the Carbon Tax Center (CTC) provides an example of such a system focusing only on gasoline. In the example a $10 per ton of CO2 tax raises an estimated $55 billion dollars of revenue annually and then is divided evenly among 300 million U.S. citizens for an annual rebate of $183. Ignore the fact that in this example both adults and children receive the same amount of money, which is probably not suitable. The CTC then calculates that the average lowest quintile income individual will spend an extra $80 annually on gas due to the carbon tax, thus these individuals will net $103 per year from the carbon tax. Despite the limited nature of the example the CTC and other carbon tax proponents use this mindset as a means to counteract the regressive nature of a carbon tax.

Unfortunately those who hold the belief that monetary dividends will effectively mitigate the regressive nature of the tax are not accounting for the changes in behavior that the tax is supposed to motivate. First, note that analysis like the CTC example above is somewhat complicated because the assumptions are rarely listed in an organized and clear manner. For example the CTC expects a carbon tax to focus on applying the tax as far upstream as possible most likely at source points. Basically the tax should apply when a producer (coal mine, natural gas wellhead, port facility, importer, etc.) transfers ownership of a given quantity of the material to another party (energy utility, oil refiner, owner of a gas pipeline, etc.).

This strategy is appropriate and should be effective for eliminating waste, maximizing efficiency and reducing costs. However, when analyzing how the tax affects individuals it must be stated how the companies who are absorbing the tax pass that burden off to these individuals. For most analysis it appears that authors are assuming that an equal burden is passed on to consumers. This assumption may not be accurate for it stands to reason that an equal burden is the minimum that a company would try to recoup from the tax. Therefore, costs for downstream consumers may increase more than for upstream providers where the tax is actually applied. Some may celebrate this change because higher costs could eliminate carbon emissions even faster, but this change would also make a carbon tax more regressive.

The second important element that most, if not all, carbon tax proponents are forgetting is how the nature of the tax changes with time. The carbon tax will increase over time, which will create a dual expansion of the regressive characterization of the carbon tax. First, a higher tax will lead upstream providers to increase their prices for downstream consumers placing a greater burden on all consumers, but more so on those that have less overall money to spend (the poor). Second, a higher tax will further motivate those who have the capacity and funds to reduce their consumption of carbon emitting elements, thus reducing the total amount of transferred tax they have to absorb and the total number of carbon products taxed leading to a reduction in the size of the dividend check received from the government. It stands to reason that rich individuals will be in better position to reduce their carbon emissions versus the poor through the purchase of high capital cost trace emission products like solar panels and electrical/hybrid vehicles.

A side note to this second point is that it is more likely that rich people have more control over their living arrangements (houses and condos versus apartments) as well. This control affords them a better opportunity to install things like solar panels or solar water heaters versus apartment landlords that do not have to pay utilities and could balk at the costs ($250,000+ per complex) of installing these high capital cost trace carbon emission items for their tenets. Therefore, individuals living in apartment or low-income housing may have no ability to significantly change their carbon consumption habits as time passes. With this handicap poor individuals will struggle even further under the increasing burden of the carbon tax as time passes and the tax increases.

Clearly because numerous carbon tax proponents do not acknowledge this reality as a problem they have not produced a solution. At this moment there appears to be two possible solutions. First, the dividend derived from the tax can be progressive versus matching. Basically poorer individuals will be given a larger percentage of the total dividend and richer individuals will be given a smaller percentage. While this system would give poorer individuals more money and thus greater opportunity to invest in trace emission energy and transportation sources, numerous individuals would view such a system as unfair. Interestingly the fairness of such a system is much more complicated than most would care to consider.

Second, because the goal of the carbon tax is to reduce emissions and the conversion from heavy emitting sources and strategies to lower emitting sources and strategies is basically one-directional a clause in the carbon tax could lower the tax rate when certain emission reduction targets are reached. This method is possible because of the one-directionality of conversion in that once someone starts powering their business through say geothermal energy over coal they almost never switch back to coal largely because of all of the financial investment required for the initial switch. Therefore, lowering the tax rate on carbon after certain emission reduction targets are obtained is acceptable and will help those individuals who did not have the resources and/or capacity to move away from heavier carbon emissions.

Such a carbon tax could operate in the following manner:

- The carbon tax would increase with the passage of time until reaching a particular ceiling [for example the tax would be $15 per ton of CO2 in the first year increasing $5 per ton for the first 10 years then increasing $15 per ton for the next 10 years with no increases afterwards (a final tax value from a time perspective of $215 per ton of CO2 20 years after the institution of the tax)].

- The reason for the small increase transitioning to the large increase is to provide a form of grace period to allow individuals and business to adjust to the tax in a controlled and efficient manner and then balloon the tax to ‘punish’ those who have yet to move from high carbon emission sources to low carbon emission sources.

- However, because not all parties have emission decisions under their control, especially the poor, there must be a means to offset the cost of the time-maximized tax. The goal of the carbon tax is to reduce carbon emissions, thus reducing the carbon tax with respect to emissions can offer this offset. To ensure the validity of the carbon tax no emission related reductions would take place until after the first 10-year period. After 10 years, a 50% emission reduction based on 2005 emission levels will reduce the tax rate by 20%. Afterwards each 12.5% emission reduction would correspond to a 10% tax rate reduction resulting in a total tax reduction of 60%. Note that these tax reductions correspond to emission reduction ranges not direct values.

- If the carbon tax succeeds then under the above system the slope of the tax relative to time will not progressively increase like the currently championed system, but will instead increase until reaching a maximum and then decrease at a lesser magnitude to the increasing slope relative to the emission decrease. Note the graph below.



- As stated above this system works because once individuals and business switch to trace emission materials and systems these groups will not switch back when the carbon tax drops for it will simply cost more money to switch again and if emissions go back up then the tax will increase because the emission goal will no long be achieved.

- One concern some might raise is that a decreasing tax relative to decreasing carbon emissions may create an artificial emission reduction floor before zero emissions. This position would argue that certain individuals/groups would not give up high carbon emissions because the tax could decrease (versus a conventional system where the tax continues to increase), thus total emission reduction would not reach 100%, but instead 80-90ish%. However, for this to occur these carbon consuming groups need to absorb the burden of the tax throughout its lifecycle including the maximum. This strategy makes little sense for paying the tax will almost definitely result in higher costs versus switching to a trace generator (of course assuming that these individuals have the capacity and funds to make the switch)].

Finally states need to create organizations that will manage how prices change from principle suppliers to secondary suppliers to consumers to ensure that principle or secondary suppliers are not price gouging their respective consumers and scapegoating that gouging on the tax. The low competitive nature of larger source carbon emitters could even suggest that state governments create a price ceiling relative to the tax to eliminate the possibility of price gouging in the first place. Also government may need to intervene if apartment landlords refuse to properly adjust to the carbon tax instead of forcing their tenets to absorb it due to low economic mobility.

Overall it is important to establish a form of carbon emission limitation either directly (cap and trade) or indirectly (carbon tax) to motivate a reduction in carbon emissions. There have been numerous debates on whether a cap and trade or a carbon tax system would be superior at reducing emissions with a carbon tax having pulled ahead recently because of its transparency and simplicity. However, carbon tax proponents are behaving a lot like solar/wind proponents in that they are only studying how their solution affects the present, not the future. A critical element to creating an appropriate solution is to not only address the chief problem, but also understand any potential problems that will arise from the original solution. Carbon tax proponents must address how poor individuals will be negatively affected by the carbon tax not only in the present, but also in the future. The emission reduction adjustment discussed above is only one means of addressing this future problem.

The Last Resort for the Future?

Not surprisingly based on its description, global warming is a global problem where decisions made in a given region or even in a single country over the long-term can have profound negative consequence to others. Unfortunately while the major players recognize that global warming is a problem there appears to be little diplomatic urgency to create a globally recognized system to address the mitigation of CO2 as well as any future CO2 remediation or adaptation strategies to diminish the detrimental outcomes that are already occurring. This lack of progress creates a unique, but onerous decision-making environment for parties who have behaved or are now behaving responsibly with regards to CO2 emissions.

Consider the following example: in a neighborhood lives family A, family B and family C. All three families share the same water supply. Family A does not produce a lot of waste and/or acts appropriately when disposing of the waste they create during the course of their day. Family B does well enough with disposal, but still has moments where waste disposal is improperly performed. Family C does not properly dispose of their waste and is slowly contaminating the water supply. Family A has asked family C numerous times to either properly dispose of their waste or to create less waste citing the moral obligations of all three families to maintain the purity of their communal water supply. Despite this reasonable and appropriate prodding family C has refused to change their waste management behavior.

Unfortunately for family A they cannot contact the police because while family C is engaging in reckless behavior practically and morally their behavior is not recognized as illegal. In addition family A is unable to move to a different location due to a lack of available funds. Based on this scenario family A appears to have two responses: do nothing and eventually wait to die from a water-borne disease/dehydration or forcefully prevent family C from continuing to contaminate the communal water supply.

The above analogy describes the global community as it stands with regards to CO2 emissions. Family A represents groups like the European Union, Maldives, New Zealand, etc. Family B represents groups like Brazil, Australia, Canada, etc. Family C represents groups like the China, United States, India, Japan and Russia. With the aforementioned failure of international treaties and a disregard for morality both of others and the future, can it be morally justified for a group of significant military might like the European Union to declare war against a nation like China on the pretense that their actions will definitively result in the eventual destruction of the European Union?

Some would argue that the European Union declaring war on a nation like China would be counter-productive for both sides due to the monetary investments in the war, which could be better applied to carbon mitigation and the additional carbon emissions that would be released by the machines of war and the destruction they would cause. This reservation is understandable, but is flawed. While the money could be utilized for carbon mitigation the motivating factor for declaring and executing the war in the first place is that the money is not being used for carbon mitigation fast enough. The carbon emissions arising from the aggressive action can be thought of as a preventative action reducing the total amount of carbon by ‘motivating’ these family C entities to hasten their emission reduction even if it costs percentage points in their GDP.

While some individuals like to portray nations like China ‘green’ because of their investment in solar and wind energy, these investments are not replacing fossil fuel energy sources, but are augmenting them. Even conservative estimates have China emissions peaking at 2025 and most of this increase will be driven by further investment in a fossil fuel energy infrastructure.1 This investment will result in a slow decrease from that peak further increasing probability for climate reaction detriment. Other nations, like the United States, are reducing emissions due to slower growth in cooperation with small improvements in efficiency and non-fossil fuel energy generation, but are increasing coal exports to other nations. Also they are increasing natural gas production, which when including fracking elements shows only a slight emission profile improvement over coal in the safety quality scenarios and worse emission profiles in scenarios lacking safety diligence, which are much more common.2

It is important to note that the execution of the war would not be of the ‘total war’ variety, but would be surgical strikes against large carbon emitting structures like coal and natural gas power plants, cement factories, aluminum and other metal factories, etc. However, it stands to reason that there will be collateral damage from both the strikes themselves (due to shift workers at the facilities and flying debris nearby areas) and loss of services provided by the destroyed facilities.

It is reasonable to assume that the populous of the attacked country will not understand the reasoning behind the attack and will demand their country strike back in a fit of enhanced nationalistic fervor. The biggest question in this reaction is the type of attack strategy utilized in the counter-attack. Would the counter-attack involve a reciprocation of targets (large carbon emitting structures and/or power generating facilities) or would it have no focus and regress to total war? Due to the nature of modern warfare the only effective means to counter-attack for most of the ‘family C’ nations would involve an aerial assault.

A counter-attack utilizing direct payload transport could be defended against rather routinely with proper preparation. Therefore, a manned flight or drone-based counter-attack should not be a concern. The chief counter-attack concern should be ballistic missile either nuclear or non-nuclear. Despite an expected bout of nationalism from the population, leaders of the attacked country would be hard-pressed to justify a nuclear derived assault to other bystander nations. The simple fact is that mutual assured destruction (MAD) has always been in effect and will always be in effect, thus a nuclear assault is almost impossible to consider. Even without MAD a nuclear assault falls under the same purview as CO2 emissions in that the nuclear material will not remain localized and only affect local regions. No organized nation would risk the blowback from using nuclear weapons on either a diplomatic or environmental level, thus the only reasonable counter-attack to fear is a non-nuclear ballistic missile.

Another strategy could be declaring war against a ‘family B’ who is aiding the waste created by family C. For example in the real world the European Union could declare war on Australia who exports large amounts of coal to China, Japan and India. This strategy may evade the potential problematic nationalistic elements that would aggravate the war strategy with counter-attacks. Also most of the supplier countries have less developed militaries than the heavier emitters making them, for lack of a better term, easier targets with less collateral damage potential while still producing significant emission reduction results.

It is understandable that some would believe a declaration of war strategy to be too aggressive and would instead support international sanctions against these suppliers. Certainty coal export sanctions against a country like Australia would be a smoother strategy for reducing exports to China and India versus conducting military action. While theoretically correct it would take significant international cooperation to make such sanctions work, cooperation similar to that required for a carbon mitigation climate treaty, cooperation that does not appear to be forthcoming.

For example consider that lack of cooperation regarding sanctions of Iran. Russia and Iran have a trade relationship worth 3.7 billion dollars3 and China and Iran have a trade relationship worth almost 50 billion dollars, which prevents either from getting behind economic sanctions.4 Australia exports 40 - 70 billion dollars of coal (obviously the price fluctuates) annually with about 23.5 – 41.1 billion going to China, India and Japan.5 Think China, India or Japan is getting on board with economic sanctions of Australia? It stands to reason that they could significantly dent any economic sanctions by absorbing most, if not all, of the export losses Australia would incur to participating sanctioning nations while maintaining coal purchases.

Another important aspect to consider is the element of global economic disruption. Forcefully reducing carbon emissions will result in a disrupted supply chain from the affected country. This disruption will lead to price increases for those countries that receive exports. However, such a strategy can also produce opportunities for new businesses within those export affected regions. Proper preparations must be made to directly address these potential disruptions. To this point it must be asked what is more important: an individual allowing his/her grandchild the opportunity to live long enough to have his/her own children or the ability to purchase the next model of the iPhone at a 100 dollar discount or some other material object at a small discount?

Overall the idea discussed above is one of last resort, but disturbingly enough is becoming more and more relevant with each passing year of limited action on reducing carbon emissions. Climate negotiations have failed numerous times to produce any global emission reduction strategy that is not entirely voluntary. Superficial goals like reducing carbon intensity will not stop the threat to the global environment. Time is of the essence as the global environment is responding more negatively and more quickly than previously thought to the increased carbon emissions in the atmosphere and oceans. Can rational people allow the desires of a small group of individuals to not only endanger their own future, but the future of everyone else living on the planet even if the only response left is violence?

--
Citations –

1. Zhou, N, et Al. “China’s Energy and Carbon Emissions Outlook to 2050.” China Energy Group Energy Analysis Department Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2011.

2. Howarth, R, Santoro, R, and Ingraffea, A. “Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations.” Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5.

3. http://tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=213679

4. Payvand Iran News, http://www.payvand.com/news/12/apr/1001.html

5. http://www.australiancoal.com