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.

Why is Society Ignoring the Easiest Path to a Low Carbon Energy Infrastructure by Rejecting Nuclear Power

For decades certain parties have dreamed of the reality of “renewable” energy generation with the sun and/or wind providing the lion’s share, if not all, of the energy for a given society. Unfortunately decades removed from those initial dreams, society is little closer to that reality. Solar and wind proponents would argue that such a statement is foolhardy for the total percentage of energy generation from these sources rises ever higher year after year. However, these same proponents fail to acknowledge, or even realize, that neither solar or wind have had to face any real test supporting their viability as the chief energy generator. Can one say that an individual is really closer to passing a test when his percent correct has increased from 1% to 6%?

The lack of sufficient penetration has tabled effective identification of what type of integration methodologies will be required to evade consistent brown outs due to the intermittency of these technologies. However, it is known that battery technology for storage is still in its infancy, especially on a mass scale, and little discussion is given towards the significant shortfall in numerous rare earths to ensure solar and wind economic viability relative to the scale demanded; for solar economic viability is questionable even with these rare earths. Also there is a lack of general understanding regarding the required levels of redundancy to create the storage reserve. Despite these real unanswered questions where theory is stacked against solar and wind supporters, groups like ARPA-E continue to search for the “next energy breakthrough” commonly to support the expansion of wind and solar while seemingly ignoring the fastest and most stable route to a no/low carbon emission energy future… nuclear power.

No one can dispute the stability, low to no carbon emission and base-load power generation ability of nuclear power. The failures associated with the widespread adoption of fission based nuclear technologies, including the development of breeder reactors, have not be the result of technical flaws, roadblocks produced by the laws of physics, safety profiles or even overall capital and operational costs, but instead has been the result of a direct campaign against nuclear power based only upon paranoia, overreaction, fear and opposing economic interests.

Some may argue against nuclear power by citing certain projects that experienced large delays in construction and cost overruns. This criticism has valid and invalid points. The problem with simply citing a construction delay or cost overrun is that almost no construction project in the history of humanity be it a complex structure like a nuclear power plant or wind farm or a more simplistic structure like a corner grocery store have come in on-time and on-budget. The entire predictive process for the construction is consistently fraught with optimistic estimations and assumptions in effort to win the “bid” for the project either through associated agencies like subcontractors or to win approval for the project as a whole. Therefore, time and cost overruns should be treated as the norm, not the exception for any construction project.

However, optimistic estimations cannot explain all of the cost overruns. Another reason nuclear power appears more expensive than it actually should be is the lack of uniformity/standardization in design. For example when considering breeder reactors several different reactor prototypes have been proposed and even had initial construction periods. Anyone with any design experience knows that the most expensive type of product is the first working prototype (i.e. version 1.0). Due to the lack of coordination and cooperation between nations, instead of six or seven countries working together on one universal reactor design, economic competition has created an environment with numerous high level generation II to generation III breeder reactor version 1.0s, which has further increased costs.

Another rationality for cost increases with regards to nuclear power, especially breeder reactors, is simple short-sighted analysis regarding long-term cost benefit analysis. Basically breeder reactors remain more expensive (i.e. not directly cost-competitive) with more standard thermal reactors because research and development into breeders was quasi-sabotaged for decades by cheap uranium prices and corresponding economic incentives. So instead of acknowledging a time in the future when uranium may not be cheap due to potential shortages or more expensive extraction methods or simply understanding that nuclear power needed to evolve to be more effective in general and preparing for this reality with proper planning, both private corporations and government elected to take advantage of short-term gains that have now created long-term losses.

Basically capital costs associated with breeder reactors have been heavily influenced by the lack of standardization and the lack of a devotion to the continuous evolution of their design and construction. Any economist will sing the praises of assembly line and scale economics at dramatically reducing costs. Nuclear, especially breeders, has not been able to engage in these types of processes because of this “start-stop” mentality due to uranium prices, lack of long-term thinking, which is still plaguing the energy environment with so much short-term focus on solar and wind, and lack of cooperation among companies and governments.

Another issue that has been blown out of proportion is the danger of reprocessed material being siphoned off and/or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons. One of the original reprocessing methodologies, PUREX, certainly warranted concern because it is able to produce concentrations of pure plutonium after completion; however, PUREX is certainly not the only reprocessing method. There are a number of other methods most of which make plutonium isolation and extraction nearly impossible, thus making weaponizing the reprocessed material nearly impossible. Also appropriate safety measures can easily be applied to eliminate the potential seizure of any “weaponized” material. If terrorists acquire nuclear weapons it would be from some secret lab in Iran or from North Korea over a modern nuclear breeder reactor.

The final issue is the most depressing one when it comes to nuclear opposition, the overreaction to a meltdown. Overall there have only been two legitimate meltdowns in history, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. The events on Three Mile Island actually demonstrated what is supposed to happen when safety procedures are properly applied. The “demonization” of nuclear power at the hands of Chernobyl is especially ridiculous when considering both the technology at the time and the circumstances of the meltdown. If similar consideration was given to the airline industry then modern aviation would shutdown because a Wright Brothers’ era plane happened to crash. Of course that would never happen, which demonstrates the serious bias towards nuclear power possessed by certain entities.

Concerning Fukushima Daiichi, a power plant from the 50s built in one of the worst regions of the county it could have been relative to safety, it still required a once in a 1000-year natural disaster event to produce any negative outcome, which was in large part thanks to a lack of basic contingency safety protocols; yet these failures were heavily unjustifiably propagandized as inherent to nuclear technology instead of what they actually were: simple economic laziness/greed.

If nuclear power is the answer to addressing global warming what does that make of the other contenders? Clearly anything that produces significant quantities of CO2 or other greenhouse gases is out due to global warming issues, thus coal, oil and natural gas are non-starters. The idea of natural gas as a “bridge” from coal to a low-CO2 emission source may have been an option two or three decades ago, but is certainly not a cost-effective transition option now, despite the money the U.S. is wasting, relying on natural gas is a fool’s errand.

Geothermal is an option that would have been interesting to study regarding the enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) methodology as a realistic competitor to nuclear, but with the pertinent issue involving the potential progression of tectonic activity (periodic 2-3 Richter scale earthquakes under initial EGS tests, with time would this magnitude increases?) there does not appear to be adequate time to return to the start so to speak if earthquake magnitude progression was indeed a feature of EGS. Pipe dreams like tidal power and microwave/satellite solar are either boondoggles or do not have nearly enough momentum and potential to even be considered viable responses. Fusion, either of the hot or cold variety, seems no significantly closer now than two/three decades ago. Thus, the only valid competitors for nuclear appear to be terrestrial solar and wind power.

The biggest problem with both wind and solar is the intermittency associated with their energy generation. Try as they might to mitigate its importance, wind and solar proponents cannot in good conscious ignore the additional costs, maintenance, storage and redundancies required to compensate for this deficiency, which raise the costs associated with both solar and wind to levels that far exceed nuclear power. Without the need for storage and redundancy capacity to fill that storage then solar and wind are cheaper, which is the story solar and wind proponents sell the public; however, without storage and fill redundancy, it is logical to suggest that solar and wind will do nothing but produce rolling brownouts to blackouts as the principal energy provider. Unfortunately the current penetration structure of wind and solar does not provide any test cases to demonstrate these realities.

Another problem associated with wind and solar is that measuring their production via nameplate capacity commonly results in optimistic to unrealistic analysis. For example a wind farm reporting a nameplate capacity at 200 MW means that it produces 200 MW when functioning at optimal capacity. Unfortunately to actually achieve this maximum generation result, the wind needs to be blowing within the optimum speed range over the entire farm simultaneously, which is a meaningful statistical achievement; can it happen… yes; does it happen frequently, not even close. Furthermore the statistical probability of this occurring over multiple wind farms is even more unlikely. Basically the greater nameplate capacity built into this type of system, either within a single farm or throughout multiple farms, will result in an overall reduction in the expected maximum capacity that can be feasibly attained relative to the actual nameplate capacity.

In short it is unrealistic for a large wind producer to ever reach 100% nameplate at any given time and the more capacity that exists the lower percentage of the maximum that can actually be reached. For example (note these numbers are for explanation purposes not empirically derived, but accurately demonstrate the trend) a wind system with 3000 MW of nameplate will be able to achieve an average maximum generation of 2500 MW (83%) whereas a wind system with 4000 MW of nameplate will be able to achieve an average maximum generation of 3100 MW (77.5%). Of course these are only maximum values that are attained for a few seconds to minutes at a time; actual average wind capacity values for days to months range from 25-35% and have remained within this range for decades and show little sign of changing, despite certain levels of hype, hence the need for storage and redundancy to fill that shortage.

Another concern with both wind and solar generation is that their production potential changes significantly during winter months. The loss of solar during the winter is of no surprise to anyone that actually pays attention to general climate patterns; however, wind is trickier because while the overall average “amount” of wind does not seem to have any significant level of variance between seasons, its daily levels typically vary more during the winter than other months. Basically during winter months there is a higher probability that wind values depart from the mean both in magnitude and direction (i.e. positively or negatively). These larger departures place greater pressure on plant operators to smooth power curves and properly incorporate the energy produced from wind into the mix with other energy mediums. Remove those other more stable energy mediums and integration becomes even more difficult.

A number of solar and wind proponents have put forth the idea that smart grids will act as a panacea of sorts for the issues associated with integration addressing load balancing, peak curtailment and demand response among other potential problems. However, the scale of application associated with smart grids has been much lower than expected over the last decade despite attempts to invest billions of dollars in the process. Part of this significant delay is that some communities are rebelling against the installation of smart meters, central elements to the smart grid, even when costs of maintenance and installation are deferred to the utility company. While most of the reasons for the rejection of smart meters are thought to be questionable, it does not appear that smart meter detractors will be easily convinced off of their current position.

For example a portion of this resistance is the concern about the safety of potential electromagnetic and/or radiation that could emanate from the smart meter. Unfortunately smart meters may have entered that cell phone zone when it comes to radiation in that even if they are safe it may be impossible to convince some people of that fact and you can easily have an environment of “dueling” experts. Also unlike cell phones, smart meters do not have that “necessary for existence in society” reputation that cell phones seem to have.

Another problem for smart meters is a resistance by utility companies themselves to install them unless someone else is paying the bill due to a lack of standards through how the devices are connected to grid and communicate with each other. Basically no utility company wants to commit to a given format/design because that format may not be the one that “wins”, thus that preemptive commitment will result in significant financial losses. The situation is similar to the problem with the expansion of electric cars. Currently the existing infrastructure to support electric cars is basically non-existent outside of certain areas in California because those responsible for building it are waiting for electric car sales to increase to the point that justify building it, but without an infrastructure few individuals have interest in buying an electric car in part due to the worry that the infrastructure will never be built to support the purchase. One side has to take the leap, but neither side is willing to do so.

Even if smart meter installation was as widespread as hoped, smart grid proponents have acknowledged the problems associated with securing the flow of information and energy within the system. Currently there are valid concerns regarding how prone the system is to being hacked, which raises questions regarding the long-term security and safety of a smart grid. This is not to say that smart meters, and in large part a smart grid, do not have a role to play or cannot be safe, but the issues associated with their adoption and safety place a burden on their speedy application and mass testing that significantly damages the viability of a dominant wind and solar energy infrastructure.

Another issue with wind power that is not commonly considered is whether or not the general price of wind power is close to its minimum in that with a vast majority of the high-value wind collection land masses already being utilized, newer wind turbines will have less naturally efficient areas to generate power. Realistically this issue should not produce an environment were traditional wind power will significantly start increasing in price, but instead it would counteract any cost savings from any further technological advancement in wind turbines. The real question regarding future costs associated with wind power is storage level and medium.

Further problems for solar/wind supporters is even some of the “champion countries” of renewables are not seeing the carbon emission reduction numbers theory and general behavior would suggest. While in isolation Denmark’s wind generation numbers look impressive, they are not consistent, to the point where Denmark relies heavily on energy transfers to and from neighboring countries. Basically if these transfers did not exist Denmark would be in a state of constant brownout due to wind intermittency.

Currently this transfer process is stable because of the more consistent generation mediums possessed by other European countries, most notably natural gas and Swedish and Norwegian hydropower. At the current time and in the foreseeable future the ease of transfer to reduce volatility in Denmark’s energy markets would become incredibly difficult, if not impossible, if Europe adopted similar wind percentage generation profiles. Basically while wind proponents like to cite Denmark as the poster child for “what wind can do for you” its close proximity to Swedish and Norwegian hydropower provides a very unique environment that is not technically or economic replicable for other countries.

Also despite investing heavily in wind and solar power over the last decade Germany has not meaningfully reduced the level of coal and natural gas derived energy production. In fact for Germany CO2 emissions in the energy sector, the most critically relevant area for judging the impact of renewables, have increased relative to the past year (2012 vs. 2011, etc.) in 3 (2012, 2013 and 2015) of the last 4 years for when information is available. The reduction of CO2 emissions in 2014 relative to 2013 is also somewhat marred for it is highly probable that these reductions occurred because of lower energy consumption during the winter due to much warmer than average temperatures over that winter. So while the share of renewable sources of energy in Germany continue to expand, the CO2 emissions from its represented sector are not dropping, which speaks poorly towards the ability of renewables like solar and wind to quickly drop energy derived CO2 emissions, which is exactly what needs to occur to combat global warming.

Note that the issue concerning winter temperatures is also a big deal in Germany because of the lack of available renewables during that time period; solar is almost non-existent in Germany during the winter netting a typical average capacity of 10-11% and wind generation is rather erratic.

Some could argue that this result has been heavily influenced by the decision to suspend operation of the German nuclear power plant fleet with the intent of its future decommission. While this decision certainly has resulted in greater coal and natural gas use, the problem is that there was little reduction of energy derived carbon emissions even before the decision to suspend nuclear power use in Germany instead most of the overall reduction stemmed from the measurement point being 1990 right after the integration of heavily industrialized East Germany into West Germany producing an artificially high point of reference.

Finally one of the troubling aspects of the solar and wind proponent argument is a questionable interpretation of time. They properly acknowledge that ceasing carbon emissions must occur quickly, yet do not acknowledge that creating the type of solar/wind energy infrastructure to actually accomplish this reality will take a long time. Part of this apparent contradiction is that supporters are emboldened by the solar and especially wind percentage growth rates over the last decade as justification for the superiority of wind and solar despite these growth rates not representing meaningful penetrations into global energy markets. Basically wind and solar are still at best small supplemental energy producing elements.

Furthermore another problem, as mentioned before, is a number of proponents believe that once society “actually” commits to a solar/wind energy infrastructure future, the problems and issues associated with this system will magically disappear with Master Plan #1 succeeding without qualm or fail. It is akin to attempting to build a railroad track ahead of a speeding train… everything must go perfectly for it to work and anyone who thinks that any of the current infrastructure plans pushed by solar and wind proponents is anywhere remotely viable is, quite frankly, a fool.

At the present time the best idea to combat global warming is for the entire global community to agree on a single design for a nuclear fission breeder reactor and then allocate resources to begin the specialization required for manufacturing the required components and training the necessary construction and operational personnel. The simple fact is that too many questions and inefficiencies exist in any feasible plan to defeat global warming via the utilization of mass solar and wind energy generation; so much so that foregoing nuclear in favor of solar and wind is a recipe for disaster. Overall global cooperation through the initiation of a real and new nuclear renaissance is the most effective, economical and direct way to combat global warming while maintaining a consistent and reliable energy infrastructure in the developed world as well as allowing energy impoverished nations the ability to advance their energy consumption profiles without endangering the environment.

Augmenting rainfall probability to ward off long-term drought?

Despite the ridiculous pseudo controversy surrounding global warming in the public discourse, the reality is that global warming is real and has already significantly started influencing the global climate. One of the most important factors in judging the range and impact of global warming as well as how society should respond is also one of the more perplexing, cloud formation. Not only do clouds influence the cycle of heat escape and retention, but they also drive precipitation probability. Precipitation plays an important role in maintaining effective hydrological cycles as well as heat budgets and will experience significant changes in reaction to future warming largely producing more extreme outcomes with some areas receiving significant increases that will produce flash flooding whereas other areas will be deprived of rainfall producing longer-term droughts similar to those now seen in California.

At its core precipitation is influenced by numerous factors like solar heating and terrestrial radiation.1,2 Of these factors various aerosol particles are thought to hold an important influence. Both organic and inorganic aerosols are plentiful in the atmosphere helping to cool the surface of Earth by sunlight scattering or serving as nuclei support for the formation of water droplets and ice crystals.3 Not surprisingly information regarding the means in which the properties of these aerosols influence cloud formation and precipitation is still limited, which creates significant uncertainties in climate modeling and planning. Therefore, increasing knowledge of how aerosols influence precipitation will provide valuable information for managing the various changes that will occur and even possibly mitigating those changes.

The formation of precipitation within clouds is heavily influenced by ice nucleation. Ice nucleation involves the induction of crystallization in supercooled water (supercooled = a meta-stable state where water is in liquid form at below typical freezing temperatures). The process of ice nucleation typically occurs through one of two pathways: homogenous or heterogeneous. Homogeneous nucleation entails spontaneous nucleation within a properly cooled solution (usually a supersaturated solution of relative humidity of 150-180% with a temperature of around –38 degrees C) requiring only liquid water or aqueous solution droplets.4-6 Due to its relative simplicity homogeneous nucleation is better understood than heterogeneous nucleation. However, because of the temperature requirements homogeneous nucleation typically only takes place in the upper troposphere and with a warming atmosphere it should be expected that its probability of occurrence would reduce.

Heterogeneous nucleation is more complicated because of the multiple pathways that can be taken, i.e. depositional freezing, condensation, contact, and immersion freezing.7,8 Typically these different pathways allow for more flexibility in nucleation with generic initiation conditions beginning at just south of 0 degrees C and a relative humidity of 100%. This higher temperature fails to prevent nucleation because of the presence of a catalyst, a non-water based substance that is commonly referred to as an ice-forming nuclei (IN). Also heterogeneous nucleation can involve diffusive growth in a mixed-phase cloud that consumes liquid droplets at a faster rate (Wegener–Bergeron–Findeisen process) than super-cooled droplets or snow/graupel aggregation.9

Laboratory experiments have demonstrated support for many different materials acting as IN: different metallic particles, biological materials, certain glasses, mineral dust, anhydrous salts, etc.8,10,11 These laboratory experiments involve wind tunnels, electrodynamic levitation, scanning calorimetry, cloud chambers, and optical microscopy.12,13 However, not surprisingly there appears a significant difference between nucleation ability in the lab and in nature.8,10

Also while homogenous ice nucleation is exactly that, heterogeneous nucleation does not have the same quenching properties.8 Temperature variations within a cloud can produce differing methods of heterogeneous nucleation versus homogeneous nucleation producing significant differences in efficiency. For example not surprisingly some forms of nucleation in cloud formations are more difficult to understand like high concentration formation in warm precipitating cumulus clouds; i.e. particle concentrations increasing from 0.01 L-1 to 100 L-1 in a few minutes at temperatures exceeding –10 degrees C and outpacing existing ice nucleus measurements.14 One explanation for this phenomenon is the Hallett-Mossop (H-M) method. This method is thought to achieve this rapid freezing through interaction with a narrow band of supercooled raindrops producing rimers.15

The H-M methodology requires cloud temperatures between approximately –1 and –10 degrees C with the availability of large rain droplets (diameters > 24 um), but at a 0.1 ratio relative to smaller (< 13 um droplets).16,17 When the riming process begins ice splinters are ejected and grow through water vapor deposition producing a positive feedback effect increasing riming and producing more ice splinters. Basically a feedback loop develops between ice splinter formation and small drop freezing. Unfortunately there are some questions whether or not this methodology can properly explain the characteristics of secondary ice particles and the formation of ice crystal bursts under certain time constraints.18 However, these concerns may not be accurate due to improper assumptions regarding how water droplets form relative to existing water concentrations.15

One of the more important element of rain formation in warm precipitating cumulus clouds, in addition to other cloud formations, appears to involve the location of ice particle concentrations at the top of the cloud formation where there is a higher probability for large droplet formation (500 – 2000 um diameters).15 In this regard cloud depth/area is a more important influencing element than cloud temperature.19 In addition the apparent continued formation of ice crystals stemming from the top proceeding downwards can produce raindrop freezing that catalyzes ice formation creating a positive feedback and ice bursts.20

This process suggests that there is a sufficient replenishment of small droplets at the cloud top increasing the probability of sufficient riming. It is thought that the time variation governing the rate of ice multiplication and how cloud temperature changes accordingly is determined by dry adiabatic cooling at the cloud top, condensational warming, evaporational cooling at the cloud bottom.15 Bacteria also appear to play a meaningful role in both nucleating primary ice crystals and scavenging secondary crystals.7 Even if bacteria concentrations are low (< 0.05 L-1) the catalytic effect of nucleating bacteria produces a much more “H-M” friendly environment.

The most prominent inorganic aerosol that acts as an IN is dust commonly from deserts that is pushed into the upper atmosphere by storms.21,22 The principal origin of this dust is from the Sahara Desert, which is lofted year round versus dust from other origin points like the Gobi or Siberia. While the ability of this dust to produce rain is powerful it can also have a counteracting effect as a cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). In most situations when CCN concentration is increased raindrop conversion becomes less efficient, especially for low-level clouds (in part due to higher temperatures) largely by reducing riming efficiency.

The probability of dust acting as a CCN is influenced by the presence of anthropogenic pollution, which typically is a CCN on its own.23,24 In some situations the presence of pollution could also increase the overall rate of rainfall as it can suppress premature rainfall allowing more rain droplets to crystallize increasing riming and potential rainfall. However, this aspect of pollution is only valid in the presence of dust or other INs for if there is a dearth of IN concentration, localized pollution will decrease precipitation.25 Soot can also influence nucleation and resultant rainfall, but only under certain circumstances. For example if the surface of the soot contains available molecules to form hydrogen bonds (typically from available hydroxyl and carbonyl groups) with available liquid water molecules nucleation is enhanced.26 Overall it seems appropriate to label dust as a strong IN and anthropogenic pollution as a significant CCN.

In mineral collection studies and global simulations of aerosol particle concentrations both deposition and immersion heterogeneous nucleation appear dominated by dust concentrations acting as INs, especially in cirrus clouds.10,27,28 Aerosols also modify certain cloud properties like droplet size and water phase. Most other inorganic atmospheric aerosols behave like cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), which assist the condensation of water vapor for the formation of cloud droplets in a certain level of super-saturation.25 Typically this condensation produces a large number of small droplets, which can reduce the probability of warm rain (above freezing point).29,30

Recall that altitude is important in precipitation, thus it is not surprising that one of the key factors in how aerosols influence precipitation type and probability appears to involve the elevation and temperature at which they interact. For example in mixed-phase clouds, the top area increases relative to increases in CCN concentrations versus a smaller change at lower altitudes and no changes in pure liquid clouds.15,31 Also CCN only significantly influence temperatures when top and base cloud temperatures are below freezing.31 In short it appears that CCN influence is reduced relative to IN influence at higher altitudes and lower temperatures.

Also cloud drop concentration and size distribution at the base and top of a cloud determine the efficiency of the CCN and are dictated by the chemical structure and size of an aerosol. For example larger aerosols have a higher probability of becoming CCN over IN due to their coarse structure. Finally and not surprisingly overall precipitation frequency increases with high water content and decreases with low water content when exposed to CCNs.31 This behavior creates a positive feedback structure that increases aerosol concentration, so for arid regions the probability of drought increases and in wet regions the probability of flooding increases.

While dust from natural sources as well as general pollution are the two most common aerosols, an interesting secondary source may be soil dust produced from land use due to deforestation or large-scale construction projects.32-34 These actions create anthropogenic dust emissions that can catalyze a feedback loop that can produce greater precipitation extremes; thus in certain developing economic regions that may be struggling with droughts continued construction in effort to improve the economy could exacerbate droughts. Therefore, developing regions may need to produce specific methodologies to govern their development to ensure proper levels of rainfall for the future.

While the role of dust has not been fully identified on a mechanistic level, its importance is not debatable. The role of biological particles, like bacteria, is more controversial and could be critical to identifying a method to enhance rainfall probability. It is important to identify the capacity of bacteria to catalyze rainfall for some laboratory studies have demonstrated that inorganic INs only have significant activity below –15 degrees C.10,35 For example in samples of snowfall collected globally originating at temperatures of –7 degrees C or warmer a vast majority of the active IN, up to 85%, were lysozyme-sensitive (i.e. probably bacteria).36,37 Also rain tends to have higher proportions of active IN bacteria than air in the same region.38 With further global warming on the horizon air temperatures will continue to increase lowering the probability window for inorganic IN activity, thus lowering the probability of rainfall in general (not considering any other changes born from global warming).

Laboratory and field studies have demonstrated approximately twelve species of bacteria with significant IN ability spread within three orders of the gammaproteobacteria with the two most notable/frequent agents being Pseudomonas syringae and P. fluorescens and to a lesser extent Xanthomonas.39,40 In the presence of an IN bacterium nucleation can occur at temperatures as warm as –1.5 degrees C to –2 degrees C.41,42 These bacteria appear to have the ability to act as IN due to the existence of a single gene that codes for a specific membrane protein that catalyzes crystal formation by acting as a template for water molecule arrangement.43 The natural origins of these bacteria derive mostly from surface vegetation.

Supporting the idea of the key membrane scaffolding, an acidic pH environment can significantly reduce the effectiveness of bacteria-based nucleation.45,46 Also these protein complexes for nucleation are larger for warmer temperature nucleating bacteria, thus more prone to breakdown in higher acidic environments.44,46 Therefore, low lying areas that have significant acidic pollution like sulfurs could see a reduction in precipitation probability over time. Also it seems that this protein complex could be the critical element to bacteria-based nucleation versus the actual biological processes of the bacteria as nucleation was augmented even when the bacteria itself was no longer viable.46

Despite laboratory and theoretical evidence supporting the role of bacteria in precipitation, as stated above what occurs in the laboratory serves little purpose if it does not translate to nature. This translation is where a controversy arises. It can be difficult to separate the various particles within clouds from residue collection due to widespread internal mixing, but empirical evidence demonstrates the presence of biological material in orographic clouds.47 Also ice nucleation bacteria are present over all continents as well as in various specific locations like the Amazon basin.37,48,49

Some estimates have suggested that 10^24 bacteria enter the atmosphere each year and stay circulating between 2 and 10 days allowing bacteria, theoretically, to travel thousands of miles.50,51 However, there is a lack of evidence for bacteria in the upper troposphere and their concentrations are dramatically lower than those of inorganic materials like dust and soot.28,35,52 Based on this lack of concentrations questions exist to the efficiency of how these bacteria are aerosolized over their atmospheric lifetimes. One study suggests that IN active bacteria are much more efficiently precipitated than non-active IN bacteria, which may explain the disparity between the observations in the air, clouds and precipitation.53

Another possible explanation for this disparity is that most biological particles are generated on the surface and are carried by updrafts and currents into the atmosphere. While the methods of transport are similar to inorganic particles, biological particles have a higher removal potential due to dry or wet deposition due to their typical greater size. Therefore, from a nature standpoint bacteria reside in orographic clouds because they are able to participate in their formations, but are not able to reach higher cloud formations, so most upper troposphere rain is born from dust not bacteria.

Some individuals feel that the current drop freezing assays, which are used to identify the types of bacteria and other agents in a collected sample, can be improved upon to produce a higher level of discrimination between the various classes of IN active bacteria that may be present in the sample. One possible idea is to store the sample at low temperatures and observe the growth and the type of IN bacteria that occur in a community versus individual samples.54 Perhaps new identification techniques would increase the ability to discern the role of bacteria in cloud formation and precipitation.

Among the other atmospheric agents and their potential influence on precipitation potassium appears to have a meaningful role. Some biogenic emissions of potassium, especially around the Amazon, can act as catalysts for the beginning process of organic material condensation.55 However, this role seems to ebb as potassium mass fraction drops as the condensation rate increases.55 This secondary role of potassium as well as the role of bacteria may signal an important element to why past cloud seeding experiments have not achieve the hypothesized expectations.

The lack of natural bacteria input into higher cloud formations leads to an interesting question. What would happen if IN active bacteria like P. syringae were released via plane or other increased altitude method that would result in a higher concentration of bacteria in these higher altitude cloud formations? While typical cloud formation involves vapor saturation due to air cooling and/or increased vapor concentration, increased IN active bacteria concentration could also speed cloud formation as well as precipitation probability.

Interestingly in past cloud seeding experiments orographic clouds appear to be more sensitive to purposeful seeding versus other cloud formations largely because of the shorter residence times of cloud droplets.56,57 One of the positive elements of seeding appears to be that increased precipitation in the target area does not reduce the level of precipitation in surrounding areas including those beyond the target area. In fact it appears that there is a net increase (5-15%) among all areas regardless of the location of seeding.58 The previous presumption that there was loss appears to be based on randomized and not properly controlled seeding experiments.58

The idea of introducing increased concentrations of IN active bacteria is an interesting one if it can increase the probability of precipitation. Of course possible negatives must be considered for such an introduction. The chief negative that could be associated with such an increase from a bacterium like P. syringae would be the possibility of more infection of certain types of plants. The frost mechanism of P. syringae is a minor concern because most of the seeding would be carried out between late spring and early fall where night-time temperatures should not be cold enough to induce freezing. Sabotaging the type III secretion system in P. syringe via some form of genetic manipulation should reduce, if not eliminate, the plant invasion potential. Obviously controlled laboratory tests should be conducted to ensure a high probability of invasion neutralization success before any controlled and limited field tests are conducted. If the use of living bacteria proves to be too costly, exploration of simply using the key specific membrane protein is another possible avenue of study.

Overall the simple fact is that due to global warming, global precipitation patterns will change dramatically. The forerunner to these changes can already been seen in the state of California with no reasonable expectation for new significant levels of rainfall in sight. While other potable water options are available like desalinization, the level of infrastructure required to divert these new sources from origins source to usage points will be costly and these processes do have significant detrimental byproducts. If precipitation probabilities can be safely increased through new cloud seeding strategies like the inclusion of IN active bacteria it could go a long way to combating some of the negative effects of global warming while the causes of global warming itself are mitigated.



Citations –

1. Zuberi, B, et Al. “Heterogeneous nucleation of ice in (NH4)2SO4-H2O particles with mineral dust immersions.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 2002. 29(10). 1504.

2. Hung, H, Malinowski, A, and Martin, S. “Kinetics of heterogeneous ice nucleation on the surfaces of mineral dust cores inserted into aqueous ammonium sulfate particles.” J. Phys. Chem. 2003. 107(9):1296-1306.

3. Lohmann, U. “Aerosol effects on clouds and climate.” Space Sci. Rev. 2006. 125:129-137.

4. Hartmann, S, et Al. “Homogeneous and heterogeneous ice nucleation at LACIS: operating principle and theoretical studies.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2011. 11:1753-1767.

5. Cantrell, W, and Heymsfield, A. “Production of ice in tropospheric clouds. A review.” American Meteorological Society. 2005. 86(6):795-807.

6. Riechers, B, et Al. “The homogeneous ice nucleation rate of water droplets produced in a microfluidic device and the role of temperature uncertainty.” Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 2013. 15(16):5873-5887.

7. Cziczo, D, et Al. “Clarifying the dominant sources and mechanisms of cirrus cloud formation.” Science. 2013. 340(6138):1320-1324.

8. Pruppacher, H, and Klett, J. “Microphysics of clouds and precipitation.” (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. Ed. 2, 1997). pp. 309-354.

9. Lance, S, et Al. “Cloud condensation nuclei as a modulator of ice processes in Arctic mixed-phase clouds.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2011. 11:8003-8015.

10. Hoose, C, and Mohler, O. “Heterogeneous ice nucleation on atmospheric aerosols: a review of results from laboratory experiments.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2012. 12:9817-9854.

11. Abbatt, J, et Al. “Solid ammonium sulfate aerosols as ice nuclei: A pathway for cirrus cloud formation.” Science. 2006. 313:1770-1773.

12. Murray, B, et Al. “Kinetics of the homogeneous freezing of water.” Phys. Chem. 2010. 12:10380-10387.

13. Chang, H, et Al. “Phase transitions in emulsified HNO3/H2O and HNO3/H2SO4/H2O solutions.” J. Phys. Chem. 1999. 103:2673-2679.

14. Hobbs, P, and Rangno, A. “Rapid development of ice particle concentrations in small, polar maritime cumuliform clouds.” J. Atmos. Sci. 1990. 47:2710–2722.

15. Sun, J, et Al. “Mystery of ice multiplication in warm-based precipitating shallow cumulus clouds.” Geophysical Research Letters. 2010. 37:L10802.

16. Hallett, J, and Mossop, S. “Production of secondary ice particles during the riming process.” Nature. 1974. 249:26-28.

17. Mossop, S. “Secondary ice particle production during rime growth: The effect of drop size distribution and rimer velocity.” Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 1985. 111:1113-3324.

18. Mason, B. “The rapid glaciation of slightly supercooled cumulus clouds.” Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 1996. 122:357-365.

19. Rangno, A, and Hobbs, P. “Microstructures and precipitation development in cumulus and small cumulous-nimbus clouds over the warm pool of the tropical Pacific Ocean. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2005. 131:639-673.

20. Phillips, V, et Al. “The glaciation of a cumulus cloud over New Mexico.” Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2001. 127:1513-1534.

21. Karydis, V, et Al. “On the effect of dust particles on global cloud condensation nuclei and cloud droplet number.” J. Geophys. Res. 2011. 166:D23204.

22. Connolly, P, et Al. “Studies of heterogeneous freezing by three different desert dust samples.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2009. 9:2805-2824.

23. Lynn, B, et Al. “Effects of aerosols on precipitation from orographic clouds.” J. Geophys. Res. 2007. 112:D10225.

24. Jirak, I, and Cotton, W. “Effect of air pollution on precipitation along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountain.” J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol. 2006. 45:236-245.

25. Fan, J, et Al. “Aerosol impacts on California winter clouds and precipitation during CalWater 2011: local pollution versus long-range transported dust.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014. 14:81-101.

26. Gorbunov, B, et Al. “Ice nucleation on soot particles.” J. Aerosol Sci. 2001. 32(2):199-215.

27. Kirkevag, A, et Al. “Aerosol-climate interactions in the Norwegian Earth System Model – NorESM. Geosci. Model Dev. 2013. 6:207-244.

28. Hoose, C, Kristjansson, J, Burrows, S. “How important is biological ice nucleation in clouds on a global scale?” Environ. Res. Lett. 2010. 5:024009.

29. Lohmann, U. “A glaciation indirect aerosol effect caused by soot aerosols.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 2002. 29:11.1-4.

30. Koop, T, et Al. “Water activity as the determinant for homogeneous ice nucleation in aqueous solutions.” Nature. 406:611-614.

31. Li, Z, et Al. “Long-term impacts of aerosols on the vertical development of clouds and precipitation.” Nature Geoscience. 2011. DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1313

32. Zender, C, Miller, R, and Tegen, I. “Quantifying mineral dust mass budgets: Terminology, constraints, and current estimates.” Eos. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union. 2004. 85:509-512.

33. Forester, P, et Al. “Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

34. O’Sullivan, D, et Al. “Ice nucleation by fertile soil dusts: relative importance of mineral and biogenic components.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014. 14:1853-1867.

35. Murray, B, et Al. “Ice nucleation by particles immersed in supercooled cloud droplets.” Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012. 41:6519-6554.

36. Christner, B, et Al. “Geographic, seasonal, and precipitation chemistry influence on the abundance and activity of biological ice nucleators in rain and snow. PNAS. 2008. 105:18854. dio:10.1073/pnas.0809816105.

37. Christener, B, et Al. “Ubiquity of biological ice nucleators in snowfall.” Science. 2008. 319:1214.

38. Stephanie, D, and Waturangi, D. “Distribution of ice nucleation-active (INA) bacteria from rainwater and air, NAYATI Journal of Biosciences. 2011. 18:108-112.

39. Vaitilingom, M, et Al. “Long-term features of cloud microbiology at the puy de Dome (France). Atmos. Environ. 2012. 56:88-100.

40. Cochet, N and Widehem, P. “Ice crystallization by Pseudomonas syringae.” Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2000. 54:153-161.

41. Heymsfield, A, et Al. “Upper-tropospheric relative humidity observations and implications for cirrus ice nucleation.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 1998. 25:1343-1346.

42. Twohy, C, and Poellot, M. “Chemical characteristics of ice residual nuclei in anvil cirrus clouds: implications for ice formation processes.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2005. 5:2289-2297.

43. Joly, M, et Al. “Ice nucleation activity of bacteria isolated from cloud water.” Atmos. Environ. 2013. 70:392-400.

44. Attard, E, et Al. “Effects of atmospheric conditions on ice nucleation activity of Pseudomonas.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2012. 12:10667-10677.

45. Kawahara, H, Tanaka, Y, and Obata H. “Isolation and characterization of a novel ice-nucleating bacterium, Pseudomonas, which has stable activity in acidic solution.” Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 1995. 59:1528-1532.

46. Kozloff, L, Turner, M, and Arellano, F. “Formation of bacterial membrane ice-nucleating lipoglycoprotein complexes.” J. Bacteriol. 1991. 173:6528-6536.

47. Pratt, K, et Al. “In-situ detection of biological particles in high altitude dust-influenced ice clouds.” Nature Geoscience. 2009. 2:dio:10.1038/ngeo521.

48. Prenni, A, et Al. “Relative roles of biogenic emissions and Saharan dust as ice nuclei in the Amazon basin.” Nat. Geosci. 2009. 2:402-405.

49. Phillips, V, et Al. “Potential impacts from biological aerosols on ensembles of continental clouds simulated numerically.” Biogeosciences. 2009. 6:987-1014.

50. Burrows, S, et Al. “Bacteria in the global atmosphere – Part 1: review and synthesis of literature data for different ecosystems.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2009. 9:9263-9280.

51. Burrows, S, et Al. “Bacteria in the global atmosphere – Part 2: modeling of emissions and transport between different econsystems.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2009. 9:9281-9297.

52. Despres, V, et Al. “Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review. Tellus B. 2012. 64:349-384.

53. Amato, P, et Al. “Survival and ice nucleation activity of bacteria as aerosols in a cloud simulation chamber.” Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2015. 15:4055-4082.

54. Stopelli, E, et Al. “Freezing nucleation apparatus puts new slant on study of biological ice nucleators in precipitation.” Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2014. 7:129-134.

55. Pohlker, C, et Al. “Biogenic potassium salt particles as seeds for secondary organic aerosol in the Amazon.” Science. 2012. 337(31):1075-1078.

56. Givati, A, and Rosenfeld, D. “Separation between cloud-seeding and air-pollution effects.” J. Appl.Meteorol. 2005. 44:1298-1314.

57. Givati, A, et Al. “The Precipitation Enhancement Project: Israel - 4 Experiment. The
Water Authority, State of Israel. 2013. pp. 55.

58. DeFelice, T, et Al. “Extra area effects of cloud seeding – An updated assessment.” Atmospheric Research. 2014. 135-136:193-203.

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.”

Global Warming Adaptation Funding Responsibility

One of the common refrains at various international climate conferences has been that because the developed world is responsible for a vast majority of the CO2 added to the atmosphere through industrial processes (i.e. neglecting deforestation and agriculture) they are principally responsible for global warming; therefore, due to this responsibility the developed world should be financially obligated to help other “developing” nations transition to a cleaner energy and transportation infrastructure. While it cannot be argued that the developed world is certainly responsible for a majority of the industrial CO2 added to the atmosphere, to make the argument that they should be obligated in any way financially to other parties due to blame for global warming is suspect. There are two important points that must be made for those individuals that are intent at assigning blame for the purposes of acquiring additional financial resources.

First, the idea of developed nations and developing nations as the single delineation point separating the world with regards to responsibility for global warming is inappropriate. Instead one should add a second division point within the developing nation pool that separates advanced developed nations from their slower developing counterparts. These advanced developing nations (ADN) include: China, India, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Ukraine. ADNs have certainly contributed significant amounts of CO2 to the global warming problem for between 1990 and 2012 they contributed 46.4% of total global industrial CO2 emissions. Therefore, to presume that the global warming issue is entirely the fault of the developed world is irrational. Second, it could be argued that the ADNs should shoulder more of the blame for global warming than the developed nations because they focused on rapid energy infrastructure expansion versus global environmental stability, thus failing to learn from the actions of the developed world.

The ADN countries, especially China and India, did not have to resort to constructing of a massive number of coal and natural gas power plants to grow their economies, especially after the science of global warming was accepted by the mainstream scientific community in the late 1980s. These countries should have foreseen the future problems derived from following the developed nations down the CO2 rabbit hole and instead have constructed their energy infrastructure around nuclear and/or geothermal sources if a rapid buildup was desired. Realistically this poor planning has placed unnecessary and significant pressure on the global community to hasten CO2 mitigation and further increased the work required to do so both economically and politically. Supporting this unfortunate industrial path are CO2 emissions by specific developed and ADNs between 1990 and 2012 as shown in table 1.

Table 1: CO2 Emissions by Specific Countries between 1990 – 2012* (1)
* CO2 emission values in gigatons (billion tons);
Note: Developed World = USA, the 27 countries representing the EU, Japan, Australia and Canada;

While the developed world is responsible for a majority of the existing emissions, the problem is the change in emissions from 1990 to 2012. In 1990 the developed world was responsible for about 59.7% of direct global industrial CO2 emissions whereas in 2012 the developed world was responsible for only 41.2% of these CO2 emissions. Initially one may conclude such a change as understandable because the developing world became more modern and industrialized, thus an increase in industrial CO2 emissions would be expected. While true, the problem is not the change in the slope of the ratio, but the magnitude.

The total global emissions produced by the developed world have increased by only 0.44% between 1990 (11.19 gtons) and 2012 (11.24 gtons) thanks in large part to reductions by the EU, despite countries being added to its roster, whereas the global emissions produced by the ADNs have increased by 112.6% between 1990 (7.56 gtons) and 2012 (16.1 gtons) thanks in large part to increases of 292.8% and 198.5% in China and India respectively. Note that this increase is actually larger than the absolute percentage presented above because in 1990 the collapse of the Soviet Union lead to a large decrease in CO2 emissions that Russia has yet to recover (CO2 emissions were 27% lower in 2012 relative to 1990). If the ADNs learned from the developed world regarding the dangers of building an energy infrastructure on carbon, then their emissions certainly would have increased, but at both a pace and absolute value much lower than has actually happened.

Overall it is difficult to fault the developed nations for the Industrial Revolution. The idea behind the Industrial Revolution was to improve societal quality of life; however, with no “roadmap” to accomplishing such a task it is understandable that mistakes could be made, especially when the science behind and acceptance of global warming were not well regarded and those favoring it were in the very small minority. Therefore, CO2 emissions created by developed nations from the onset of the Industrial Revolution to the early 1980s can be regarded as “ignorant” emissions. The issue of blame becomes problematic for the ADNs because they observed how the developed nations expanded their economies and the quality of life of their citizenry, but also should have seen the eventual cost associated with the methodology of that advancement. It is akin to overcharging things on a credit card; sooner or later the bill will have to be paid.

Understand that the responsibility of those “ignorant” emissions should still be assigned to the developed nations, for the consequence of forging ahead into the unknown is a negative aspect of that unknown. However, the ADNs are at fault for not learning from those consequences. Their “ignorant” emissions are nearly non-existent because they knew the consequences associated with a fossil fuel heavy energy infrastructure forged by the developed world and accepted those consequences by mimicking the construction methodology during their own energy infrastructure advancement.

To this point ADNs cannot argue that there was sufficient uncertainty pertaining to the development and deployment of a large nuclear infrastructure because France, and to a lesser extent Sweden, created that very blueprint in the 70s. In addition Iceland created the blueprint for geothermal, thus the two major cost similar alternatives to coal and natural gas in the 80s had country-centralized examples of their widespread deployment. Note that solar and wind were incredibly unreasonable economically and technically at this time, and there is some legitimate argument that these characteristics still persist despite growing popularity, thus expecting ADNs to embark on a wind and/or solar centralized energy infrastructure would be unreasonable. However, there should have been no uncertainty regarding whether or not nuclear and geothermal were viable and cost effective sources of energy generation.

This behavior by the ADNs disqualifies them from making monetary demands from developed nations at international climate conferences to aid in the transition from a fossil fuel energy infrastructure to a non-fossil fuel energy infrastructure. They had the ability to guide that transition for much less money and refused to take the proper path in lieu of perceived faster economic growth. However, as alluded to above it is important to distinguish between the ADN and other nations like the Maldives, Bangladesh, etc. for they will bear great consequences from global warming and have contributed almost nothing to induce those consequences. Therefore, it is important to ensure that these countries receive sufficient funds from the rest of the global community to effectively adapt to global warming consequences. Overall although there should be little exchange of money between the developed world and ADNs, it is of the utmost importance for these two groups to cooperate in the goal of carbon emission mitigation to neutralize as many negative outcomes from global warming as possible.


Citations –

1. Oliver, JGJ, et Al. “Trends in global CO2 emissions; 2013 Report.” The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 2013. Ispra: Joint Research Centre.