Methane Hydrates: The Planet's Largest Single Carbon Sink?

Methane hydrates are perhaps the largest and most important carbon sink on the planet. Some scientific estimates place the amount of carbon stored in methane hydrates as greater than all the carbon stored in oil, natural gas and coal combined.[1] They are critical in maintaining the stability of earth's atmosphere and temperature.

What is a carbon sink? According to www.fern.org, as an example, "A carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon that it releases, whilst a carbon source is anything that releases more carbon than is absorbed. Forests, soils, oceans and the atmosphere all store carbon and this carbon moves between them in a continuous cycle. This constant movement of carbon means that forests act as sources or sinks at different times."[5]

Two primary carbon sinks, however, were not involved in that continuous cycling of carbon. Fossil fuel reserves (oil, natural gas and coal) and methane hydrate reserves (methane hydrates should properly be included in the categorization of fossil fuels), like the carbon locked in rocks, locked up carbon in stable reserves and took it out of the cycle. Until man started exploiting and burning fossil fuels those reserves were sinks only. We have, unfortunately, turned fossil fuels into one of the largest carbon sources on the planet. Now we are threatening to do the same with methane.

As recently as 1971, in fact, methane was not even on the radar as an important greenhouse gas. According to the report, Methane: A Scientific Journey from Obscurity to Climate Super-Stardom, "The first survey in 1971 on the possibility of inadvertent human modification of climate stated that "Methane has no direct effects on the climate or the biosphere [and] it is considered to be of no importance". The gas did not even appear in the index of the major climatology book of the time (Lamb's Climate Past, Present and Future)."[3]

As a result the study of methane hydrates is still very much in its infancy. Most of the research to date, in fact, has focused on the potential of using the methane in those hydrates as an energy source in light of the approaching peak and decline in oil and other fossil fuels. There has been little attention and little funding available for studying methane as a greenhouse gas and as a potential contributor to global warming, even its potential as a catalyst in a runaway greenhouse effect.

Why is all of that important? How serious a greenhouse gas is methane? Methane, when first released into the atmosphere is 62 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. However, it has a much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere. It quickly diminishes in potency to about 20 times that of carbon dioxide and will completely oxidize after about twenty years. But that's not the end of it's importance as a greenhouse gas. Methane in the upper atmosphere oxidizes into carbon dioxide and water vapour (also an important greenhouse gas) and will remain in the upper atmosphere as carbon dioxide for another hundred years. So it has a very potent early life as a greenhouse gas but also a long term life cycle as both reduced potency methane gas and then carbon dioxide.

One of the troubling aspects of methane hydrates (much more on this later) is that the methane in the hydrate is in gaseous form and under pressure. Where compressed natural gas (CNG) is artificially compressed and stored in steel cylinders or other containment vessels at pressures of 200-248 atmospheres,[6] the methane gas in methane hydrates is naturally present at a pressure of 162 atmospheres in a cage of ice.[4] Anyone who has ever seen a gas cylinder explode knows how explosive gases under pressure can be with a sudden release of that pressure.

Keith Bennett, a reader of my blog from the UK, recently sent me an e-mail in which he reminded me, "every time we have messed with nature we have found that we harm the ‘delicate balance’." This is what has bothered me with the increasing talk of exploiting methane hydrates as an energy source. We have already drastically impacted the other primary carbon sinks on this planet; cutting and burning the forests, dredging up and burning the fossil fuel reservoirs, destroying the carbon sequestration ability of our soils, saturating the oceans and diminishing their ability to absorb and sequester carbon dioxide, drastically changing the makeup of the atmosphere. We keep transferring the planet's carbon from stable sinks and reservoirs into the comparatively unstable atmosphere as carbon dioxide by burning massive volumes of fossil fuels. To date, methane hydrates were the last major carbon sink that we had not destroyed, a shortcoming we seem to be hell bent to rectify.

Ignorance may have been a legitimate excuse when we began the process of destroying the other important carbon sinks. We just did not realize the impact we were having. But we have now known for many decades and still continue to inflict damage on this planet's environment through our misuse and abuse of the carbon cycle. To now, with all that we have learned, head into the destruction of the last major carbon sink in the pursuit of more energy is to do so with no remaining excuse of ignorance to use. There is ignorance, but not such as to justify going forward. We simply do not know how important methane hydrates are as a carbon sink. We don't know what impact on the future livability of this planet we will have by exploiting methane hydrates and diminishing those reserves. We do know, as Keith Bennett suggested, that every time we have thus far "messed with" nature we have harmed the delicate balance that has evolved over millions and billions of years on this planet.

If we take the same approach with methane hydrates that we have taken with the exploitation of the other fossil fuels we most assuredly will further upset, if not destroy, that delicate balance. With fossil fuels, at every turn, we have leaned in favour of exploiting the energy resource rather than protecting the environment, both for ourselves and for future generations. Keep the wheels of industry rolling today at whatever cost to tomorrow.

Marine methane hydrate reserves are relatively stable but remain so within a fairly narrow range of temperature and pressure known as the Hydrate stability zone. In my article (also in the blog), The real problem with Methane Hydrates is Sliding under the Radar, I dealt with this issue at length. Here is an excerpt but I would seriously encourage you to read the whole article. "The physical nature of methane hydrates and the quite distinct physical properties of water - specifically H2O - and of methane (CH4) independently function both as a barrier to exploitation and as a serious environmental risk in conjunction with global warming. ..... H2O which is only water above 0C [at 1 atmosphere] and becomes vapour at higher temperatures - reaches its maximum density of 999.9720 kilograms per cubic meter at a temperature of 3.98C. At the freezing temperature of 0C its density has reduced to 998.8395 kilograms per cubic meter, 988.1170 at -10C. The critical part of that range, with regard to methane hydrates, is that from 0C to 3.98C. ..... The lower density of H2O as ice (998.8395) at 0C (even lower if the ice is super cooled) is what allows ice to float on the surface of water. Average global ocean temperatures today (this has varied over geological time, especially during different eras of ice age and global warming) is 2C. At 2C H2O has a density 999.9400, between that of ice at 0C of 998.8395 and the maximum density at 3.98C of 999.9720. It still supports, therefore, the lighter ice even in the Arctic. ..... Because of the lower density (greater buoyancy) of ice relative to sea water, submarine methane hydrates are always under pressure, physically wanting to rise to the surface. The [hydrate] deposits only become "relatively" stable when anchored by sufficient sediment on the ocean bottom. When and if that "anchorage" breaks down or is swept away, for example, by a sub-surface landslide, the hydrates can suddenly be released into the water and rise toward the surface. ..... The density of the gaseous methane in hydrates is 162 times greater than methane gas in the atmosphere. At the temperature and pressure of the sea water around and above the hydrate deposits, the methane gas contained in the hydrates should have much lower density (occupy much more space) than it does. This physical anomaly means that the pressure on the methane gas to expand is constantly at odds with and pushing against the ice cage enclosing it. This is a key component of the essential instability of methane hydrates. ..... Gas density generally decreases far more rapidly for gases than liquids or solids as temperature rises or pressure decreases. That means two factors can affect the stability of methane hydrates currently in the hydrate stability zone. Changes in sea level can affect the water pressure in the zone: a drop in sea level can decrease the pressure. Changes in temperature of the water can have the same effect. Increase of the temperature above the current average 2C can also dramatically affect that stability."

In view of the threat of global warming, the potential impact from rising sea temperatures warrants particular attention. As the temperature of the hydrate deposit rises two opposing things begin to happen. The ice cage around the methane shrinks, further increasing the pressure on the methane gas inside, similar to squeezing a cylinder containing a gas. This increases the tendency of the gas to seek escape from the containment. At the same time the ice cage containing the methane is softening and weakening, making it more susceptible to rupture. This increases the probability that the submarine methane hydrate deposits will destabilize and that they will do so explosively.

There is now considerable accepted scientific evidence that this has happened several times in the geological past,[10] most notably 55 million years ago, as per NASA.[11] Of more immediate concern, however, is the growing evidence that there is a measurable and significant increase in methane venting from hydrate deposits on the Arctic sea floor.[7][8] The temperatures in the Arctic have been increasing much more rapidly over the past century than elsewhere on earth. In fact, atmospheric methane concentrations have more than doubled over the past 200 years "due to decomposing organic materials in wetlands and swamps and human aided emissions from gas pipelines, coal mining, increases in irrigation and livestock flatulence."[11] The Arctic is a kind of canary in the coal mine when it comes to showing the early signs of global warming. The concern over Arctic sub sea methane venting is doubled when considering the potential positive feedback on releasing the massive amount of methane hydrates trapped in Arctic permafrost, both in northern North America and Europe/Asia. Large areas of Arctic permafrost coastline are, quite literally, oozing into the ocean and releasing their sequestered methane.
===================================================================
1) Methane hydrate - A major reservoir of carbon in the shallow geosphere?
2) Siberian Peatlands a Net Carbon Sink and Global Methane Source Since the Early Holocene
3) Methane: A Scientific Journey from Obscurity to Climate Super-Stardom
4) The real problem with Methane Hydrates is Sliding under the Radar
5) WHAT ARE CARBON SINKS?
6) Compressed natural gas
7) JGR/MIT Study - Subsea Methane Clathrates May Already Be Venting Far More Quickly Than Projected
8) Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5970/1246
9) Computer simulation strengthens link between climate change and release of subsea methane
10) Explosive methane venting at hydrate/gas transition in the bedrock
11) METHANE EXPLOSION WARMED THE PREHISTORIC EARTH, POSSIBLE AGAIN

Methane Hydrates Turning Into Alternative Energy Solution of Choice

The news on intended methane hydrate exploitation continues to get increasingly scary. Here is just a recent survey of article and news headlines and titles.

• Methane Timebomb Ticking - Boilingspot.blogspot.com
• The USGS assessment of abrupt climate change - Energy and Environment Viewpoint
• Bush urges US to stake claim to Arctic territory in last-gasp energy grab - C-Questor group newsletter
• Scientific deep ocean drilling: Revealing the Earth's secrets - Doxtop
• Japan digs ocean deep to find natural resources - Methane Hydrates - Greenpacks
• USGS: Alaskan gas could heat millions of homes - Top Gold News
• Study: Lots of recoverable frozen gas in Alaska - blog Rubens
• Methane hydrate extraction - Mercury Rising
• "Ice That Burns" May Yield Clean, Sustainable Bridge to Global Energy Future - Newswise
• Japan to drill offshore for methane hydrate - EnergyCurrent
• Japan aiming to commercialize new ocean resources in 10 years - iStock Analyst
• Govt to Study: Exploit ocean resources - Asian news feed
• Ice That Burns Could Be a Green Fossil Fuel - Newscientist.com
• Flammable ice is the future of the human idea alternative energy - Anrosoft
• Flammable ice could be carbon-neutral fuel - pound360
• Scientists have found ecological way to burn methane. - The Science
• Boosting energy production from 'ice that burns' - Science centric
  

The volume of material being released on the subject of exploiting methane hydrates as an energy source is dwarfed by the plethora of articles detailing the activity in the area of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). The combination of these two bode very badly for global warming. The potential for accidental release of large volumes of methane from hydrates and the inability to develop an economically viable technology and methodology for CCS very much weakens the potential for decreasing anthropogenic greenhouse gasses to a level that global warming can be arrested.

Our hunger and lust for new energy sources, as oil and natural gas resources begin to decline after peak oil, continues to put pressure on governments everywhere to weaken the regulations for carbon emissions. CCS is, through carbon trading, showing all the hallmarks of turning into another taxpayer-subsidized ponzi scheme with every other corporation, whether or not they are involved in the energy industry, lining up at the taxpayer trough looking for their share of the research money and stockpiling carbon credits waiting for legislation that will drive up the price as carbon emitters are forced by implemented legislation into buying credits.

As you will see in the archives of this blog, I have written several articles on both CCS and methane hydrates. With the lack of material in mainstream media, however, the potential for any public pressure in these areas continues to be weak. If it stays weak and public pressure never develops the desire of those in power to keep the train speeding toward the precipice rather than putting on the brakes will rule the day. Sooner or later some sanity must seep into the circles of power or we are going to pay a tremendous price to support their lust for power.

The real problem with Methane Hydrates is Sliding under the Radar

There has certainly been a lot of discussion lately about methane hydrates. You may have missed it unless you, like most concerned about global peak oil and peak energy, specifically search and listen for it. Most of that discussion, quite understandably in our energy-addicted world, has centered on the potential of using these vast reserves of methane as a fuel source. Methane hydrates, after all, contain more carbon energy than all of the world's oil, natural gas and coal combined.

Those estimates, like hot air, are, in fact, expanding all the time. Some estimates suggest methane hydrates may contain 3-4 times the carbon energy of all global fossil fuels combined.

For those not familiar, methane hydrates are molecules of methane gas (the basic constituent of natural gas) locked in a cage of water ice.





They exist in two places throughout the world. Marine methane hydrates exist on most of the world's continental margins, particularly along the subduction zone of tectonic plates such as along the west coast of North America. Methane hydrates also occur in land-based and sub-sea frozen permafrost in Alaska, Northern Canada, Russian Siberia, far northern Europe, and in small deposits in Antarctica.




The sheer volume of methane hydrates and their occurrence on shore in permafrost and near offshore on continental margins do make them an attractive prospect as a future, accessible, post-oil energy source. There has been far more research into the potential exploitation of methane hydrates than was ever the case for oil, natural gas or coal. The requisite geology and, now, the location of these deposits are well known. All that stands in the way of exploiting this vast energy resource - from the point of view of energy executives, economists and politicians - is the extraction technology, the global distribution technology and network, the economic evaluation and the financing to build the massive infrastructure that would be needed to effectively and efficiently exploit it fully. No problem! It may, in fact, still be several decades - in a business as usual climate - before all of these factors can be dealt with and methane from hydrates can be exploited commercially.



There are, of course, other points of view. Paleoclimatologists are increasingly convinced that massive and surprisingly sudden releases of submarine methane hydrates have been responsible for periodic and disastrous rapid rises of global temperature, largely resulting in the quick - in geologic terms - end of past ice ages. The study of deep ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, the study of areas of ocean floor zones of extensive pock marks and growing evidence of current increasing methane releases from melting permafrost and the Arctic Ocean floor all strongly lend credence to this hypothesis.



All of that, of course, makes methane hydrates and their possible release as a gas into the atmosphere a serious concern, in this period of increasing concern about global warming, from an environmental point of view. Methane in the short term, you see, is 62 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Over ten to twenty years time as it oxidizes in the atmosphere it weakens to just 20 times the potency as a GHG compared to carbon dioxide. After about ten years atmospheric methane completely oxidizes. But that isn't the end. It oxidizes into carbon dioxide and remains a greenhouse for another century.

Another, and perhaps the least understood and certainly the least discussed, point of view about methane hydrates involves physics. The physical nature of methane hydrates and the quite distinct physical properties of water - specifically H2O - and of methane (CH4) independently function both as a barrier to exploitation and as a serious environmental risk in conjunction with global warming.

Submarine methane hydrates primarily occur in what has been called the Hydrate Stability Zone. This is a relatively narrow zone where the combination of water temperature and water pressure are suitable for the formation and, more important, the stability of methane hydrates. In general, at present, this is 300 to 500 meters below the ocean surface but varies and is very specific in different locations depending on water temperature. The geology of the area is also a very important factor; whether the bottom is sandstone, other stone, coarse silt or fine silt. All of these variables affect the ability to form methane hydrates and the way those hydrates will be distributed in that medium.

All methane hydrates, you may have guessed from the above, are not created equal. The water ice that forms the hydrate cage and the methane gas in that cage are both essentially consistent but the manner in which they combine to form the hydrate varies considerably. And so does the volatility and stability of those deposits.

I will not go into a great detailed discussion of those differences. I will limit it to a couple of key factors.

Water - more specifically H2O which is only water above 0C and becomes vapour at higher temperatures - reaches its maximum density of 999.9720 kilograms per cubic meter at a temperature of 3.98C. At the freezing temperature of 0C its density has reduced to 998.8395 kilograms per cubic meter, 988.1170 at -10C. The critical part of that range, with regard to methane hydrates, is that from 0C to 3.98C. That is where we will focus.

The lower density of H2O as ice (998.8395) at 0C (even lower if the ice is super cooled) is what allows ice to float on the surface of water. Average global ocean temperatures today (this has varied over geological time, especially during different eras of ice age and global warming) is 2C. At 2C H2O has a density 999.9400 between that of ice at 0C of 998.8395 and the maximum density at 3.98C of 999.9720. It still supports, therefore, the lighter ice even in the Arctic.

Anyone in a northern climate is familiar with spring thaw. As the water below ice warms in the spring it first expands, pushing up and cracking the ice, until it reaches its maximum density at 3.98C of 999.9720. Above that temperature the water begins to shrink (will reach a density of 999.7026 at 10C) as the temperature rises, leaving a gap of air between the ice and the water below. The ice can, as most young boys in northern rural areas can attest, be left high and dry and collapse under the weight of a person walking on it.

Because of the lower density (greater buoyancy) of ice relative to sea water, submarine methane hydrates are always under pressure, physically wanting to rise to the surface. The deposits only become "relatively" stable when anchored by sufficient sediment on the ocean bottom. When and if that "anchorage" breaks down or is swept away, for example, by a sub-surface landslide, the hydrates can suddenly be released into the water and rise toward the surface.

Now the other side of the problem. At 1 atmosphere, methane is a liquid below a temperature of -182.5C. There is no known naturally occurring liquid methane on earth. Above that temperature methane is a gas. Its density constantly diminishes as the temperature/pressure gradient rises. To my knowledge, which is incomplete, scientists have not really answered the question of why the methane trapped in hydrates is stable in that form. The density of the gaseous methane in hydrates is 162 times greater than methane gas in the atmosphere. At the temperature and pressure of the sea water around and above the hydrate deposits, the methane gas contained in the hydrates should have much lower density (occupy much more space) than it does. This physical anomaly means that the pressure on the methane gas to expand is constantly at odds with and pushing against the ice cage enclosing it. This is a key component of the essential instability of methane hydrates.

Gas density generally decreases far more rapidly for gases than liquids or solids as temperature rises or pressure decreases. That means two factors can affect the stability of methane hydrates currently in the hydrate stability zone. Changes in sea level can affect the water pressure in the zone: a drop in sea level can decrease the pressure. Changes in temperature of the water can have the same effect. Increase of the temperature above the current average 2C can also dramatically affect that stability.

Global warming, ironically, fortunately means we are in an era of rising sea levels, not lowering sea levels. The pressure that pushes down on and stabilizes methane hydrate deposits in the oceans is, therefore, increasing, not decreasing. Global warming, however, also means that water temperatures, as well as atmosphere temperatures, are on the rise.

Much of the debate around global warming centers on whether we are heading for a global temperature increase of 2C, 4C or higher. On the surface these seem like such small numbers to be the center of such passionate debate. But the critical temperature spread we are dealing with is between 2C (the current average global ocean temperature) and 3.98C (the temperature at which H2O reaches its maximum density (it will shrink, lowering sea level and decreasing oceanic water pressure between those two temperatures) and begins to decrease in density: begins to expand again). That is a temperature differential of just 1.98C.

As the ocean temperature rises it doesn't matter what the specific temperature in the local hydrate stability zone currently is because that zone is a product of both temperature and pressure. In the Barkley Canyon off the coast of Vancouver Island, for example, the hydrate stability zone is at a depth of 850 meters, much deeper than the normal hydrate stability zone of 300m to 500m depth in other locations. As the temperature in the hydrate stability zone rises at whatever depth it occurs, however, the stability of the hydrates will diminish.

The individual physical characters of the water ice that makes up the hydrate cage and the methane gas trapped inside accelerate this instability. As the temperature rises (generally from 2C to 3.98C) the ice forming the hydrate cage shrinks as it is influence by the temperature of the surrounding water and begins to soften as the physical bonds holding the ice in a stable structure weaken. This shrinking puts further pressure on the methane gas inside, increasing its density. But the methane gas inside that cage is already 162 times the density it is at 1 atmosphere and is under considerable pressure to expand. As the temperature rises in the hydrate stability zone and the ice cage weakens and the methane gas's pressure to expand increases, the stability of the hydrate diminishes rapidly. The upward pressure on the hydrate ice, which wants to float up to the surface (the methane gas trapped inside is also more buoyant than the ice or the surrounding water), also increases as the temperature rises.

To my knowledge no scientific studies have yet been conducted that pinpoint exactly where on the temperature/pressure gradient the water ice cage of the hydrate ruptures and releases the methane gas into the surrounding environment. There is mounting evidence that the number of subsea methane vents in the Arctic, which is generally warming faster than other oceans, is increasing, as is the volume of methane gas issuing from those vents. This suggests that, in the Arctic at least (which holds the highest concentrations of methane hydrates of all the oceans), the temperature rise is already compromising methane hydrate stability.

In areas of fine sea bottom sediment, which is the case in the majority of methane hydrate deposits, the methane hydrates form stratified seams. Proceeding downward, each seam acts as a "cementing" cap, holding hydrate seams and free methane below in place. The disassociation or breakdown of hydrates as the ocean temperature increases will proceed from the top of the hydrate deposit downward. In these seamed, soft-sediment deposits that means that the top seam, which functions as a cap on all the methane and hydrates below, will break down first. It's ability to function as a cap disappears and the risk of a rapid, potentially massive release of methane increases dramatically.

The same sort of results that can occur naturally through warming of the waters around the methane hydrate deposit can also occur if the submarine methane hydrate deposits are destabilized by human activity. Any attempts to drill into methane hydrate deposits, whether exploratory or commercially for energy production, can break down the stability of the hydrates, particularly in association with rising temperatures, either in the surrounding sea water or from the drilling itself (the favourite intended method of extraction is to inject hot water into the hydrate deposits).

The current discussion and debate surrounding the intended exploitation of methane hydrate deposits involves energy experts, various types of scientific experts, and anxious, eager governments. If that is where it stays I am not very confident that scientific reason and caution will win out. The general public, including you, must put methane hydrates on their radar and be prepared to hold accountable those pushing for methane hydrate exploitation. Public pressure must become a key element of making sure that we do not rush into over-exuberant and overly-optimistic exploitation of this resource, to the detriment of mankind, other living species and the planet itself.

AUTHOR'S NOTE:
Hundreds of articles, papers and web sites were researched as part of writing this article. I have not listed them here as the list would be far too long. If anyone is interested in those references and links, however, they can contact me by e-mail and I will gladly supply them. My e-mail address is; richard.embleton@sympatico.ca

Also see my other Methane Hydrate articles in this blog;

Methane Hydrates: What are they thinking?
http://oilbeseeingyou.blogspot.com/2008/12/methane-hydrates-what-are-they-thinking.html

Methane hydrates: the next great energy source?
http://oilbeseeingyou.blogspot.com/2006/12/methane-hydrates-next-great-energy.html

Space Colonies, Flying Cars and Clean Coal

Great Technological Myths for the 21st Century

All of the above are promised technological marvels that never have and probably never will materialize, feel-good mental distractions pumped out by myopic techno-centric minds. But this article is only about one; clean coal or, more accurately, CCS (carbon capture and sequestration).

Carbon capture, unlike space colonies and flying cars, is a pipe-dream born out of necessity. We are so adversely impacting the life-support system of this planet that we have now forced ourselves into a position of having to correct some of our more critical damage. The article, Carbon tax no cure for climate change, claims, "Ultimately, the answer to greenhouse gas emissions in this energy-hungry world is going to come from a breakthrough on the technology side, and it won't come cheap."[12] Whether or not one accepts that technology holds the solution, it is the driving force behind industry and government in most developed and developing nations and will, therefore, dictate the direction in the corridors of power over the coming decades.

In case it appears otherwise, let me be very clear. I am not against the concept of carbon capture and sequestration. Quite the contrary. Only a small clutch of pollyannas and cornucopians any longer believes that peak oil (and peak natural gas) are not fast approaching. Ethanol and biofuels, tar sands, oil shale, methane hydrates and any other alternatives do not negate that reality. The fact that we are forced to pursue these costly and difficult alternatives, in fact, are confirmation that the reality of peak oil is sinking into the consciousness of those in the energy industry. There is unfortunately little doubt, therefore, that we will pursue coal as a primary energy option as the reality of declining oil and natural gas reserves dictates. Increasing our reliance on dirty coal - the dirtiest of all fossil fuels - without pursuing every means of preventing further destruction of the earth's environment through elevated CO2 emissions would seriously hasten the demise of the life-support capability of this planet.

My issue with carbon capture and sequestration is complex but starts with a reasonable doubt that we can develop a technology to do it soon enough. I fear that we will continue to build dirty, coal-fired power plants on the basis of an assumption that such technology will materialize and can be retrofitted to those plants. It appears that the energy drain on those facilities for CCS (up to 40% or more) will dramatically increase our global energy consumption with no net increase in energy produced. It also appears that the full energy cost of CCS, from mining of the coal through eventual sequestration, could more than double the energy consumption with no net increase in energy produced and hasten our race toward an energy cliff. I fear that we will force ourselves into a near-term reliance on nuclear energy, complete with its radioactive waste disposal problem, by creating a new energy crisis by rapidly depleting the planet's coal resources. I also fear that we will soon pursue the very dangerous alternative of mining the world's methane hydrate deposits, running the very serious risk of pushing the earth into a runaway greenhouse effect (methane is 20 times more powerful as a GHG than CO2).

Breaking CCS down, carbon capture refers to isolating and collecting the carbon dioxide created by the burning of fossil fuels. This would usually be at the point of combustion, such as in coal-fired power plants, thus preventing it entering the atmosphere. Another possibility is extracting previously emitted carbon dioxide (from, for example, automobile and aircraft emissions, factory emissions and home heating fuel emissions) from the atmosphere itself. There is current gas separation technology that can accomplish this on a limited scale.

Carbon sequestration involves the long-term storing or sequestering of that CO2 in either gaseous or liquid form underground, usually in formations such as depleted oil or natural gas wells (there are some efforts to use injected CO2 to increase the well-head pressure and flow rate of operating oil wells[3]) or abandoned mines, or in liquid form at the bottom of the deeper parts of the ocean where it is hoped the massive pressure of water above the CO2 deposit would hold it in place. There is also research ongoing into chemically reacting the carbon dioxide with substances like sandstone or certain chemicals like carbon hydroxide and transforming it permanently into other substances like rock (see Carbon sequestration rocks! Literally[9]) or sodium bicarbonate, better known as baking soda (see Baking Soda: Removes stains, odors, and combats Global Warming[22]).

In between carbon capture and carbon sequestration will have to be some means of transport, such as tanker trucks, trains, ships or, most likely, pipelines, to get the carbon dioxide from point of extraction or capture to the site of sequestration. The CO2 transport aspect has, thus far, received very little attention or funding. In a presentation to the US senate of a proposed new bill, Senator Coleman pointed out (see Sen. Coleman testifies before Senate Committee about carbon dioxide capture and transport) "While considerable progress has been made on the first [capture] and third [sequestration] steps, [this] bill begins the process of determining how best to get the CO2 from the point of creation to the point of storage."[28]

Simple, right? Not!

It's definitely not as easy as the constant headlines announcing new projects (globally 20 in 2007) would have us believe. Despite those constant announcements nothing gets done, except a lot of your tax money going into the coffers of organizations mounting government-funded research programs. Coming up with a workable, scalable, cost effective CCS technology will not be simple and will not be fast. “People don’t understand the magnitude of the problem,” said Howard Herzog, principal research engineer for M.I.T.’s Carbon Capture and Sequestration Program. “How can we do hundreds of these plants by 2050 - and that’s what we’ll need - if we can’t even do one?”[32]

Everything about carbon capture and sequestration is future, theoretical, of unknown cost but of great promise. Wise supervisors vote unanimous support for power plant, a typical article announcing a new coal-fired power plant, says, "Robbins said the resolution makes note of support for the “best available, advanced and futuristic technology for carbon capture” Dominion is urged to incorporate as that technology becomes available. ..... Adkins said he believes Dominion’s Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center will become a “world model” for the development of carbon capture and sequestration technology in the future.[emphasis mine]"[15]

Carbon capture and sequestration, if it ever ultimately materializes which is by no means certain, will be very energetically expensive. There is much debate about both the technical parameters and potential future viability of carbon capture and sequestration. The article, New coal fired power station gets go ahead points out, "The notion of cleaned coal is an oxymoron, with environmentalists and scientists disagreeing over the viability of any capture / cleaning / sequestration technology. It will take years and seems a high gamble to rely on a technology in the future."[5] This sentiment is echoed in the article, Big Coal's Dirty Plans for Our Energy Future, which states, "But scientists and environmentalists say "clean coal" does not exist; it is a misnomer and an oxymoron. "[16]

As to the energy requirement, according to the article, Carbon capture faces cost challenge, "Carbon capture costs represent up to 80 per cent of the total costs of carbon capture and storage, between $66 to $110 a tonne, according to preliminary research by the CO2 network."[26] Estimates are, in fact, that carbon capture in coal-fired power plants could consume from 20-40% as much energy as is being generated, and that the total energy costs from capture to sequestration, including the energy for mining and transporting the coal, could require 60% as much energy or more as the energy being generated in the power plant. Quite simply this means that power generation incorporating carbon capture and sequestration will require up to 60% more fuel to generate the same amount of energy as that being produced without CCS. With peak oil, peak natural gas and peak coal all set to materialize over the next few decades that is a disheartening statistic. And that 60% more fuel will also generate and emit carbon dioxide which, in turn, has to be captured and sequestered.

In a global economy addicted to perpetual growth and massive profits no industry is going to voluntarily adopt, at their own expense, a new technology that is going to add 60 percent to their fuel bill, especially an industry like power generation where fuel cost is their largest single operating expense. The article Energy at the crossroads: Carbon sequestration is a GM solution; we need a Honda solution suggests, "There are simply too many unknowns to commit enormous investments to an undertaking whose results could be obtained in many more preferable ways."[3] The article suggests, for example, that, ".....we could cut our energy use by more than 60 percent without diminishing our lifestyle in any way -- and arguably it would be enhanced,". The article claims, ".....the U.S. requires 7 tons of oil equivalent (toe) per person per year to maintain our present lifestyle. But ..... a top-notch lifestyle [such as that in Europe] requires no more than 2.6 toe and arguably even a bit less."[3] Despite the highly political assurances of the current White House administration to the contrary, sooner or later the American way of life has to become negotiable, and the sooner the better.

In order to soften the economic blow the largest industrial CO2 polluters/emitters would face implementing CCS, various forms of cap-and-trade systems have been proposed by different industrial governments. Most of these programs are broken into multiple phases where phase 1 involves giving the first allocation of carbon certificates to the major CO2 emitters. Subsequent phases would require emitters to purchase additional certificates at auction. The intent of the phasing is to encourage CO2 emitters to, over time, reduce their emissions (and their costs) to acceptable levels, either through adoption of CCS technology or other means.

Many of these schemes, however, do not have the teeth, possibly by intent (".....industry officials continue to talk up the greatness of carbon capture and sequestration "potential" yet refuse to implement a carbon tax or some equivalent that, from a market perspective, is the only sure way of getting the ball rolling beyond mere discussion and promises."[27]), to generate the needed CO2 reductions. The article, The European emission trading scheme: lessons for Ontario, points out, "The more allocations granted[in the EU], the cheaper carbon permits became, and the less incentive coal-fired power companies had to deviate from business-as-usual and actually reduce emissions."[4] If the cap-and-trade system does not encourage/(force?) the needed CO2 reductions there is reason to question the societal value of the system. The article, Carbon Trading: The carbon offset market is set to take off. But could U.S. businesses end up buying a lot of hot air?, spells out the most prevalent criticism. ".....critics say buying carbon offsets does little to change how carbon-addicted companies operate. "It's like the medieval practice of buying papal indulgences," complains Frank O'Donnell, president of the not-for-profit Clean Air Watch. "If sinners throw a few bucks into the pot, they can go back to sinning.""[8]

But companies and industries do what they do. Whenever possible they will find a way to turn a profit, even in cleaning up their own mess. Carbon offsets are already being tackled as a good new profit-making venture. The above report indicates, "In 2006, trading volume of carbon offsets, such as Carbon Financial Instruments and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), jumped 200 percent in the voluntary markets (primarily the United States). Observers believe that market is now worth at least $100 million. Privately, those same observers talk about a $4 billion carbon-trading market once federal caps are approved."[8]

If tackling carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels is limited to the capture of CO2 at large, single-point generation facilities such as power plants which are responsible for less than half our CO2 emissions, it is unlikely that sufficient levels of atmospheric CO2 reductions will result to have the needed impact on mitigating global warming. As the report, Carbon Capture Strategy Could Lead To Emission-free Cars, points out, "Technologies to capture carbon dioxide emissions from large-scale sources such as power plants have recently gained some impressive scientific ground, but nearly two-thirds of global carbon emissions are created by much smaller polluters - automobiles, transportation vehicles and distributed industrial power generation applications (e.g., diesel power generators)."[36] But governments like to throw your tax money at the big, visible projects like power plants, especially at election time. Research into other methods is primarily being left to private, non-funded projects like this. ".....The Georgia Tech team outlines an economically feasible strategy for processing fossil or synthetic, carbon-containing liquid fuels that allows for the capture and recycling of carbon at the point of emission. .....onboard fuel processor designed to separate the hydrogen in the fuel from the carbon. Hydrogen is then used to power the vehicle, while the carbon is stored on board the vehicle in a liquid form until it is disposed [of] at a refueling station."[36]

Environmentalist largely argue that no new fossil-fuel-fired power plants should be built without functioning carbon capture built in. Industry and most western governments argue against that position. Banks are caught in the middle, uncertain about the wisdom of the financial risk of granting investment funds for construction of a plant dependent on a technology that might never materialize in a political climate that is daily giving birth to new legislation demanding ever-tighter environmental controls. In the article, Banks won't slow plans for coal plant, the dilemma is spelled out, "But waiting until sequestration technology is perfected before building a plant would leave the state and ..... customers without reliable and low-cost sources of electricity....."[35] Anne Woiwode, state director for the Michigan Sierra Club, disagrees. Woiwode says "it doesn't make sense for utilities to build coal plants knowing federal regulations are coming, and that someday they might have to retrofit existing plants with carbon sequestration technology. She is worried utilities will pass along those costs to rate payers."[35] If they do not, either directly in customer power rates or indirectly through government subsidies, free carbon certificates or exemptions, I am not sure who she expects will pick up that cost. Certainly not the utility.

But the question is a fair one. Shouldn't the corporations, governments and nations that have financially benefited from the burning of cheap fossil fuels be responsible for the cost of cleaning up the present and their future environmental damages inflicted by those practices? This argument is put in sharp relief in the article, Carbon capture Canada's best hope to meet Kyoto targets. "But an excellent case can be made that Alberta should pick up the lion's share of the tab to create this tidbit of technology. After all, Wild Rose Country is in danger of growing out of sync economically with other provinces, developing a fatcat reputation as it continues to be the prime beneficiary of Canada's oil industry as well as the largest contributor among provinces to the greenhouse gas emissions problem."[34] And the article, Carbon capture faces cost challenge, adds this. ""Just for pure sequestration, the value is derived from not having CO2 in the atmosphere," Charles Szmulo, with Enbridge Inc. says. "That doesn't pay revenue, it's more of an avoided societal cost. The question is who's going to pay for that societal cost."[26] The inference in that statement is that it certainly will not be the polluter. Some take their skepticism a little further, as suggested in Banks Get Smarter On Cleaner Coal. "And given that the technology to capture and store carbon from coal plants isn’t expected to be viable for at least a decade, anything built between now and then will likely only come with the promise of carbon capture technologies, not the real thing. If you’re a skeptic, like climate scientist James Hansen, then you doubt that utilities are planning on implementing carbon capture technology, even when it becomes available."[33]

Our present giddy enthusiasm for carbon capture as a means of mitigating greenhouse gas build-up in the atmosphere runs, unfortunately, the distinct risk of achieving quite the opposite. Carbon dioxide is not the only atmospheric toxin and greenhouse gas going up the smokestack of our factories and power plants. There is sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, and a host of other toxins, as well as the particulate matter in the smoke itself. With the increased parasitic energy demand on emission sources equipped with carbon capture technology (and this without even allowing for the reduced energy intensity of the poorer grades of brown coal that will have to be used when the higher grade coals are gone in the next few years) we may reduce the CO2 being released into the earth's atmosphere but will significantly increase the emissions of these other toxins and greenhouse gases.

We may reduce CO2 levels but increase the incidence of particulate matter (e.g. smoke, dust and ash) in the atmosphere that is responsible for the global dimming that has arguably neutralized the global warming impact being brought on by the increased greenhouse gases. Rather than balance the earth's temperature by reducing our human-generated greenhouse gases we may end up causing a precipitous drop in the average global temperature with the serious potential of pushing us into another ice age.

We have an unfortunate tendency of developing tunnel-vision when we are looking for solutions to problems, even those of our own making. We like to put all our eggs in one basket, our faith in that one grand solution. This is based on an ardent belief that what "small" problems are generated by the solution can, in turn, be solved by the application of yet more technology. But what is the solution when the technology itself is the problem?
=============================================
1) Climate change and the purpose of growth
2) Earlier start for clean coal power
3) Energy at the crossroads: Carbon sequestration is a GM solution; we need a Honda solution
4) The European emission trading scheme: lessons for Ontario
5) New coal fired power station gets go ahead
6) Earth2Tech Maps: Coal Power Plant Deathwatch
7) FAQ: Carbon Capture & Sequestration
8) Carbon Trading: The carbon offset market is set to take off. But could U.S. businesses end up buying a lot of hot air?
9) Carbon sequestration rocks! Literally. We try to capture the debate on putting carbon where it won't hurt anything
10) The wind, the sun-and the atom
11) Climate scientist criticizes coal-fired power plant plans
12) Carbon tax no cure for climate change
13) Where Do The Candidates Stand On Energy Sources?
14) Scientists Protest Geoengineering to Capture CO2
15) Wise supervisors vote unanimous support for power plant
16) Big Coal's Dirty Plans for Our Energy Future
17) There is a silver-bullet solution to global warming
18) Europe's CO2 Capture Conundrum
19) Discover The Future Of Carbon Capture And Storage
20) Climate fraud, carbon profits
21) Masdar and Hydrogen Energy plan clean energy plant in Abu Dhabi
22) Baking Soda: Removes stains, odors, and combats Global Warming
23) Aker to invest in pioneering carbon capture facility
24) Greenpeace condemns Alberta climate change plan
25) Brussels' CO2 permits expected to cost Drax its independence
26) Carbon capture faces cost challenge
27) Climate Neros fiddle while Rome burns
28) Sen. Coleman testifies before Senate Committee about carbon dioxide capture and transport
29) Will Canada Save Clean Coal?
30) Clean Coal?
31) Natural Systems Solutions to Global Warming
32) Clean coal: FutureGen goes on the rocks
33) Banks Get Smarter On Cleaner Coal
34) Carbon capture Canada's best hope to meet Kyoto targets
35) Banks won't slow plans for coal plant
36) Carbon Capture Strategy Could Lead To Emission-free Cars

CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration) and Peak Oil

One cannot realistically study the issue of peak oil without also dealing with the question of peaking of other fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal. The peaking and/or depletion of one will seriously affect the others as they are leaned on as substitutes. But one also cannot deal with the issue of peak oil, peak energy and fossil fuel usage in general without also fully understanding and taking into account the other serious and highly related issue on the global horizon; global warming and climate change. It is, in fact, our past tendencies to focus on energy without consideration of environmental implications that have led us to this point in human history where both are simultaneously manifesting themselves as serious global problems.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2), the primary Greenhouse Gas (by volume) that causes global warming, is the chief bi-product from the burning of fossil fuels. But it is, by no means, the only source of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Nor is it, by itself, a pollutant. Global warming is caused not by the simple presence of CO2 in the atmosphere but by the level of concentration of CO2. The greater the volume of CO2 present the greater the impact on raising earth's temperature. In fact a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere is required to maintain earth's temperature in a range suitable for the support of life. Without our atmosphere and the heat-trapping effects of atmospheric CO2 earth would be a cold, inhospitable planet incapable of supporting life, just as Mars appears to be today. So although the current upsurge in global warming is partly caused by man and his burning of fossil fuels, the aim in addressing and correcting this is not to eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere but to bring the levels of atmospheric CO2 back to where they naturally should be and maintain them in the range required by life on earth.

Our abuses of our planet and its environment and atmosphere have left us with little option but to maintain our assumed role of custodian. We can not endanger that environment and the lifeforms of this planet that depend on it, as we have already done, and stand back and expect the environment to correct itself. This planet's natural checks and balances have evolved, just like living organisms do, over long, slow geological time. Man is an aggressive, abusive, gregarious species that changes the environment not in slow geologic time but in the rapid-fire, staccato pace of our technological innovation and development. Nature simply has no way to keep up with the pace we have set. Like the tortoise, it will win in the end. But that end is a long way off and calamitous changes lie between now and that finish line.

The simple truth is we must stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the levels we have since the onset of the industrial revolution some two hundred and fifty years ago. Since the greatest volumes of those anthropogenic CO2 gases derive from our burning of fossil fuels it is in that area that we must make changes. But that presents us with a huge problem. Our human society is founded on the burning of fossil fuels. The global economy is driven by fossil fuels. Without them that global economy and global human society, as they are currently constituted, would simply fall apart. Despite the belief by purists, which I am often accused of being, that that is exactly what should happen, the simple reality is it will not. There is simply too much at stake for our leaders to allow the system to fail by pulling the plug.

What, then, are the alternatives? How do we carry on our society as it is and still reduce the amount of CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere? Most of those in power and the cornucopian advisers, economists and technocrats to whom they listen, seem intent on putting their eggs in the CCS basket (Carbon Capture and Sequestration). For those unfamiliar with CCS, it "refers to the provision of long-term storage of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere, underground, or the oceans so that the buildup of carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas) concentration in the atmosphere will reduce or slow."[3] The most frequently discussed and proposed method is the injection of CO2 extracted from concentrated exhaust from things like power plants into old abandoned oil wells, gas wells, mines and similar structures. Other proposals, looking for an economic return from the sequestration, involve increasing the injection of CO2 into active oil wells, for example, to increase well head pressure and improve oil extraction.

Carbon sequestration, after all, is quite simple. Nature does it all the time. Plants breathe in CO2 and breathe out oxygen, "sequestering" the carbon by using it in building new plant matter. The oceans act as a natural carbon sink by absorbing huge volumes of CO2 into seawater. But why leave it to nature to do for free when we can develop and use expensive new technology to do it ourselves? After all, the more money we put into that technology the more it beefs up the GDP and benefits the economy. As long as human society is driven by money and economics that is the point of view that will prevail. But hugely expensive carbon capture programs get quietly cancelled, stalled or put on the back burner [1, 8, 9, 10, 17, 19] just as quickly as they get loudly announced and proclaimed [4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18]. In some cases the cancellation of a program happens just a few short weeks after it was announced, most often without any carbon having been sequestered at all.

A far more serious and potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is Methane, which is about twenty times as powerful as a greenhouse gas. Methane, like CO2, naturally occurs in the biosphere and the levels at which it normally occurs are not a problem. In fact, like CO2, atmospheric Methane is an important part of maintaining earth's temperature in the range required by living organisms. But human activities have dramatically increased the concentration of Methane in the earth's atmosphere and threaten to seriously and dangerously increase that concentration. Vast amounts of Methane have been sequestered by nature in swamps, in Arctic permafrost and, most importantly, as Methane Hydrates trapped in sediment at the bottom of the oceans and seas and in Arctic permafrost.

Getting those who are responsible for national energy needs to think of both energy production and climate change at the same time, however, seems to have great potential for creating problems as big as it solves. Methane you see, unlike CO2, can be used as a fuel (technically it is natural gas) and, therefore, is being looked at extensively, particularly Methane Hydrates, as a possible alternative in the face of declining fossil fuel reserves. There is several times as much usable Methane in the world, most in the form of Methane Hydrates, than all of the fossil fuels combined. The world's two most populous countries with a combined population of nearly three billion, India and China, seem intent on not waiting that long to capitalize on this energy source. They are looking seriously at using vast reserves of Methane Hydrates off their coasts as an alternative now as a "solution" to their high volume of CO2 generation from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels[20]. This makes as much sense as heating your house by burning the lumber with which it was built. Methane Hydrates are very unstable constructs that are quickly dissipated into the atmosphere at normal air temperature and pressure (see my December 2006 article "Methane hydrates: the next great energy source?" in my blog at http://oilbeseeingyou.blogspot.com/2006/12/methane-hydrates-next-great-energy.html ). Accidentally releasing into the atmosphere during extraction an amount of Methane more than five percent the volume of the CO2 they are currently generating will, in fact, result in a greater impact on global warming than their current CO2 releases.

Governments the world over, including the U.S. federal government, are making serious research money available for research, testing and development of serious carbon sequestration projects. And as is always the case when a handful of government money is thrown into the trough, organizations are lining up to get at it. But it seems they are all doing so with the hope and assumption that they can make money out of it beyond taxpayer money to fund the research. The only viable CCS projects seem to be those involving high-volume sources lik3e power plants and geosequestration into old wells and mines. The hard reality is, and often the reason that projects so enthusiastically announced are so quietly and quickly cancelled, is that the high volume sources and the geological formations into which the CO2 can be sequestered often do not occur in the same location. To have to move the CO2, in either gaseous or liquid form, over long distances by pipeline in order to sequester it becomes prohibitively expensive.

Most serious projects that have not yet been cancelled are looking at projected dates at least one to two decades out before completion of a fully functional CCS infrastructure. By that time oil and other fossil fuels will be into serious decline and the generation of anthropogenic CO2 may well be in decline by that time simply because there is not enough fuel left to burn to keep it on the increase. That will not, of course, solve the global warming problem as the impact on global warming from the CO2 already in the atmosphere will still take decades to reach its maximum. CCS still has the potential, therefore, to be one of the biggest White Elephants our technological society has yet produced. Or is that White Elephant grey from industrial pollution?
------------------
Sources and further reading;
1) Oil giants abandon plans for ‘uneconomic’ green power plant
2) Geologic Sequestration Research
3) Carbon Sequestration
4) Scientists deepen confidence in technique to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
5) Carbon capture and storage
6) Carbon Capture and Storage
7) Piping carbon back into the ground
8) Norway sticks with CCS gas power plant plan -PM
9) What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration?
10) A cautionary tale of carbon capture
11) Carbon Capture Research
12) Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
13) Carbon capture and sequestration project set for large-scale test
14) Carbon Capture Moves Ahead
15) Million Tons of CO2 Will Be Injected Under Illinois
16) Gov Blagojevich Invites President to Visit Mattoon, Site of FutureGen Project - December 21
17) Futuregen's Plan to Bring CCS to Illinois in Trouble?
18) Navajo Times: "Desert Rock a needed project for Navajo Nation" (Dec 22 2007)
19) Energy Northwest ditches project to bury emissions
20) China and India Exploit Icy Energy Reserves

Global Dimming

The Unintended Consequences of Addressing Global Atmospheric Pollution

Global Dimming is the reduction of sunlight striking the earth's surface as a result of particulate matter in the earth's atmosphere. "Particulate matter may be generated by natural processes (e.g., pollen, bacteria, viruses, fungi, mold, yeast, salt spray, soil from erosion)," suggests a paper titled Particulate Matter TSP and PM-10 in Minnesota, "or through human activities, including diesel trucks[all forms of fossil-fuel transport], power plants, wood stoves[and oil, NG, and coal stoves] and industrial processes." It is also affected by chemtrails, contrails and aerosols such as CFCs.[2]

Particulates are differentiated from atmospheric gases such as carbon-dioxide, sulfur-dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. It is, in fact, these two different categories of atmospheric pollutants with their opposite effects that I prefer the title Climate Change over Global Warming. It more accurately reflects the variety of effects of anthropogenic atmospheric pollution than does global warming alone.

Recent studies suggest that global dimming was responsible for a global temperature reduction or .5-2.3C per decade from the 1950s through the 1980s[2, 3]. At first glance this appears implausible in the face of the mounting volume of evidence supporting global warming. How can you have global warming and global cooling at the same time? This was the paradox for decades in the study of the impact of atmospheric pollution on global climate. Scientists wanted to treat the whole atmosphere and all the human-caused pollution together, as a single phenomenon.

Can't be done.

Earth's atmosphere is very complex, with or without considering greenhouse gasses, aerosols, particulates and other pollutants. One can no more understand it without understanding all of the constituents than one can understand the oceans without understand what they are composed of. To try to understand the impact of atmospheric pollution on global climate by only studying greenhouse gasses ultimately leads to an incomplete and inaccurate picture.

Atmospheric pollutants fall into a number of distinct categories, each with its own impact on global climate. There are, of course, the greenhouse gasses (natural and anthropogenic) like CO2, SO2 and methane. But there are other critical components as well; water vapour, fine particulates (natural and anthropogenic), course particulates (natural and anthropogenic), aerosols, and more. There are natural sources for many of the particulates in the atmosphere (e.g., pollen, bacteria, viruses, fungi, mold, yeast, salt spray, soil from erosion) as well as many resulting from human activity. In general the man-made fine particulates originate from our burning of fossil fuels.

The different categories of atmospheric pollutants have been the source of several major paradoxes and contradictions in climate study, such as being both a source of global warming and global cooling at the same time. Other contradictions included particulates being responsible for both a reduction in photosynthesis and an increase in photosynthesis, global dimming being responsible for increased droughts and increased cloud cover at the same time, particulates being responsible for increased cloud cover and being lower during the rainy season, and more. The answers, of course, depend on what type of particulates you are studying, where, when and how you are studying them.

Fine particulates, such as those generated from burning fossil fuels (but also containing a number of serious carcinogens), are lighter than course particulates, stay suspended in the atmosphere for much longer periods of time, occur at much higher altitudes, and travel much greater distances, often many thousand kilometers. They are less likely to settle out of the atmosphere like course particulates and more likely to form the core of rain drops and be removed from the air by precipitation. Fine particulates have been found in air and ice samples at both poles and in air samples from the mid-Pacific far from any land our any source of man-made pollution.

Fine particulates in the atmosphere cause a much greater dispersal and diffusion of sunlight. It is this that scientists now understand increases the overall level of plant photosynthesis as more diffuse light reaches the undergrowth of plants where clean, unfiltered light strikes top layers of plants and casts darker shadows on the undergrowth. This was not fully realized until the 1990s. At this time the concentration of atmospheric particulate matter was on the decline because of global efforts to alleviate atmospheric pollution. While it was expected this would result in an increase in plant photosynthesis it actually resulted in a decrease. It had been believed, up until that point, that higher levels of particulate matter in the atmosphere reduced overall photosynthesis. It does, but this is a result of only the fine particulates. Since course particulates, which cause light diffusion, settle out of the atmosphere more quickly than fine particulates, as the impact of the efforts to reduce global atmospheric pollution began to be felt, it was the course particulates that were reduced first. The greater level of sunlight striking the earth's surface by reducing those course particulates, because the higher levels of diffusion dropped because only the fine particulates were still present, resulted in an overall reduction of photosynthesis as the visible pollution decreased.[2] At the same time the much hoped-for reduction in pollution-induced illness and disease was disappointing.[1] Most of the atmospheric carcinogens and breathable particulates in the atmosphere are fine particulates which persist in the atmosphere for much longer periods than the visible course particulates. Even now, after over a decade of global efforts to reduce visible pollution, major segments of pollution-induced illnesses such as childhood asthma and other respiratory ailments are still on the increase.

The results of the various studies that have finally revealed the full interrelationships between atmospheric pollution, global warming and global dimming have highlighted some truly alarming insights into the impact on agriculture, our ability to produce food, the quality of the food we produce and the overall carrying capacity of the earth both now and in the near-term future on the other side of peak oil and the peak in the other fossil fuels.

1. The impact of global dimming on reducing global temperatures from 1950-1990 softened the impact of global warming during that period. The escalation of global warming as we have tackled visible pollution since 1990, rather than an expected decrease in global warming, indicates that anthropogenic global warming is much greater than studies previously suggested. The introduction of particulates into many of the advanced climate models is validating this.

2. While global dimming increased the overall level of photosynthesis, the greater plant growth resulting was accompanied by a general reduction in plant nutritional value as natural soil fertility is in decline throughout the world.

3. While the arguably beneficial effects of global dimming disappear the full impact of global warming will be on the rise. Growing zones will shift toward the poles with global warming meaning that the means of production will shift increasingly away from the poorest and most densely populated equatorial regions of the planet.

4. The intensity of tropical storms will no longer be neutralized by global dimming but will increase due to accelerated global warming while the water vapour content of the atmosphere which feeds the tropical storms remains high because of the slow removal of fine particulates, which increase cloud formation, from the atmosphere.

5. The increasing levels of soil toxicity that will result from the eventual settling out of the atmosphere of the fine particulates will further degrade the food-producing capability of much of our agricultural soils.

6. The long-term retention in the atmosphere of a still-increasing level of fine particulates still leave us at risk that there may be an interruption of the seasonal shift of the Asian monsoon belt from the tropics to the northern latitude sub-tropics, putting a third of the world's population in China and the rest of Asia at risk from multi-year droughts similar to those that killed hundreds of thousands in Ethiopia and the rest of East Africa during the 1970s and '80s.

7. As the pace of global warming accelerates with the overall reduction of global dimming, the increased atmospheric vapour absorption and retention from the warming and cloud formation from the fine particulates will mean an overall increase in drought levels in the mid latitudes and an overall increase in clouds, precipitation and flooding in the temperate latitudes, most notably in Europe and North America. Both of these will have devastating impacts on agricultural production.

------------------------------------

References
1) Particulate Matter TSP and PM-10 in Minnesota
2) Global Dimming
3) Goodbye sunshine

Global Dimming, Global Warming & Peak Oil

Okay. Hands up all of those who have even heard of Global Dimming. You'd be forgiven if you hadn't. After all, it hasn't exactly been the bread and butter of the morning newspaper or the evening TV newscast. The majority of those, in fact, in the Peak Oil movement and a good share of those in the Global Warming movement haven't yet heard of it either. If you are not yet aware of it I suspect it will distress you to hear that it may be more important and more serious and more complicated than either Peak Oil or Global Warming, and is intricately bound to both.

The Global Dimming phenomenon is not new to those like Stanhill and Cohen or Farquhar and Roderick(2,3) who have been studying it for over a decade. It is only in the past three or four years, however, that it has been understood and accepted by a significant portion of the climate science community. Despite that it still seems to have not made it into the 2007 IPCC report that has raised such a clamour in recent weeks, a shortcoming that will hopefully be corrected in the next report.


What is Global Dimming? Briefly, Global Dimming is the reduction of sunlight striking the planet's surface from a combination of factors such as particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere from pollution such as soot, ash, sulfur
emissions, volcanic eruptions, CFCs, chemtrails, contrails, and from increased cloud formation and cloud density, also at least partially a result of atmospheric pollution. Atmospheric pollution increases the density of clouds by causing greater water droplet formation around microscopic specks of pollution.(1, 2, 4) That all means that a greater amount of the sunlight striking the earth is being reflected back into space, reducing the amount striking the earth's surface.


Okay. So what? That can't be all bad. Can it?

That depends, of course, on your perspective. Scientists now understand that this has had two effects on global warming, one predictable and one quite surprising. Understandably the decrease in sunlight striking the earth's surface has had a significant neutralizing effect on the potential global temperature increase caused by anthropogenic Global Warming. It may, in fact, be responsible for slowing that temperature increase to a fifth or a tenth what it would have been without Global Dimming. This has raised doubts and concerns about efforts throughout the world to reduce visible atmospheric pollutants. "We're going to be in a situation, unless we act, where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up. That means we'll get reduced cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers.(2) Climate experts are beginning to believe that we could be facing as much as a 10C rise in global temperature by 2100.

The surprising finding was to do with plant photosynthesis. It had long been believed that a reduction in sunlight would decrease the amount of plant photosynthesis. It is now understood that quite the opposite is true. The amount of photosynthesis actually increases. It is thought this is a function of the sunlight being more diffuse due to the same conditions causing the global dimming. The more diffuse light reaches more of the plants below the forest canopy increasing their photosynthesis while having only a small negative impact on the photosynthesis in those plants normally exposed to the sunlight. This greater level of photosynthesis increases the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plants, thus reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, one of the primary Greenhouse Gases responsible for Global Warming.

At first glance, therefore, Global Dimming appears to a blessing in disguise. It reduces two of the prime contributors to Global Warming; increased surface temperature and increased CO2. The prime contributor to anthropogenic Global Warming, however, is our burning of fossil fuels, a source of both Global Warming (in CO2 and other GHG emissions) and Global Dimming (in atmospheric particulate matter like soot, ash and smoke). But we are fast approaching peak oil, peak natural gas and even peak coal. Once we pass peak our burning of all these fossil fuels will gradually decrease on the downslope on the other side of the peak. Once that reduction begins, the short term problem is that the particulate matter in the atmosphere that causes Global Dimming will quickly begin to settle out of the atmosphere while the Greenhouse Gases like CO2 and Methane will continue to increase. These gases will also take much longer to settle out of the atmosphere than do suspended particulates.

There will also be an unusual side effect which will be important from a perspective of global carrying capacity. As the concentration of suspended particulates reduces and the effects on global cooling diminish, the enhanced levels of photosynthesis will reduce as well. This will reduce the amount of CO2 uptake by plants, meaning it will take longer for earth to cleanse the atmosphere of anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases. It also, unfortunately, means that the level of plant photosynthesis will be declining at the same time as our ability to produce and afford petrochemical agricultural additives like artificial fertilizers and pesticides will be on the decline. With the wholesale destruction of natural soil fertility throughout the planet over these past fifty years through the use of those petrochemicals, we will be faced with a double hit in our ability to produce enough food to support our still exponentially growing population.

There is a very good documentary produced by BBC which I strong suggest you should watch to understand the interconnections between Peak Oil, Global Warming, and Global Dimming. It is available on Google Video at;

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=39520879762623193&q=global+dimming

Global Dimming is also believed to be responsible for other important events and impacts. It is now believed that Global Dimming is responsible for blocking the seasonal shift of the Monsoon Belt from the tropics into the northern hemisphere sub-tropics. This is believed to have been responsible for the droughts in the 1970s and '80s that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Ethiopia. The fear is that if it halts the monsoons in Asia it could affect billions, half the world population. The potential impact would dwarf the loss of life in the African droughts.(2)

More on this important topic later.

--------------------------------------------------------

1) Global dimming
2) Global Dimming
3) Goodbye sunshine
4) LARGE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS HELP PLANTS ABSORB MORE CARBON DIOXIDE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE

Peak Oil And Global Warming Do Not Fit Socially Believable Disaster Profile

No explosions. No volcanoes. No earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, floods, tectonic upheaval, no buildings falling. No hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes. No cinematic special effects, pyrotechnics. No dramatic, heroic rescues. Just a long, slow, grinding, debilitating, dehumanizing, hungry slide into...... nothingness.
The combination of the social destruction of peak oil and the ecological destruction of global warming and climate change could, over this next century, kill more people than ever existed on earth prior to the last century. Together they could reduce the human population to a billion or less, force the remainder to gather together into a few narrow pockets of ecologically and climatically sustainable regions.
To be honest, we have no idea how these two devestating forces are going to play out. The greater part of the human race are urban dwellers, living in a virtual world of technology reliant on incredible amounts of continuous energy for its very survival. We have disconnected ourselves from the land, from the real natural world that sustains all life on this planet, the only world that will eventually be left to us when the energy that sustains our technological world diminishes and eventually disappears and our urban enclaves begin to crumble about us.
How do you show people a long, insidious catastrophe like that? How do you compress the next couple hundred years into a ninety-six minute movie to make it visible? What special effects can possibly show people what this future is going to be like? How can we possibly show people what it is they need to see to understand what lies ahead and which compels them to prepare in order to even be able to survive the collapse and have a chance to be part of the rebuilding.
I know this is rather apocalyptic, but that's the mood I'm in right now. It happens every once in a while.

Juggling With Eggs (follow-up on "Eggs, and the Baskets that Hold 'em")

Which of the potential global crises and disasters ahead of us does one prepare for?
That is not a frivolous question. It is not like, "Pick a card, any card." To some degree there are preparations that one can and should make that will stand you in good stead whatever crisis overcomes us first. And, to be sure, the crises ahead of us are not theoretical, not remote possibilities. All are strong probabilities. The common question concerning all of them is; When? Which one will we have to deal with first?
In order to properly evaluate the risk and imminence of the various impending crises it is necessary to evaluate the underlying, mitigating factors involved. What are the variables that will affect when any of those crises will explode upon us and how seriously they will impact global society?
There are two clear and unmistakable mitigating factors common to all of the global crises we are facing; 1) human population; 2) lifestyle and its utter dependence on global fossil fuel usage.
The risk of a global pandemic is exacerbated by our massive human population, our incursion into more and more areas of virgin wilderness exposing new disease vectors, the ease of global travel and the associate potential of quickly dispersing a pandemic to global proportions, the global overuse of antibiotics and vaccines and the resultant overall weakening of human immune systems. At the same time, our ability to quickly, and hopefully successfully, respond to a global pandemic is heavilly dependent on the global medical infrastructure that our use of cheap fossil fuels has allowed us to construct. Once peak oil is upon us and as global society is impacted by diminishing oil and other fossil fuel energy supplies both the ease with which a pandemic can spread globally and our ability to contain and control it globally begin to diminish. One of the first casualties of peak oil will be an accelerating loss of the ease of global travel. Although the risks of a global pandemic are high, therefore, that risk is itself heavilly mitigated by peak oil.
Global overpopulation and its dependence on a human-created, artificial carrying capacity, is itself the most serious problem underlying all of the potential crises ahead of us. That human population, however, and the ability to produce, process and distribute enough food to support that population, is very, very heavilly dependent on cheap oil and other fossil fuels. The green revolution that allowed our human population to explode from two to 6.75 billion people is heavilly dependent on artificual fertilizers (produced from natural gas), herbicides and pesticides produced from oil, mechanized irrigation dependent on oil-derived fuels, and a global food processing and distribution system that is critically dependent on oil-derived fuels. When the global oil goes into decline, therefore, the artificial carrying capacity that supports our current population will begin to decline at an accelerating pace.
Global warming, though it may be debated whether fossil fuel usage is the cause, is certainly seriously exacerbated by our global use of oil and other fossil fuels. If peak oil and subsequent oil decline, coupled with a global decline in natural gas, sees a rush to the use of "dirty" fossil fuels such as coal, oil shale, and peat, our human impact on global warming will, in fact, worsen.
Our global consumer lifestyle, coupled with our massive human population, is depleting this planet's finite resources at a breakneck pace. We are not only looking at near term acceleration of depletion of oil and other fossil fuel reserves but also of a host of other finite resources including a wide range of base metals, arable top-soil, underground aquifers, climate- stabilizing rain forests, potable ground water, arboreal forests, and more. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we continue to "consume" earth's finite resources those resources will run out. That's what "consume" means. If we will not alter our patterns of resource "usage" we are looking at near-term very serious resource problems, problems that simply will no longer be able to support "business as usual". That global consumerism was built on and continues to rely critically on cheap oil and other fossil fuels. There are over 300,000 man-made products in every day use that are derived from oil or oil derivatives. Look around your home and see if you can find one product for which oil, in some form, was not involved in its manufacture and distribution.
Oil is at the very heart of human society. All of the man-made or man-exacerbated global crises before us are, to a greater or lesser degree, dependent upon our use of oil and other fossil fuels. Peak oil will, as a result, have a profound impact on all of those global crises ahead of us. Oil depletion will either exacerbate them or, in some instances, oil depletion and its impact on our population and global lifestyle may be a blessing in disguise. The singlemost crisis with the greatest potential for a severe near-term impact on global human society will be peak oil. The only problem is we do not, at this stage, understand to what degree and in what way declining global oil reserves will impact the severity and timing of these other global crises.