EMISSIONS RULES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Problem

An enormous political conflict is currently under way over auto and truck emissions and fuel economy rules and climate change requirements because the Obama administration is crafting a new set of emission and fuel economy regulations. The battle, as always, rages between the automakers and oil and coal companies (which will be called industrialists here), and the environmentalists, specifically:

• Environmentalists claim that damage due to global warming is potentially so severe both to environmental and economic systems that we must do everything we can to halt it, and cost should be only a secondary consideration.  If it can be done, it should be done. Specifically, emission rules and fuel economy should be improved dramatically to reduce carbon dioxide emission.
• Industrialists claim there is only so much that can be done to reduce oil consumption and pollution, and each step in this process increases complexity and reduces reliability of the engines produced and therefore it increases the cost of operation for families and industry. They note also that tighter emission rules and fuel economy requirements also reduce sales and profit margins. Finally, the theory of global warming has not been proved, and may not even be true.

Both arguments appear to have merit and so it seems to require the Wisdom of Solomon to decide the correct emission rules and fuel economy requirements. However, a closer look at the problem shows that both arguments are fundamentally flawed. Let us look closer.

 

The Reality

What we will eventually find is that the methods advocated by each side will lead to the same bad result, but the environmentalists will get us there faster. Neither method will solve the problem. Let us consider two possibilities.

 

First possibility, assume that at the very least, the theory of global warming due to greenhouse gasses as described by environmentalists correctly describes the trend in earth climatic conditions. As far as emissions from autos, trucks and electric generators are concerned, western industrial civilization is so locked into obtaining energy from fossil fuels (natural gas, oil and coal), reduction of the emission of carbon dioxide by conservation alone cannot halt the progress of global warming. We will keep pumping large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can only reduce somewhat the amount we pump. Furthermore, the amount we have already pumped into the atmosphere is so large, that along with the amount we will have to pump in the future even with conservation, certain negative effects are almost certain to come about. Specifically:

• The glaciers and ice caps will almost completely melt in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Since the glaciers are part of the earth’s fresh water storage system, if they disappear, the rivers will tend to flood in the winter and spring and dry up in the summer. Also, the loss of the reflection by the ice will increase absorption of solar radiation and thus add to the warming trend.

• The melted ice will raise the mean sea level; and flood some islands and valuable low-lying coastal areas such as South Florida, Bangladesh and the Netherlands.
• The ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic are excellent fish food producers and if they disappear, this food source for fish, penguins and sea mammals will disappear.
• The climate zones will move north in the northern hemisphere (and south in the southern hemisphere). This will result in desertification in some productive agricultural areas and an increased precipitation in others. The net result is expected to be a temporary reduction in productive farmland and thus food production.
• The oceans will warm and some coral reefs will die and some cypress and other coastal forests at the edge of the ocean will die. Since these areas are breeding grounds for many kinds of fish, there will be a reduction in certain fish populations.
• Hurricanes will increase in strength and so cause more damage.
• The oceans will gradually acidify from the increased carbon dioxide with a possible negative impact on fish populations.
• The aerosol content of the atmosphere will change with a resultant change in the earth’s solar absorption and thus of the warming trend.

• The permafrost will melt and decay in northern Canada and Siberia producing methane and carbon dioxide and thus increase the warming trend.

All of the above effects of global warming have started. The end point of the trends will not be clear until it has been reached, or until an accurate computer model that can provide quantitative predictions is available. Possible (but not certain) end point consequences are as follows:

• The warming trend may become self-sustaining due to reduction of glacier reflection and permafrost decay into carbon dioxide and methane.
• A shutdown of ocean circulation in the North Atlantic may result in an interruption of the Gulf stream and so a dramatic cooling of Europe and Northeast US even though the rest of the world continues to warm.
• Enough change in the weather and temperature patterns around productive farmlands may occur that the earth’s population will be unsupportable without a change in the way we produce food.

In order to reduce these consequences to a minimum, we will conserve as much as we can, develop green, sustainable synthetic fuels (called green synfuels here), and gradually stop using fossil fuels. Then green synfuels will take over the market. However, this procedure takes time and so, if the environmentalists are right, the damage is likely to have been done by the time this happens, and we will have to live with the consequences. If any of the last three consequences occur, the damage may be irreversible and the consequences terrible, so this procedure is unacceptable.

 

Second possibility, assume that the theory of global warming due to greenhouse gasses produced by man is not correct. Thus it will be assumed that nothing man can do will change the negative effects that are listed above, so we will continue to use oil, natural gas and coal in any way we choose as long as they last with the following consequences:

• Oil and gas supplies are nearing their production peaks and the demand is still increasing, so cost of these fossil fuels will increase until they are too expensive for current uses. Then the use of these fuels will gradually tail off.
• Coal could still be used for electric generation because it is not near it’s peak and it, as well as oil shale, could also be converted into fossil fuel based synthetic liquid and gaseous fuels (synfuels). These synfuels are more expensive than oil and gas, so the price of gas, oil and electricity would go up in order to cover the cost of these synthetic fuels.
• Green, sustainable synthetic fuels (green synfuels) will still be developed to replace the peaking fossil fuels because their higher cost is more competitive as the cost of peaking fossil fuels increases. This development will be slower, but eventually, the green synfuels will take that portion of the energy market that their cost allows.
• As time goes on, coal and shale will become more expensive because the easily mined supplies will become scarce and we will have to turn to more expensive supplies. Green synfuels will become cheaper because experience will teach us better production techniques, and the raw material supplies will not diminish. Then these green synfuels will take over the energy market.
• The warming trend we observe with the bad consequences noted above will continue, and since we have no control over this trend, the consequences will move on to their own end point.

Note that we end up with green synfuels taking over the market as with the environmentalist’s assumptions. If the industrialist’s methods are used, we will waste time and money getting to the point where we have replaced fossil fuels with green synfuels as the environmentalists recommend. We should have gone directly to green synfuels. It appears also that we should hope for the environmentalists to be correct,  because then we have a certain amount of control over the warming trend and can do something to lesson its negative effects.

 

It should be noted that if carbon dioxide produced by man has no impact on climate, it is unlikely that the earth will become uninhabitable because in the recent several hundred million years of history earth hasn’t become uninhabitable, and nothing else has changed. We will have to live through some extremely unpleasant decades, and the earth will then turn cool again. On the other hand, if the carbon dioxide produced by man does impact climate, serious damage to earth’s livability might result from man made carbon dioxide unless we take some action.

 

We must ask, is there something other than increasing fuel efficiency that we can do if the environmentalists are correct? Yes! We can remove the carbon dioxide and methane from the atmosphere and sequester it. Using this method, the environmentalists don’t have to work so hard for fuel economy and emission reduction. They can allow autos and trucks that have reasonable cost. The industrialists don’t have to work so hard blocking fuel economy rules because they know they will end up at the same place as the environmentalists. Finally, sequestering carbon dioxide and methane from the atmosphere has no downside risk. If the industrialists are right, there is no negative effect on our climate, and if the environmentalists are right, the climate will be adjusted correctly.

 

The only thing that is important is to find ways to remove and sequester carbon dioxide and methane from the atmosphere.

 

The Solution

The earth sequesters carbon dioxide with natural processes such as forest growth, plankton growth and absorption in the ocean, but these processes are not sufficient to sequester the carbon dioxide generated by man, as seen by the rapidly increasing levels in the atmosphere. The writer knows of four new techniques that can be used to remove and sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

 

One uses a large rotating catalytic cylinder to capture the carbon dioxide and the resulting gas is pumped deep into underlying bedrock where it is absorbed. Existing oil wells can be used, or new wells can be drilled. One important point must be considered in evaluating this method. The electrical energy required must be generated without use of fossil fuels, or the efficiency of the sequestering process is significantly reduced by the carbon dioxide produced in the process of electrical generation. A nuclear fission generator is one obvious candidate for this energy. Some studies have been proposed to determine equipment cost and mass sequestered per KWH of electrical energy used.

 

Another sequesters carbon dioxide as a by-product of generating electricity. Heat for generating the electricity is obtained from deep thermal wells that tap the interior heat of the earth. The medium for obtaining the heat is carbon dioxide rather than the usual water. In the process of pumping up heat, some of the carbon dioxide is lost in the rocks around the well. This process for sequestering carbon dioxide is obviously free from the efficiency loss of relying on energy derived from coal or oil. A prototype of this energy generator is under construction that will test its profitability and sequestering capability..

 

A third captures and freezes carbon dioxide out in the ocean and packages it in insulating plastic. Methane can also be obtained and packaged in this fashion. This package (denser than water) is dropped overboard in deep-ocean zones where it sinks to the bottom to reside there for extremely long time periods (millions of years). Even the carbon dioxide that comes from those packages that rupture or leak remains in the deep ocean for a long time because passage through the ocean thermo cline is a very slow process that requires thousands of years. The packaging material (plastic) also contains carbon and so this process sequesters even more carbonaceous material. The energy used to obtain the carbon dioxide is obtained on the ocean from wind, waves and sun, and so does not reduce the efficiency of the sequestering process. In addition, enough energy is obtained from the vessels designed to accomplish this task to make the vessel profitable when the energy is sold on the land, so the overhead of the operation can be charged to the energy sales. Furthermore, special living space and hydroponics provide housing and food for the operators of the vessel, so personnel overhead is even further reduced. A prototype of this vessel is under construction that will test its profitability as an energy generator and its sequestering efficiency. (see Aquater2050.com)

 

A fourth uses the natural process of plankton growth to sequester the carbon dioxide as calcium carbonate that then sinks to the bottom of the ocean when the plankton dies. As mentioned above, the naturally occurring plankton growth is not nearly enough to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by man. However, recent tests have shown that iron in a soluble form spread on the surface of the ocean stimulates the growth of plankton. This method can be used to greatly enhance the sequestering capabilities of the ocean. The same vessels that package frozen carbon dioxide (see the third method above) can be used to spread the soluble iron on the ocean to stimulate plankton growth. Part of the plankton can be harvested and used as fish food for aquaculture on the vessel, and more can be packaged for use by shore-based aquaculture. Here, research is required to select the proper nutrients (other than iron) and plankton types to use to maximize the yield of food and calcium carbonate.

 

Initial calculations indicate that a combination of the above sequestration methods can exceed the amount of carbon dioxide generated by man by a significant amount. The most economic and efficient method is the one using the SEMAN. Thus it is possible to stop the increase and even draw down the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. By carefully controlling the sequestration process, it would be possible to control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in such a way as to test exactly how it effects the average earth temperature. In the same way, it would be possible to regulate the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere to the most advantageous level for man and for the environmental.

 

Conclusions

We have shown that the rules and regulations on emissions and fuel economy advocated by industrialists and by environmentalists will lead to the same bad result, but the environmentalists will get us there faster. Neither set of rules will solve the problem of global warming by carbon dioxide and methane, or settle the issue of how much of the warming we are currently experiencing is caused by man’s emissions. Industrialists and environmentalists are spending too much time and money debating the rules and regulations and they are not addressing the real problem. The amount of carbon man has already put into the atmosphere plus the amount which must go into the atmosphere in the near term future because of our current heavy dependence on fossil fuels will inevitably cause serious negative effects on our environment. The only procedure that can have the proper effect is to remove and sequester carbon dioxide and methane from the atmosphere.

 

Four techniques are available to accomplish this goal at relatively small cost, namely:

• A catalytic cylinder can remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and it can then be pumped into the ground and absorbed.
• Power production by deep thermal wells sequesters carbon dioxide in the hot rocks as a by-product of power generation.
• Carbon dioxide and methane can be removed from the atmosphere, frozen, packaged and sunk into the abyssal ocean depths by vessels (called SEMAN) designed to harvest wind, wave and solar energy on the oceans.
• Plankton growth on the ocean can be stimulated by use of soluble iron, and thus sequester the calcium carbonate in their shells.

Calculations indicate that a combination of these methods can sequester somewhat more carbon than man currently pumps into the atmosphere, so the carbon dioxide and methane content of the atmosphere can be adjusted to the level most advantageous to man and the environment. The most economic and efficient method is the use of the SEMAN. (see Aquater2050.com)

 

The discussions that should be taking place now are on how best to remove and sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

 

To see what the SEMAN looks like, read descriptions of life on the sea and keep up on the progress of this project, join the Aquater club on this site (Aquater2050.com). If you just want to support this technology, donate $1.00 or more on this site (Aquater2050.com).