The problem  

There are two problems in reality. The simplest is air pollution by trace gasses. Here small amounts of dangerous gasses (usually acids) are released in a chemical reaction-usually combustion. These gasses have a bad impact on the environment, and must be eliminated. A good example is sulfur in coal. The sulfur in coal is oxidized into an acid by combustion inside a power plant and is washed out of the atmosphere by rain, making “acid rain”. When enough acid rain collects, it starts killing plants, trees and fish. Such a pollution problem is readily traced and is usually not controversial. Only how to get rid of the pollution is controversial. Usually a procedure can be found, but it may be expensive. This type of problem will not be addressed further here.

The more complex problem is air pollution that causes a composition change in the atmosphere. This is exemplified by the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane and its impact on earth’s average temperature. The theory and the best data indicate that if too much carbon dioxide and methane (greenhouse gasses) get into the air, they pass the visible radiation down to the earth where it is absorbed and converted to infrared radiation. The infrared radiation is absorbed by and heats the greenhouse gasses and this process changes the earth’s heat balance. Thus, the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere is raised, and so this process is called global warming.

This theory of global warming is controversial. One thing that makes this theory controversial is that all fossil fuels generate carbon dioxide when burned, and the vast majority of our energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels, so it is very difficult (and expensive) to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted. Thus there is a very strong motive to disbelieve this theory.

Another problem is that the earth has climate zones that move with average temperature, so the zone position changes as the average temperature increases. Thus at any earth position, the temperature may be increasing (due to global warming) or decreasing (due to zone position and storm movement). Critics ask which temperature should they believe. The answer, of course, is that it is the average of the temperatures in all climate zones that determines the average earth temperature. This average cannot be determined by a measurement in only one earth position and so it is controversial.

A third thing that makes this global warming controversial is the impact it may have on the earth’s livability.  It may not be possible to just wait for the effects to settle out, and the controversy to die out, and then take action. We may have to decide on an action plan now. Consider the following sequence of destructive events. If the earth is warming, several things will happen.

O The earth’s glaciers and ice caps will be reduced, and eventually disappear. Then less of the visible radiation on the earth will be reflected into space, and more will be captured. That will tend to increase the earth’s average temperature-a secondary global warming effect. Also, some of the ocean’s most productive zones are under ice, so a loss of ice may result in a loss in the ocean’s fish production.

O The melted ice will raise the mean sea level and low-lying land will be submerged. If so, some of the most important and valuable real estate in the world will be submerged. Also important, well-used aquifers near the edge of the oceans will become salty and unusable. This problem is happening now in Florida, Bangladesh and Egypt, for example.

O The climate zones will move north in the northern hemisphere (and south in the southern hemisphere), and some old fertile agriculture zones will dry up and some new zones will receive more snow. This is happening now in the US. The southwest is becoming dryer because the desert climate zone of northern Mexico is moving into the US. The northeast is getting more snow because the north Atlantic is becoming warmer. Warmer oceans evaporate more water, and feed more water onto the land in the form of snow. Some believe that there will be a net loss of productive agricultural area. Others believe there will be a net gain. Certainly there will be a net loss in production close to the equator where the seasons become less pronounced and so agriculture becomes less productive.

Most importantly, the following cycle will be reinforced.

• The oceans will warm and spread. This will kill many reefs in the ocean and cypress forests on the edge of the ocean where fish breed, with a resulting loss of fish production.
• All extremes in weather will increase in frequency and strength. Hurricanes will increase in strength, but probably not in frequency. Droughts will increase in strength and frequency. Hot spells will increase in strength and frequency. Heavy snowstorms will increase in strength and frequency.
• The jet streams will slow and cause high and low zones to enlarge and slow in their progression from west to east. This will result in increasing frequency of droughts and floods in the US, the Middle East and Asia.
• The aerosols in the earth’s atmosphere (fog, dust, ice and water particles, sulfur dioxide, etc) will change. An increase will increase the amount of visible radiation reflected by the atmosphere, and this could decrease the amount of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and thus the earth’s temperature. Most experts expect an aerosol increase, and a resultant reduction in solar absorption and temperature as a partial balance to the effect of carbon dioxide, but this effect is not expected to completely balance the warming.
• Critically, the permafrost layer in the arctic is expected to melt. This will cause the vegetation frozen in this layer to decompose and emit methane and carbon dioxide that would raise the earth’s temperature even more than that caused by mankind’s carbon dioxide emission.
• Also critical, the warming of the ocean in both arctic areas (especially in Antarctica) will reduce the strength of the ocean circulation. If the warming of the ocean is sufficient, the circulation of the ocean will shut down. This shut down has a strong impact on the distribution of heat and global weather patterns, and climate extremes between the poles and the equator will increase. This also has a catastrophic impact on the ability of the oceans to produce food because the circulation produces and carries nutrients around the ocean. Instead of producing nutrients, the ocean will produce methane and hydrogen sulfide from the ocean bottom. Thus, the ocean’s normal food chain will be broken. Plankton production will be reduced, and the production of limestone (sequestered carbon dioxide) from their shells will be reduced. 

These happenings show that two competing processes will determine the earth’s temperature-those that absorb visible radiation and convert it to infrared radiation which is then absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gasses as mentioned above, and those that reflect visible radiation. Thus the concentration of greenhouse gasses is key to the heat absorption process and glaciers and aerosols are key to the reflection process. So, to warm, increase greenhouse gasses. To cool, increase glaciers, and aerosols.

Greenhouse gas concentration is determined by an equilibrium reaction between emitters and absorbers of the gasses. Primary emitters are volcanoes (carbon dioxide), grazing animals (methane), decaying vegetation (methane and carbon dioxide) and man (carbon dioxide and methane).  There are many processes that absorb carbon dioxide and aid in the formation of this equilibrium. The most important are forest growth and plankton growth with resultant wood formation and carbonate rock (limestone) formation on the ocean floor. The ocean also is a key absorber of carbon dioxide. Recently, mankind started to put large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere and the ocean, unbalancing the equilibrium and warming started.  Warming will increase until forests and oceans absorb the excess carbon dioxide as fast as it is produced, and a new (and higher) equilibrium temperature is formed.

It should be noted that this shutdown has occurred at least twice before in earth’s history

• A little more than 65 million years ago during an event called the C-T extinction. The result was a catastrophic reduction of the number of species that survived this event. More than 70% of earth’s species were lost. It should be noted, however, that a large asteroid struck the earth at the same time, so it is not clear how much of the resulting extinction is due to the shutdown of ocean circulation, and how much to the asteroid, but it is certain that shutdown caused damage to the ocean’s food chain.
• At the end of the Permian, a volcanic eruption occurred in Siberia in an area called the Siberian Traps that produced so much carbon dioxide that the ocean circulation was shut down and nearly 90% of the earth’s species were extinguished.

Clearly, we don’t want these processes to be repeated.

Mankind is overwhelming the process that maintains the carbon dioxide in balance, because the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is growing rapidly. Part of this increase is due to mankind cutting the forests, but the greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels are thought to be the most important contributor. In the future, if mankind reduces his carbon dioxide contribution enough to drop below the earth’s natural absorption capability, there will be at least two warming processes that still grow-the loss of the reflectivity of ice at the poles, and the carbon dioxide and methane production by decomposing permafrost vegetation. If the effect of these processes is above that of the natural absorption processes, the warming trend will continue without mankind’s contribution until the ice is gone, the permafrost is gone, and a new equilibrium is formed at a new and higher temperature. If this new temperature is high enough, the ocean circulation will be decreased. If it decreases enough, heat and nutrient distribution in the ocean will change dramatically. Fisheries and rainfall patterns will change as a result. Many species will disappear including some of those mankind depends on. The final temperature after the permafrost is gone will determine if ice formation in the Arctic and Antarctic is reduced enough so circulation shuts down completely. If circulation shuts down completely, many of the species we know (possibly including mankind) may not be able to survive on the earth with their current form and numbers. Once runaway warming has started, the only way to stop it is to provide a new means of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The rest of this paper is about what to do to avoid this result.

 

The Evidence

            The evidence shows the following trends.

• Some areas show a warming trend and some show cooling. A computer model is required to interpret the data because climate zones are shifting as well as warming. Generally, however, warming trends dominate as shown by the series of temperature record highs seen around the earth recently.
• The glaciers and ice caps are melting.
• The melted ice does appear to be raising the mean sea level; although this measurement is more controversial. The mean sea level appears different at different earth positions due to the effect of storms, currents, tides and the shape of the ocean bottom, so a computer model is needed to interpret the data. The result of the current measurements is that the average sea level is rising. The aquifers near the ocean are becoming saltier, also.
• The climate zones are moving north in the northern hemisphere (and south in the southern hemisphere). This results in desertification in some productive agricultural areas and increased snow and flooding in others. In the zones close to the equator, there has also been a loss of the normal rainy season-dry season cycle in some areas. Instead, the weather is dry for a long time, and then extremely wet with resulting floods. This makes it hard to use normal agriculture techniques in those areas affected.
• The oceans are warming and spreading, resulting in the death of some reefs and cypress forests.
• Hurricanes appear to be increasing in strength-consider Katrina and Sandy.
• Droughts and floods are increasing in frequency and strength-consider 2014 in the US..
• Aerosols in the earth’s atmosphere are changing, but they are hard to measure. New, more accurate satellite borne measuring devices are just coming on line.
• The permafrost is melting and decaying, especially in northern Canada and Siberia.
• The ocean circulation is weakening, but has not shut down. Remember that this is extremely important since circulation determines the weather patterns on the land adjacent to the ocean. In addition, circulation determines the distribution of heat and nutrients in the ocean and beyond, and so it determines the population and distribution of plankton and fish in the ocean. If ocean circulation shuts down, a significant species die-off might result.

Several computer programs that integrate these measurements exist and they are being tested. They show a climate-warming trend, but the earth does not appear to have reached runaway. The accuracy of these programs is not yet completely confirmed with data, but this accuracy is improving, and the trend is clear.

 

Is Action Required?

            Many still do not believe in climate warming. A counter theory has been proposed. This theory says that the warming trend that we observe is due to changes in solar radiation level and earth rotation axis wobble. Since there is nothing we can do about these causes, these critics propose that we do nothing that would upset the world economy, and wait to see what happens. This procedure could be very dangerous, as we shall see.

Suppose nothing is done, but global warming theory is correct. Then the following long-term bad effects are likely.

• The glaciers are part of the earth’s fresh water storage system that man uses extensively. If they disappear, the rivers will tend to flood in the winter and spring and dry up in the summer, which is bad for man.
• The ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic are excellent fish food producers and if they disappear, this food source for fish may disappear along with the fish they feed.
• If the mean sea level rises to its maximum, some of the most important and valuable seacoast real estate in the world will be submerged, and coastal aquifers will become salty.
• If climate zones move north (and south), significant amounts of productive agricultural land will be lost. Other agricultural land may be gained, but it will take time and money to develop it.
• If the oceans warm to the maximum, a large portion of the earth’s reefs will die, and many coastal cypress forests will be damaged. This will damage the associated fish breeding grounds. These problems will cause the reduction of an important food source for man and other animals.
• The permafrost will continue to melt and emit carbon dioxide and methane.
• The ocean circulation will continue to weaken.

            . Most of the above effects have a limited bad impact on the earth’s livability. However, two impacts of this cascade of events, the loss of reflective ice and the melting and decay of the permafrost, may cause runaway warming. This would eventually result in serious ocean circulation reduction and even shutdown causing weather change and species (especially plankton) loss. Inaction would lock in all the other bad effects and open us to many future problems that are even worse. Yet a certain amount of inaction is inevitable because of the controversy described above. We are not going to stop driving our cars and warming our homes to halt global warming.

The risk of inaction is too great to take. A solution other than conservation is required. If runaway warming is possible and something can be done to halt it, action now is absolutely imperative.

 

The Solution

            A practical and economically positive solution may be possible without damaging the global economic system. This consists of an energy generating system that can reduce carbon dioxide emission and sequester the remainder. Specifically:

O Conservation, which would consist of substituting for fossil fuel power plants:

–         Nuclear power plants where economical and safe

–         Deep thermal well power plants where economical (see AP1.2 ENERGY SCARCITY AND NEW OPTIONS-Jan, this site)

–         Ocean based wind and wave generators and solar cells to provide both base load energy and portable fuels. (see AP1.2-Jan, this site)

–         Electrical cars with solar cells to extend range.

–         Alcohol and oil from waste wood, algae and kelp for portable power plant operations such as aircraft, trains, cars and trucks.

O Sequestering the carbon dioxide, which would consist of putting the carbon dioxide in the:

–         Deep rock formations using oil wells, deep thermal wells, unminable coal seams, etc.

–         Deep oceans by freezing the carbon dioxide, wrapping in plastic and sinking it to the deep ocean floor below the thermo cline (see AP2.3 CLIMATE AND WEATHER CONTROL this site).

–         Deep oceans by increasing the growth of plankton by fertilizing the surface of the ocean with soluble iron.

–         Surface carbonates. Carbon dioxide can be reacted with available metal oxides, which then produces stable carbonates. This is being developed in Newcastle, Australia.

O It is important to note that carbon dioxide wrapped in plastic at the bottom of the ocean is a stable package and will not break down and release the carbon dioxide into the ocean. This is because the high pressure and low temperature in the bottom of the ocean keeps the carbon dioxide liquid so it will not break the plastic package. Also, the plastic is not biodegradable or photo degradable in the deep ocean environment.

An additional benefit of the carbon dioxide freezing and sequestering in the deep ocean technique is that the vessels used to harvest energy and freeze the carbon dioxide can also be used to mix the upper layers of the ocean in hurricane generation zones. This cools the surface layers and reduces the force of any hurricanes that might develop (see AP2.3 Climate and Weather Control-June, this site).

            It should be noted that sequestering the carbon dioxide in the deep ocean would make good money for the operators of the vessels that accomplish this task-an incentive to do it. Assuming the vessel charges $0.08/KWH (the average cost for electrical energy on land) for the energy required for this service, 100KW from the energy harvested from the ocean by these vessels could earn $5,760/mo freezing, wrapping, sealing and then sequestering 450 tons of carbon dioxide per month in the deep ocean (see AP1.7, AP2.3 and AP2.4). This income, along with that from energy sales from liquid fuels on the land ($3460/mo-see AP1.2), is enough to pay the expenses for the vessel, and provide a small profit. Also about 7 million of these vessels would sequester all the carbon dioxide being produced currently by our civilization, and more, so the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere could be reduced. Since the alternative to paying for this sequestration is to suffer the storm damage and ocean inundation caused by global warming, the incentive to pay at the rate of $0.08/KWH is enormous. As an example, such a system would cost $0.032/gallon out of a total cost of $4.00/gallon of gasoline-a small price to pay for freedom from global warming. Such payments are already being bartered in carbon exchanges operating in California by industries that produce carbon dioxide, so new legislation and agencies are not required. 

It should also be noted that a sequestering system for carbon dioxide would only be needed temporarily, because the same vessels that sequester carbon dioxide in the ocean can also produce “green” fuel for use on land. Such fuel can be produced from carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ocean (see AP1.2) with the electricity harvested by these vessels. The resulting fuel would not add to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when burned. These vessels would then be the carbon recyclers of the world. There is a major problem with this solution, however. Both the deep thermal well and the ocean based wind and wave generators are being developed by small companies that, under normal development procedures, would not be expected to have a large impact for 30 years, and would not be expected to start reversing the warming trend for 40 to 50 years. The ice caps and the permafrost layers are expected to melt in 15 to 25 years. Thus we may be in a state of runaway global warming before the solution can come on line. Timing and construction capability may be important, so it will be addressed below.

 

Timing and the Overall Capability

Only the ocean based wind and wave vessels (called SEMAN) have the overall capability to cover the energy need and come on line with any significant impact within twenty years. The oceans have the capability of supporting roughly 200 million SEMAN in high-energy areas (wind speed >15 knot). This number of SEMAN can sequester all of the carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuels currently and cover the energy needed to replace fossil fuel generators as time goes on (see ap2-Jan, this site). In addition, these SEMAN can be put on the ocean rapidly because the developer, (Aquater2050 LLC), is using a different development procedure and business model than is normal for an energy company. Development consists of building and testing one vessel (it is almost complete), capable of immediately making a profit. Thus, people with the funds can individually build and operate their own SEMAN using a separate contractor. Aquater2050 LLC also has an Internet site operating to aid in this task. There are charges for this aid. Part of the money received from this site is put into a fund to supply building materials and aid for those who don’t have money of their own to build a vessel.  So the unemployed and working people can also build and operate vessels (see Financing a New Civilization). Use of this two-pronged approach ensures that there will be more than one construction base operating. Thus rapid production increase is possible. Still, it is not expected that the SEMAN will completely take over the energy production of the world, but it is important to know that the Aquaters can provide what is needed.

            Nuclear plants have the required potential, but the safety issue is slowing plant construction. Eventually, however, nuclear plants will have this capability, and so will provide a significant fraction of the earth’s energy and sequestering requirement.

Deep thermal wells have the required capability, but it will take a long time to drill a significant number of wells and ramp up to a large output. It is expected that eventually, wells will provide a significant fraction of the earth’s energy requirement, and also be able to sequester carbon dioxide in the bedrock.

 

Construction Capability

Since an enormous amount of construction is required to build 200 million SEMAN, it is proper to ask if the capability exists to do this construction and if the materials are available. SEMAN construction requires much the same skills as house construction and uses much the same materials (wood, glue, steel and aluminum fittings, carpet, and fabrics). In fact, the primary material used, birch plywood, comes from birch trees common in northern Russia, Finland and northeast US. The SEMAN is in fact a home for a family of four with some extra electrical additions (primarily electric generators), so either a home or a SEMAN would have to be built for each new family as population increases. This situation contrasts with other green energy producers such as solar cells. Solar cells have a serious production limit caused by a shortage of both worker skills and refined solar cell materials, and could not ramp up into the dominant energy producer in a timely fashion. Further, solar cells are much more expensive than SEMAN, which use wind and waves, primarily. Thus no new skills or materials are required for SEMAN construction, and building 200 million SEMAN is roughly the same as building 200 million homes that would have to be built anyway except for the electrical generators. On a worldwide basis, 200 million homes over 40 years is not an impossible job.

Nuclear plants can be constructed to cover world energy requirements since they have been and are being constructed now. The only problem is satisfying each nation’s regulations, which currently takes about ten years.

Deep thermal wells can be drilled, but it will take a long time to drill a number large enough to give a significant output.

 

Conclusion

            The possibility of climate change due to carbon dioxide emission is controversial. Many are not convinced that it exists. It cannot be ignored, however. If nothing is done, there is a possibility that it will seriously damage the earth’s ability to support life due to runaway global warming and slowdown of ocean circulation caused by the thawing and decay of permafrost vegetation, and the loss of the reflective ice caps.

There are steps that can be taken, however, that have a high probability of success, and will provide green energy and jobs for the coming generation (see AP1.3A, B and C). These steps are as follows.

• Nuclear plant construction should be supported wherever safety can be achieved as a replacement for fossil fuel plants.
• Deep thermal well generator development and construction should also be supported as a replacement for fixed fossil fuel plants for base electrical load.
• Finally, and most important, ocean based wind and wave generator development should be supported wherever possible as a replacement for the use of fossil fuels. These generators can achieve both the low cost (~$0.032/gal of gasoline as an example), the timely entry into the market, the ability to sequester current and previously emitted carbon dioxide, as well as the generation capacity necessary to replace fossil fuels and thus avoid runaway global warming. In addition, they will supply new jobs. . Note that if the number of people that opt for life on the SEMAN is too low to generate the green energy needed, unmanned, automated SEMAN can be developed.

            The technology and the progress in the construction of the prototype vessel that can be used to harvest energy and sequester carbon dioxide is described in detail on this site (see AP1.9, 1.10 and 1.11).

 

Note

1. The prototype SEMAN is about 90% complete. To see progress on the prototype, click on “SEMAN Prototype” on the home page of this site.
2. To donate to help complete this prototype, click “Add To Cart” on the home page.