Climate change - Desert Energy Project

01.09.2010: Hydrogen technology is a response to climate change [1]
Climate change is primarily caused by increasing greenhouse emission caused by fossil fuel.
Geoengineering are ideas tracking back more than fity years, however an article in Science 2002 from Hoffert, Caldeira and colleagues turned them famous over night.

Geoengineering suggests building sunshades in space, or producing shadow on earth, spraying sea water into the air to produce clouds, or even spread sulphur dioxide in the upper atmosphere. Another suggestion is to remove carbon dioxide from the air. All of these suggestions are noit feasible, extremely costly and dangerous.

Hoffert and colleagues stress that the most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions is to develop revolutionary changes in the technology of energy production, distribution, storage, and conversion.
Unfortunatly the USA, China, Europe and some developing countries do not back such changes because of their addiction to the exploitation of coal, oil and nuclear resources. Geoingeneering together with nuclear energy is therefore often cited to divert the public from the dead end scenario we are heading to.

The run to nuclear power plants [2]
Nuclear energy produces irradiating waste which will will be here to stay for million of years for which there are no safe repositories. Hoffert and colleagues also point to the problem of fuel. They say warn of a nuclear scaleup without knowing wether there is enough fuel for investments of plants which have 30 to 40 years of lifetime.

Urgent transition to CO2 emission-free energy technologies which need to be developed now [3]
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change calls for a massive transition to CO2 emission-free energy technologies which need to be developed now.

Hydrogen production instead of mourning about climate catastrophes [2]
Hofert and colleagues stresses that contribution to climate stabilization include efficiency improvements, hydrogen production, storage and transport, superconducting global electric grids. However, they also argue that hydrogen produced by water electrolysis using renewable energy is not yet cost effective. This assumption is not valid any more. The price of solar and wind powered electricity has fallen much below of coal and nuclear power stations. Anyhow, these technologies will lead the energy business in very short time. It is not a matter of what suits best to some companies, it is just that humanity will be forced to accept the move to hydrogen.

Only a wise government with sight to the future of post-carbon can lead to a change of the destructive way nature is being handled . Such a government has the possibility to attain the leadership of the coming economy of clean electricity and clean fuel, primarily reserved for the Arabian countries which are positioned in the sun belt.

Immediate action instead of political despair [4]
A paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencies U S A by Van Vuuren and colleagues say that adaptation measures will be needed in addition to mitigation to reduce the impact of the residual warming. USA, however, is the second greenhouse emitter but still sticks to its destructive coal and nuclear energy politics. The country disregards warnings of its own scientists for the sake of sheep energy.

Solar energy using photovoltaic can be implemented immediately and be scaled up to global dimensions within few years. This could follow the UN call for urgency to change to a carbon-free energy economy, The Arabian countries should establish a consortium to start the export bisuness of electricity and hydrogen to Europe and to the Asian continent.

German military report warns that Peak Oil may destabilise military and economical structures [5]
German military report is deeply concerned with slowing down of crude oil production.
The report says that crude oil production has reached the “Peak Oil” point. Production will decline from now on.
The report from leading author lieutenant-colonel Thomas Will warns from resulting of a global shift of balance of power, new dependency, a loss of importance of western industrial nations, a total fail of the markets, heavy political and economic crises. The German report says that politics will spend more attention to oil countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Download Report pdf in German

Similar strategies are being developed by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) facing public supplies crises due to the Peak Oil, according to an article in The Guardian. [6]
Conflicts with Arctic deep sea oil exploration by entangled nations are possible. Recently Greenland Cairn Energy started to drill for oil and natural gas in 4 000 metres depth, in the Baffin Bay 200 kilometres from the shore of Greenland. Greenpeace occupied the Stena Don rig fearing its activity might endanger traditional fishing grounds of the Inuit population. [7]

[1] ‘Geo-engineering’ may help to tackle climate change.The National 30.08.2010
http://thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100830/BUSINESS/708309960/1058/business&template=columnists

[2] Hoffert MI, Caldeira K, Benford G, Criswell DR, Green C, Herzog H, Jain AK, Kheshgi HS, Lackner KS, Lewis JS, Lightfoot HD, Manheimer W, Mankins JC, Mauel ME, Perkins LJ, Schlesinger ME, Volk T, Wigley TM: Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: energy for a greenhouse planet. Science 1 Nov. 2002. Vol 298. no 5595.pp.981-987. Doi: 10.1126/science.1072357
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5595/981

[3]  Caldeira K, Jain AK, Hoffert MI: Climate sensitivity uncertainty and the need for energy without CO2 emission. Science. 2003 Mar 28;299(5615):2052-4.. DOI: 10.1126/science.1078938
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5615/2052

[4] Van Vuuren DP, Meinshausen M, Plattner GK, Joos F, Strassmann KM, Smith SJ, Wigley TM, Raper SC, Riahi K, de la Chesnaye F, den Elzen MG, Fujino J, Jiang K, Nakicenovic N, Paltsev S, Reilly JM: Temperature increase of 21st century mitigation scenarios. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Oct 7;105(40):15258-62. Epub 2008 Oct 6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0711129105.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562414/

[5] Streitkräfte, Fähigkeiten und Technologien im 21. Jahrhundert - Umweltdimensionen von Sicherheit – Peak Oil sicherheitspolitische Implikationen
http://peak-oil.com/download/Peak%20Oil.%20Sicherheitspolitische%20Implikationen%20knapper%20Ressourcen%2011082010.pdf

[6] Peak oil alarm revealed by secret official talks
Behind government dismissals of 'alarmist' fears there is growing concern over critical future energy supplies. The Guardian.com.UK. 22.08.2010.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/22/peak-oil-department-energy-climate-change

[7] Activists at Cairn Energy oil rig Arctic Greenpeace. Org. 31.08.2010
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/photos/Activists-at-Cairn-Energy-Oil-Rig-Arctic/

17.03.2010: Emission and efficiency effect of ethanol-gasoline blends on small engines [1]
Fuel energy efficiency and pollution analysis of different ratios of ethanol-gasoline blended fuels (E3, E6, and E9) under different loadings were compared with gasoline and Diesel. Lin, Chang and Hsieh 2010 found ethanol blends to have better thermal efficiency and emitted less polutants (particulate matter, the carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons (HCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The authors stress that the E6 fuel gave the best results of the exhaust emissions, and the E9 fuel gave the best results of the particle emissions and engine performance, when compared with not ethanol-blended gasoline or diesel.

Emission effect of ethanol-gasoline blends on motocycles [2]
Pollutant emission of ethanol-gasoline blended fuels (3, 10, 15, and 20% v/v) in a four-stroke motorcycle was compared with commercial gasoline by Yao, Tsai and Chiang 2009. The authors report that the 15% ethanol blend had the highest emission reductions, however, total hydrocarbons (THCs) were not reduced relative gasoline.

[1] Lin WY, Chang YY, Hsieh YR: Effect of ethanol-gasoline blends on small engine generator energy efficiency and exhaust emission. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2010 Feb;60(2):142-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20222526

[2] Yao YC, Tsai JH, Chiang HL: Effects of ethanol-blended gasoline on air pollutant emissions from motorcycle. Sci Total Environ. 2009 Sep 15;407(19):5257-62. Epub 2009 Jul 12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19595441

14.03.2010: Using food for war [1]
The US Army has pursued “zero footprint” base camps, and the Air Force is looking into a variety of alternative propellants that could be turned into jet fuel. Now the Navy is going green, signing a memorandum of understanding with the USDA to demo a Green Strike Group of biofuel and nuclear powered vessels by 2012.

By 2020, the Department of the Navy also plans to halve the fossil fuel consumption entirely, across
the entire force. That means ships, aircraft, tanks, shore vehicles and naval bases will all be switching to a half alternative fuel from corn and other grains, including algae.

Food for British Airways
Airlines are looking for biofuel for its engines. The British Airways presented in February 2010 its plan for the production of 72 million litres of fuel from plant wastes to be used by its aircrafts in 2014..

Burning food for 330 million people
In 2009 107 million tons of grain, mostly corn were used for production on fuel. It will be increased fivefold till 2017. Lester Brown, director of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington D.C. Says the food used as fuel could have fed 330 million people for one year.

Green law in Europe demands the addition of two per cent of alcohol to gasoline, and has to rise up to 8 per cent till 2020.

Palm plantations declared as forests
The Indonesian and the Malaysian government issued a decree which declares palm plantations as forest. This enables the palmoil industry to avoid the ban of fuel from deforestation, extending the actual 8 million hectares of plantations to 18 million till 2020.

Oilpalms and sugar cane plantation use best crop land and need a triple amount of water water compared with tomato and corn. Monocultures need high input of pesticides and fertilisers.

Brazilian Ethanol impacts the Cerrado and Amazon forest, Shell takes over [2]
Brazilian sugar cane plantations are responsible for the destruction of large areas of cerrado and forest, including the Amazon. The industry will tell you no tropical deforestation occurs as a result of sugar cane plantations. Yet in September 2009 the Brazilian Government felt the need to propose new legislation that would prevent sugar cane expanding directly into the Amazon in the future. The government states, however, that “sugarcane plantations currently in progress, and also the scheduled expansions, even in the Amazonia… should not be prohibited.”

Shell is planning to make the largest ever investment in biofuels in a deal worth $12 billion. The oil company is preparing to form a joint venture with Brazilian company Cosan to produce and sell ethanol from Brazilian sugar cane. Shell will contribute about $1.625 billion and 2,740 filling stations.

Ethanol from starving Sierra Leone for European car
The Swiss company Addax Bioenergy starts a 90 million littres/y ethanol project in Sierra Leone . Half of the population is undernourished. Addax Bioenergy leases 20 000 hectares of best crop land to plant sugar cane and cassava for fuel for European cars. German investment and development company DEG will participate in this 240 million Euro project. [3]

Oil plant Jatropa
Jatropa is increasingly being planted in China, Brazil,, Myanmar, Malaysia and various African countries. Its seeds contain more than 30 per cent of non-edible oil which is used as biodiesel. These plantations displace rice fields and deprive poor peasants of their livelihood.

According to Gerbens-Leenes, Hoekstra, and van der Meer 2009 jatropa has an adverse water footprint, compared with with soybean and rapeseed which need less water to grow. The authors stress further that the production of biodiesel has a water footprint raging from 1,400 to 20,000 L of water per litre of biofuel. For the production of ethanol, sugar beet, and potato (60 and 100 m(3)/GJ) were found by the authors to need the least amount of water, followed by sugar cane (110 m(3)/GJ). [4]

Sustainability certification [5]
ISCC is an international certification system for Biomasses and Bioenergies describing the rules and procedures for certification. The ISCC certification system is supported by the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agricultre and Consumer Protection via the Agency for Renewable Resources (FNR).

NGOs are very sceptical on the value of such certifications. Just four per cent of biofuels imported from abroad are sustainably produced - the vast majority are causing deforestation and land use changes that are increasing climate changing emissions and pushing people off their land.
"Biofuels are not the answer to our energy woes - the UK should scrap its targets and must focus our attention on developing greener transport alternatives to cars, such as fast and affordable rail services and cycling and walking." [6]

The IEA calls for low-carbon economy and biomass conversion to fuel [7]
The International Energy Agency IEA, in a joint statement of 10.03.2010, together with 30 leading global companies called for action to support the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Waste of biomass may supply 4 per cent of global fuel demand, accounting for 125 billion litres of Biodiesel or 170 billion litres of ethanol per year. [8]

[1] DoD Buzz Online Defence and Acquisition Journal: Navy Launches Green Hornet. October 14. 2009.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/14/navy-launches-green-hornet/

[2] Rainforest Rescue: Say No to Shell’s Brazilian sugar cane biofuel plans. 25.02.2010.
http://www.rainforest-rescue.org/protestaktion.php?id=531

[3] Addax Bioenergy: Q and A: Addax Bioenergy sugarcane ethanol project in Makeni, Sierra Leone
http://www.addax-oryx.com/AddaxBioenergy/Addax-Bioenergy-Questions&Answers.pdf

[4] Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer TH: The water footprint of bioenergy.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 23;106(25):10219-23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19497862

[5] International Sustainability and Carbon Certification.
http://www.iscc-project.org/www.iscc-system.org/content/index_eng.html

[6] UK Renewable Fuels Agency: Year One of the Renewable Fuels Agency report on the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. 4 January 2010.
http://www.renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk/_db/_documents/year_one_of_the_rtfo_a4.pdf

[7] IEA: Chief Technology Officers Outline Concrete Action for Transition to Low-Carbon Economy.
http://www.iea.org/files/CTO_statement.pdf

[8] IEA: Biofuel Production. January 2007.
http://www.iea.org/techno/essentials2.pdf

16.07.2009: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and nuclear power will increase global warming say experts of the University of Sweden [1]   pdf Download
The The Obama /Steven Chu administration plan to use Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and nuclear power to tackle the climate change. Following the data of the Nordell and Gervet this may be a wrong decision.
According to Nordell 2003 the earth experienced thermal equilibrium over longer time-scales. Net incoming solar energy and geothermal heat flow were counterbalanced by a net heat outflow emitted to outer space until 1880.

Beginning with the industrial revolution heat dissipation from the global use of non-renewable energy sources has resulted in additional net heating. The resulting thermal pollution contributes to global warming until the global temperature has reached a level where this heat is also emitted to space. The author says that the additional heat from the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power is the main source of thermal pollution.

There are no consistent facts which back the assumption that greenhouse gases are responsible for rising temperatures, it is based only on the observation that global warming coincides with increasing emissions of carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases from about 275 ppm in 1880 to 370 ppm today. This, however does not include the fact that the heat flow from nuclear power does not depend on CO2 emission and is thus forgotten in global net heat flow.

Nordel stresses that 98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour and clouds which absorb infrared sunlight in the atmosphere and only 2% by CO2 and others.

The authors conclude that efforts to reduce the CO2 emissions do not reduce the global net heat generation. Nuclear power harms the climate at most because of the large amounts of heat generated by nuclear power production. Therefore renewable earthbound energy and solar energy should be used to avoid to disturb the energy balance of Earth.

Global energy accumulation and net heat emission [2]   Download
Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet 2009 found that heat accumulating since 1880 in air, ground, and water causes climate change. To explain this phenomena the net heat emissions on Earth must be considered.

The authors stress that global air temperature increase is an inadequate measure of global warming and suggest to use the global net energy. The heat accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to a mere 6.6% of global warming, while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31.5%), melting ice (33.4%) and sea water (28.5%).

The global use of fossil fuel and nuclear power was found to contribute to global warming. The authors recommend to reduce our reliance on burning fossil fuels and switch to renewables like wind power and solar energy are the main strategies to avoid climate change. Recommendations not to rely on carbon dioxide sequestration and nuclear energy are reiterated.

CO2 erroneously linked to global warming [3]
Matthevs and colleagues 2009 link carbon-climate response (CCR) allows CO(2)-induced global mean temperature change.
Definition of carbon-climate response (CCR)
Matthevs and colleagues define the carbon-climate response (CCR) as the ratio of temperature change to cumulative carbon emissions. They stress that CCR is approximately independent of both the atmospheric CO(2) concentration and its rate of change on these timescales.

The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions is estimated by the authors to be in the range 1.0-2.1 degrees C per trillion tonnes of carbon. The authors point out that, following the data of their study, one tonne of carbon dioxide leads to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change. They conclude further that to restrict global warming to no more than 2 degrees total carbon emissions must be restricted, from now until forever to little more than half a trillion tonnes of carbon, or about as much again which ha been emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution. [4]

Comment
Reading the study of Matthevs may lead to the erroneous assumptions that CO2 is the main cause of global warming. As explained by Nordell and Gervet 2009 [2] the CO2 concentration is only an indicator of the amount of carbon being released in the atmosphere. The so called “greenhouse gases” are responsible only for 2% of trapping heat. The huge 98% greenhouse effect comes from water vapour and clouds. Nordell says that input of non-renewable energy and nuclear energy are causing climate change. The authors calls to abandon plans on Carbon Capture and Store on non-renewable energy and avoid nuclear energy because both add external energy to the thermodynamic of the global system. Solar energy is being recommended by Nordell.


[1] Nordell, Bo: Thermal pollution causes global warming. Global and Planetary Change 38 (2003) 305– 312
http://www.ltu.se/polopoly_fs/1.5035!nordell%20gpc%20vol%2038%20issue%203-4.pdf

[2] Nordell, Bo; Gervet, Bruno: Global energy accumulation and net heat emission. Int. J. Global Warming, 2009, 1, 378-391 Global Warming is Global Energy Storage. Proceedings of the Global Conference on Global Warming-2008 (GCGW-08). 6-10 July 2008, Istanbul, Turkey. Paper No. 454
http://pure.ltu.se/ws/fbspretrieve/2090521

[3] Matthews, H.D.; Gillett, N.P.; Stott, P.A.; Zickfeld, K.: The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature. 2009 Jun 11;459(7248):829-32.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19516338

[4] Concordia University: A New Measure of Global Warming from Carbon Emissions. Media Relations. Montreal/June 10, 2009
http://mediarelations.concordia.ca/pressreleases/archives/2009/06/a_new_measure_of_global_warmin_1.php

11.01.2009: IPCC climate change prevision confirmed by European Study [1]
Zorita, Stocker and Storch 2008 using the "Monte-Carlo-Simulation“ assessed the climate data of the years between 1880 and 1990, using two statistical null-hypotheses, autoregressive and long-memory. Following the results of their statistical research the scientists concluded that the frequency of warm record years after 1990 could not be an accident influenced by an external driver.
They stress that they could not specify individual responsible factors but is in full agreement with the results of the IPCC that the increased emission of greenhouse gases is mainly responsible for the most recent global warming

[1] Zorita, Eduardo; Stocker, Thomas; von Storch, Hans: How unusual is the recent series of warm years? Geophysical Research Letters, 2008; 35 (24): L24706 DOI: 10.1029/2008GL036228
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL036228.shtml

11.01.2009: New climate report predicts a worst scenario than given by the
IPCC Report [1]
The report of the Global Carbon Project (GCP) concludes that far from slowing down, global carbon dioxide emissions are rising faster than ever. China (with 1,8 Billions tons) superseded the US (1.59 Billion Tons) as greatest emitter of greenhouse CO2 gas. Other developing countries India and Brazil are joining them.

According to the Global Carbon Project the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose from 1.8 ppm in 2006 to 2.2 ppm in 2007 and amounts now 383 ppm. The researchers of GCP stress that since 2000 the increase of CO2 emission has quadrupled compared with the foregoing decade. The emission growth rate is still higher than the worst scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC.

The report says that the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere in 2007 increased about 37 per cent compared with 1750, before of the industrial revolution. The CO2 emission in 2007 10 billion tons, whereas 8.5 billion tons came from fossil fuels. Deforestation the situation of the ocean reduced their efficiency to bind CO2 by 5 percent. [2]

[1] Planet ARK: Global Carbon
Emission Rising Rapidly. 26.09.2008
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/50370/story.htm

[2] IPCC: Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm