An Overview of 2011 Climate Change: A Little Good, but Mostly Bad

I’ll start with the good news, but I must warn you there isn’t very much of it.  Here’s what we’ve got: 2011 was cooler than 2010, renewable energy has finally surpassed fossil fuel in regards to power plant investment, and… oh wait, that’s it. Unfortunately, the down sides far outweigh the good as our climate continues to spiral out of control.

So on with the bad news: even though 2011 was better than 2010, it was still the 10^th warmest year on record; even though renewable power plant investment surpassed that of fossil fuels, there is still far more fossil fuels being produced; even though the United Nations has entered into climate change discussions, no significant agreements have been reached or changes made; and even though President Obama said he would halt the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline construction until more environmental analysis, he signed legislation which used the pipeline as a bargaining chip anyway. Ouch.

The conclusion many people have drawn in the past is becoming more and more evident: everyone sees the impacts of climate change and most people realize it is a bad thing, but are unwilling to take the lead on efforts to stop it. Not just in the United States with President Obama feebly holding the reigns, but also at the worldwide level with the entire United Nations struggling to come up with any sort of agreement. Yes the Kyoto Protocol was unattainable, but at least it was something put into writing that forced many countries to break into a sprint toward the effort to slow climate change.

Individual people are also to blame though! Homeowners, building owners, private and public corporations, and even simple residential tenants without any assets could be making a huge difference if they simple gained the knowledge. Turn off lights and computers, drive your cars less, install energy management systems, purchase more efficient appliances, watch less TV, install renewables like solar or wind, etc. etc. etc. We all know the solutions; yet continue to wait on the upper echelons of society to make the big changes.

So happy New Year and I hope 2012 brings health, happiness and the inspiration of leadership to everyone… including myself.

Stratospheric Geoengineering… Huh?

In the Albedo post, I very briefly mentioned a strategy for slowing climate change via the injection of certain aerosols into the upper atmosphere in order to increase albedo (reflectivity of the Earth) and consequently lower global temperatures. The more scientific way to say all of that is Stratospheric Geoengineering, which specifically means the injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. To put it simply, the idea is to inject artificial clouds into the sky so that fewer rays from the sun reach the Earth, thus creating global dimming and slowing climate change.

While some scientists believe this promising solution could single handedly cool the planet, stop sea ice and glacial melting, and even halt sea level rise, many other scientists warn about consequences including drought, flooding, ozone depletion, grayer skies and, of course, financial improbability. As with many other proposed solutions, there are dozens of pros and dozens of cons, but determining which outweighs the other is proving very difficult.

A group of researchers at the Rutgers University released a theoretical study in 2009 entitled "The Benefits, Risks and Costs of Stratospheric Geoengineering," comparing themajor costs and benefits. They explain how the idea was originally meant to mirror the effects of volcanic eruptions, which release huge amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere and have been proven to cause small global temperature decreases. As far as financial probability goes, there is an expensive (but relatively cost effective) way to have airplanes inject the material into the stratosphere.

However, there are other gigantic negatives including proven ozone depletion which would greatly lengthen the life of the Antarctic ozone hole. Additionally, solar power productivity would decrease substantially due to decreased solar radiation. After Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, a study showed a 30-40% decrease in solar radiation in California for two years following the eruption. Since sulfate aerosols would obviously need to be injected and kept in the atmosphere constantly, even more ground would need to be made up for the decrease in solar power production.

As with many other climate change solutions, we see a negative feedback in which one solution causes the degradation of another. And because solar power prices are decreasing rapidly, now would not be the ideal time hamper productivity potentials. Perhaps scientists will find a different type of aerosol to increase albedo and decrease climate change. Until then, stratospheric geoengineering appears to be an unfavorable and unlikely solution.

The Art of Cloud Seeding

Cloud Seeding (also known as weather modification) is a strategy used to increase and/or change the type of precipitation in certain geographical areas, with goals to increase water supplies, decrease fog and hail, and augment snowfall. However, success stories using cloud seeding are somewhat limited which has caused much debate over the effectiveness of the idea.

Within one month of each other in the summer of 1946, Vincent Schaefer and Bernard Vonnegut discovered the first two methods for cloud seeding. Schaefer discovered a method using dry ice, which in general changes the amount of heat in the cloud and allows snow to fall at higher temperatures. While Vonnegut found the more popular technique using silver iodide, which alters the structure of crystals in the clouds, changing cloud vapor or hail into water or snow. Other methods using liquid propane and mixtures of salt compounds have also been used, and continue to be used depending on the type of cloud being seeded and the desired outcome.

The North American Weather Modification Council helps control cloud seeding programs throughout the Western United States and Canada. One such program encompasses a large region of the Sierra Nevada mountain range – stretching from north of Lake Tahoe all the way south past Mount Whitney – and seen great success over the past few years. Last year in particular (2010/2011 winter season) the Sierra Nevada’s saw the largest snowfall in over a decade, with levels more than 160% above normal.

Could these methods slow the effects of climate change? Probably not since cloud seeding can only be done of preexisting clouds which already have potential to produce precipitation. In other words, cloud seeding most likely would not help a region come out of drought since there are so few water-producing clouds in such a situation to begin with. Additionally, there is very little or no research to prove that cloud seeding can actually change weather patterns in the long run. Therefore, it could be a great short term solution to increase snowfall for ski resorts or decrease fog and hail for airports, but it is very unlikely to change weather patterns as a whole.

On the topic of using cloud seeding to increase albedo, the current technologies would again make a very insignificant impact. As discussed above, the current methods in use are simply meant to change temperatures and crystalline structures rather than actually increase the size and breadth of clouds. However, in a time when water supply is shrinking rapidly, cloud seeding could become vital (if it is not so already) to the sustainability of our current lifestyles.

Albedo: What is it and Why is it so Important?

Decreasing the Earth’s temperature with energy efficiency is what many companies, organizations and people are trying to do by fighting the effects of climate change. However, one way of doing this is largely ignored due to a lack of large scale solutions on the topic.  I am referring to efforts of increasing the albedo of our planet. Albedo (also known as the reflection coefficient) is the reflective power of a surface. Therefore, when Earth’s albedo is increased, the global temperature should drop (or rise at a slower rate) and consequently slow climate change.  Since capturing the energy of the sun has proven to be quite costly, perhaps it would be a good idea to reflect it instead.

Ideas including increasing cloud cover, layering huge expanses of ground with white material, placing mirrors or reflective dust into the upper atmosphere, and many others have been proposed in the past by climate change advocates. Similar to wearing black clothing on a sunny day, the goal is to decrease the heat absorbed by the Earth via lighter colored and reflective materials.

A study done by the United Nation's IPCC measured the possible financial and climate change savings for Los Angeles if the albedo was increased. The results showed that a 7.5% increase in albedo would lead to 50-60% reductions in electricity for cooling, 30+% reductions in peak loads for air-conditioners, fewer photochemical smog days with reduced health costs and as much as a 5 degree Fahrenheit drop in temperature. This could be accomplished by simply increasing the albedo of roads, roofs, footpaths, and the walls of many buildings, along with strategic planting of tress and greenery. Not only would this slow climate change, but it would probably clean up and rejuvenate many run down cities around the world.

Also according to the study, potential savings for Los Angeles are estimated to be half a billion dollars annually after such adjustments, when health cost savings are included. Although a timeline for return on investment was not mentioned, it would probably be fairly short relative to many climate change timelines proposed for the next few hundred years.

Buildings with more albedo not only use less energy for heating and cooling, but they also last longer than dark colored structures which are subjected to greater daily extremes of expansion and contraction. The same goes for roads which have historically been paved with black asphalt, but could easily be paved using lighter colored materials and face less torment from the sun’s rays. Over the next few posts, I will go into the more outlandish ideas proposed above in more detail to see which ones are actually viable to slowing future climate change.

A Novel Idea, Combining Tidal and Solar Power

 While there has been much debate on the topic of tidal energy generation, there is somewhat less debate when solar power is added to the mix. Phil Pauley, an internationally acclaimed designer from England, recently finished a design for Marine Solar Cells (MSC), which are circular, buoyant solar power cells with small tidal turbines attached underneath. According to Pauley’s research, solar power capture could increase by as much as 20% due to reflection off the water’s surface, in addition to direct sunlight.

Some people think tidal power is a relatively new idea compared to all the work being done with solar; however, documentation for the first tide mills dates back to 787 AD, according to the Ocean Energy Council. These early mills found on the English, Spanish and French coasts, turned basic waterwheels as the tide flowed in and out. Tidal power (like solar power) has the potential to grow in the future because, unlike wind, it is completely predictable in time and location. The main problem with tidal is that it does not produce large amounts of energy, which is where solar power comes in.

With the cost of solar photovoltaic cell production slowly decreasing, solar power could be the power source with the greatest potential to produce large amounts of renewable electricity. And since our oceans cover roughly 71% of the Earth’s surface – and are expected to rise even more as ice caps recede – there is no better to place to harvest the sun’s energy.

Another possible problem, which is under constant attack by researchers around the world, is the risk of corrosion (or “fouling”) due to algae and barnacle growth on the MSC. Dozens of different chemical combinations have been used and experimented with to test their potential for discouraging growth, but the main solution appears to be lining vessels with copper. Unfortunately, solving this problem will add to the cost of an already expensive technology.

For the next few weeks I’m going to continue to discuss possible solutions like these in an attempt to draw conclusions about economic and conceptual feasibility. Please feel free to make suggestions about any technologies you may have heard or are curious to know more about.