The Art Neuro Weblog

Controlling Greenhouse gasses
This is some stuff I had to research for my job.

Overview:
In trying to control greenhouse gasses, there are three approaches.

One is to reduce emissions. Second is to energy forms that don’t produce carbon, eg solar, nuclear, lunar. Third is to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; by pumping it underground or putting it into the sea, etc. This is sometimes referred to as ‘offsetting’ or sequestration.

Reducing emissions
The bulk of the Kyoto Protocol is aimed at controlling the amount of carbon that is released into the air through industry By using better technology Perhaps the cost of complying with the protocol could be spent in a more constructive way to solve the problem?

Reducing emissions may suit a MEDC, but it locks out LEDCs from achieving the same standard of living as people in MEDCs. The LEDC nations argue that people from their countries have the right to a living standard like those of the MEDCs.
Emissions will inevitably grow as industry and commerce spreads its wings across the globe.

Section 1. Reducing Emissions.
We could reduce emissions if we stopped making so much of the stuff, however this would become an issue of contention between MEDCs and LEDCs. Many strategies are put in place with the aim of reducing emissions.

If electricity was generated with non carbon energy, it would be wonderful. However it is difficult to store it. Batteries don’t hold much and waste energy as they are charged. The challenge is to find a portable fuel.

Electric cars, Hybrid cars
To accelerate and go up hills we need a large motor. A small motor is running steadily will be more efficient. If energy of going downhill and braking is recovered and stored as say electricity then less carbon based fuel will be needed.

In the late 1990s, Toyota brought to the market a hybrid engine car. It basically works by having 2 motors; one is a conventional petroleum combustion engine, but the other is an electric motor. The two work in concert, or one switches off, depending on the situation. This vehicle dramatically reduces CO2 emissions compared to the conventional petroleum combustion engine car.

Co-firing at Coal-fire stokers
The most obvious place to reduce emissions is to increase the efficiency of already existing technology. Because so much of the world’s electricity generation depends on coal fire, it becomes critical to first reduce emissions at these sites. Most of the benefits of Co-firing involve increasing the efficiency of combustion in coal fire stations and so, using the coal for more energy.

Negawatts
This concept was devised by one Amory Lovins in the 1970s. Basically, it is a system where consumers are given incentives to use more energy efficient electrical products. By crediting people with how much electricity they didn’t spend and therefore did not contribute to the greenhouse emissions, the electric companies could reduce the demand to build more generators quickly.

The problem with the negawatts concept played itself out in California during the power outages in 2003. Because privatised energy companies were given incentives not to make more new generators and actually got paid not to produce electricity, the power companies failed to meet the actual demand of the marketplace. Enron, made a large paper profit in the process.

Section 2. Alternative fuels.
Because the vast majority of the fuels we use to generate power are fossil fuels, and they are the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, we need to look a little closer at alternative fuels.

Methane
The number one agenda is reducing emissions of Greenhouse gasses and the two main culprits are Carbon Dioxide and Methane. Of the two, Methane is much more harmful in its effect, but Methane also has the benefit of being a valuable fuel.

In fact, how good is methane? Compared to coal with its long chain of carbon, methane’s simple CH4 structure allows it to give off 2 water molecules per Carbon instead of one per carbon. (Apart from its greenhouse gas emissions, coal also has other downsides that do not get discussed. For instance, burning coal releases radon into the air and radon is radioactive.)

Methane occurs naturally in great quantities in forms other thatn simply natural gas.. So much so that it is a greenhouse hazard all of its own. There are huge methane sources in the peat under the retreating ice in the northern hemisphere, as well as locked into ice as clathrates at the bottom of the sea, waiting to be unfrozen. There is some fear that with global warming, these clathrate-locked methane will be freed and sent to the surface and into the atmosphere. Geological history shows some samples where this has happened to much catastrophic effect.

One worry is that methane is being produced in rice paddies and garbage tips, by vegetation rotting in hydroelectric dams, and by ruminant animals. As we increase our population, more and more methane is being produced.
NB Methane is around 20 worse than CO2, so burning it helps greatly.

Biodeisel
The first Deisel Engine was shown in 1900. The aim of that exercise was to invent a motor that could run on vegetable oils. In fact, Deisel’s engine ran on peanut oil. If we could convert a significant fleet of our trucks to biodeisel, then we are lowering our dependence on fossil fuels, and this should slow the process of emissions; the theory being that to get biodeisel, you have to grow the bio-source, and this process takes carbon out of the atmosphere, instead of introducing new ones out of the ground. Biodeisel has the added advantage of not having toxic emissions that are normally associated with fossil fuel diesel engines.

One of the issues with industrial usages of Biodeisel is that the quantities of land that must be turned into a fuel source is so vast that it cannot be economically sustainable. The other obvious problem is that repeated usage of land to harvest fuels for biodeisel, inevitably leads to soil degradation of that land.

The other often-cited alternative is to use recycled cooking oils. Diesel engines are quite forgiving and can burn a wide range of fuels. It also has the added benefit of being able to reduce the pollution problems arising from discarding cooking oils.

Nuclear Fission
Splitting heavy atoms harnesses a great deal of energy. If you did it instantaneously, you have the atomic bomb. Doing it slowly in controlled conditions yields what is used as nuclear power. If anybody is interested in the significance of the e=mc2 equation, nuclear fission is its practical application.

Nuclear fission is often touted as a powerful alternative to burning fossil fuels but the detractors point to the nuclear waste that is the by-product of the process of generating energy through these means. The usual way to dispose of nuclear waste is to dig a deep hole and stick it in, but this has problems in terms of leakages of waste matter into the water table.
Having said that, there are other means of disposing this nuclear waste, most notably to fire them into ocean troughs where subduction is taking place. That way, the nuclear waste gets subducted into the earth’s mantle before they can cause environmental damage.

Nuclear Fusion
Fusion is the other nuclear fuel source, it is the way energy if generated in the sun. In some ways it is more promising because of the energy yields projected through this method. There is also the added benefit of less and fewer nuclear waste.

However, Fusion also has several problems. For fusion to work, it needs tritium. A Hydrogen atom with 1 extra neutron is Deuterium of which there are substantial amounts. Tritium on the other hand is considerably more rare. To make tritium we need the help of Lithium, and the supply of lithium is not so abundant. So the economic and energy cost of fusion is not easily surmounted.
Thus, the technology to make nuclear fusion work seems to be in the considerable future.

Radioactivity in the earth
Rocks underground can become hot due to natural radioactive decay. If the rocks are cracked the right way water can be pumped down one hole and then up another. The hot water can then generate steam and power.

Hydrogen fuel
Hydrogen is like electricity, it usually carries energy put in from some other process. It has been touted for a long time. The major problem with hydrogen is producing it, and storing it.
How can hydrogen be sourced? We can make it from gas or coal, but this produces CO2.
We can split it out of water using electolysis. however to does requires energy. If this energy does not come from a renewable source such as solar, wind or tides, then the energy spent in harvesting the Hydrogen will send carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Storing problems: in its pure form, H2 is the smallest naturally occurring molecule. It will leak through rubber, it will make iron britle.
Scientists have been trying to emulsify hydrogen in other liquids, or even having them stored in solids designed to absorb hydrogen.

Solar energy
Solar energy is the cleanest source of energy. It is abundant and constant. There are several methods of harnessing solar energy:

- Photovoltaics
Photovoltaic solar cells, which directly convert sunlight into electricity, are made of semiconducting materials. The simplest cells power watches and calculators and the like, while more complex systems can light houses and provide power to the electric grid. The main stumbling block for this method is the inefficiencies in converting it into something that is useful. Then there is the issue of where industrial amounts of solar energy can be harvested. However, this technology is always increasing in its efficiency and still promises to be a source of energy in the future.

- Passive solar heating, cooling and day-lighting
Buildings designed for passive solar and daylighting use design features such as large sunward-facing windows and building materials that absorb and slowly release the sun's heat. No mechanical means are utilised in passive solar heating. Incorporating passive solar designs can reduce heating bills as much as 50 percent. Passive solar designs can also include natural ventilation for cooling.

- Concentrating Solar power
Concentrating solar power technologies use reflective materials such as mirrors to concentrate the sun's energy. This concentrated heat energy is then converted into electricity.

The major issues in solar heating are access to the sun and the cost of implementing the systems.

Wind
Wind power is an alternative form of solar energy. By harnessing currents in the air that are created by cool and hot areas, we have an alternative source of energy.

Wind power is good for many reasons
1) It is emissions free in the generating process.
2) It is a renewable resource.
3) It lessens the dependence and burden on Fossil fuels
4) It can be used in conjunction with battery storage to provide constant power.
5) Low cost. Costs for wind power are falling across North America and Europe. The equipment is commercially available.
6) A lot of know-how is accumulated with this technology because it is in fact quite old.

The arguments against generating power through wind are rather perplexing. Wind machines must be located where strong, dependable winds are available most of the time.
1. Because winds do not blow strongly enough to produce power all the time, energy from wind machines is considered "intermittent”. Thus, electricity from wind machines must have a back-up supply from another source.
2. As wind power is "intermittent," utility companies can use it for only part of their total energy needs.
3. Maintenance costs. Wind towers and turbine blades are subject to damage from high winds and lighting. Rotating parts that are located high off the ground can be difficult and expensive to repair.
4. Wind turbine technologies vary in the quality of the power produced, which can cause difficulties in linking certain types of wind turbines to a utility system.
5. The noise made by rotating wind machine blades (especially by smaller, non-utility-scale turbines) can be annoying to nearby neighbours. Modern utility-scale wind turbines are usually located in very windy areas, and are highly aerodynamic, so any noise from the wind turbines is drowned out by the noise of the wind itself.
6. Some people complain about aesthetics of wind machines.
Although it has to be pointed out that the industrial energy required to make the wind turbines using modern composites is energy intensive, so win energy turbines are only partly free of emissions.

Hydro
Hydro comes from falling water and is another form of solar energy.

Section 3. Active reduction or subtraction of Carbon from the atmosphere
Part 1. Biomass Method:

Sequestering in Trees.
Plant-life uses Carbon dioxide in its process known as photosynthesis. During the day, plant-life absorbs carbon dioxide for growth.
Part of the rise in the world’s carbon dioxide has been blamed on deforestation around the world, and the subsequent absence of enough photosynthesis. In response to this, many governments have commenced a programme of planting forests in order to sequester carbon into trees.

Trees and Photosynthesis is actually a very inefficient way of sequestering Carbon. Even if we plant trees as fast as we chop them, we still will not catch up with the increased emissions, and this in itself is a problem. Also, the land that is available to be committed for the purpose of sequestering carbon in trees will run out. Given the inefficiency, it can only be a temporary solution.

Really we should make sure that the products we use from trees is buried underground or deep in the mud of the ocean floor. This way the carbon won’t get back into the atmosphere.

The ‘Geritol’ solution.
Some time in the 1980s, Oceanographer John Martin did a study of the world’s oceans correlating life and fecund ocean environments to concentration of iron in the water, and the lack of life in barren waters to the lack of iron. From there, John Martin postulated that life in the barren waters was held back by the iron shortage. He went public with his claim in 1987.

John Martin proposed that if iron were sent into the barren waters, they would become fecund with phytoplankton; the phytoplankton would then be able to absorb carbon dioxide. In fact, John Martin claimed that given sufficient iron, the new areas of ocean would be able to suck so much CO2 from the atmosphere, it could start an ice age. Oceanographers laughed at this hypothesis and referred to it as the ‘geritol solution’ after the famous iron supplement for the elderly. John Martin died in 1993 before the first expedition set out to carry out the experiment near the Galapagos Islands.

A section of the ocean considered barren and without life, was ‘seeded’ with iron from the back of a boat to see if John Martin’s hypothesis was correct. The results of the experiment were drastic: overnight, phytoplankton bloomed in the areas where iron was dropped, and the ocean went green with algae. John Martin was proved correct.

The algae bloom suddenly blossomed in a sea that was barren because the seeded iron catalysed its growth. Martin’s iron hypothesis had turned into a fact that ocean ecologies were indeed dependent on the concentration of iron in the waters.

However, there were some things that emerged from this experiment. As soon as the phytoplankton bloomed, zooplankton moved into the area to feast on the fresh algae bloom, and before the CO2 could be absorbed from the atmosphere, the zooplankton contributed its own CO2 into the air. Subsequent experiments showed that slowly releasing the iron helped slow down this process sufficiently for the CO2 to be absorbed from the atmosphere before the zooplankton ate up the algae.
This meant that the speed at which the iron was released became crucial for the process to work as an effective carbon sink.

There are ramifications and questions:
a) If we start doing the ‘geritol’ solution, then we will be committed to doing this forever eternal, as it factors into the carbon balance in the atmosphere.
b) In committing to this course of action, we must also reduce emissions; otherwise there is a limit to the amount of ocean surface area that can be used as to soak carbon.
c) How much ocean is there to seed? and how much carbon emission will it account for?

Of all the solutions, it should be noted this one has the most far-reaching potential. John Martin felt even a little manipulation of the Ocean could lower the average temperature of the planet substantially.

Part 2. Inorganic Solution

Pump it ito the ground
Just emulsify and pump them into the holes of old gas or oil fields

Pumping the CO2 to the bottom of the deep blue sea.
The First method is to store the carbon in solution as bicarbonate.

CO2 + H2O -> H2Co3

However, this is an acid, so it breaks into:

H2CO3 -> H + HCO3
HCO3 -> H + CO3

Now using the concept of weathering limestone and granite:

Limestone:
CaCO3 + 2H2CO3 -> Ca + 2HCO3

Silicates (in a very complex equation):
CaSi3 + 2H2CO3 -> Ca + 2HCO3 + SiO2 +H20

Once these dissolved ions come to the sea, they can get mineral formation.

Pump CO2 deep into the ocean
Pump the CO2 deep into the ocean and have the CO2 stored in liquid form. This method involves a fairly high level of engineering, as deep underwater pressures on pipes are a technological challenge.

Clathrate
Store the CO2 in what is known as a clathrate. This involves a little bit of physical chemistry. It is possible to form lattices with Water molecule.

- Art Neuro