Futurismic

One of my bugbears is the constant implication in the popular press that the twin problems of anthropogenic global warming and peak oil will be solved by the mythical “hydrogen economy.”

Take this article in The Guardian newspaper:

The main fuels used in history form a nearly exact sequence, from ones having less hydrogen to ones having more. Wood and charcoal were the earliest fuels, and have only a little hydrogen. Much of their burning is wasted in pouring out great gusts of carbon, which was needed to build up the tree from which the wood came, but doesn’t do much for the user burning that wood.

Coal has more hydrogen, and its burning can be cleaner. Oil - which dominated next - has yet more hydrogen per unit of carbon; natural gas has even more, and its burning is the cleanest and most efficient of them all. The trend line points pretty strongly to a pure hydrogen economy - but when that will occur is in the hands not of the scientists, but our wise political masters.

Hydrogen fuel cells have some promise as an energy storage medium, but you still need a source of energy in the first place: much of the commercial hydrogen produced today is actually produced from natural gas in a process which still produces carbon dioxide emissions.

Alternative methods using biological extraction have proven successful - but they still don’t tackle the fundamental problem of where the energy to extract the hydrogen comes from. With oil running out and our current industrial infrastructure reliant on dumping stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere this is the problem that needs to be solved.

And if the basic problem is getting energy, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on that and, once this problem is solved, use this source of hydrogen-producing energy to produce petroleum via the Fischer-Tropsch process and save £X trillions by avoiding upgrading our entire transport infrastructure to use hydrogen tanks and fuel cells?

My conclusion: every penny of research currently being poured into the hydrogen economy should be diverted into developing cleaner nuclear fission and synthetic petroleum fuel combined with hybrid electric-petrol vehicles.

Monday rant over.

[main article from The Guardian][other articles from PhysOrg][images from felixmolter and gavindjharper]

Related posts

• Where to store wind energy? (1)
• Travel hypersonically from the EU to Australia in 5 hours (1)
• The internet is a major feature of reducing carbon emissions (13)
• The importance of infrastructure (4)
• Study finds little solar link to cloud formation, not the driver of climate change? (29)

Two of the major criticisms of global warming theory I’ve seen recently have been that a) 1998 was actually the hottest year on record and since then it’s been cooler and b) that solar winds and cosmic rays are driving the climate change process, not human emissions.

These are valid points and scientists have been spending a lot of time researching their impact. Lancaster University have just released a major report on the latter, concluding from 20 years of data that global temperatures have little influence from solar activity. The original hypothesis, by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, hypothesized that when the 11 year cycle of solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays make it through the earth’s atmosphere, making more clouds and cooling the earth. Correspondingly, when solar wind is strong, Svensmark’s theory expected more global warming. However, with solar winds currently near their minimum, global temperatures are still high. The Lancaster study used three different experimental methods to find little correlation between the two, contradicting Svensmark’s theory, which was heavily cited in the documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’.

Related to this discussion is the citing of 1998, the hottest year on record, as proof that global temperatures are going down. This is a compelling argument on the surface but when you look at other global weather patterns the reason for the difference in numbers becomes apparent. 1998 was incredibly hot in main part because it was in an El Nino cycle, in which the warming of the Pacific Ocean disrupts weather patterns. Today however, we are in the midst of a significantly strong La Nina event, the sister condition that dampens global temperatures. This means that whilst it will still likely be in the top ten hottest years, 2008 will not be a very hot year, due to that effect.

Both the cosmic ray and 1998 hypotheses were picked up as proof that global warming doesn’t exist. These criticisms are important because by either disproving or proving them to be right, our understanding of this science improves. When the outlying criticisms of climate change are themselves shown to be lacking, the consensus grows stronger and vice versa. Like all cutting edge science, it’s a learning process.

UPDATE: you can read the Lancaster paper here, whilst some of Svensmark’s papers are available on his website, although I can’t find any after 2001.

[via BBC Science, picture by Feuillu]

Related posts

• Climate change explained through probability and risk: It doesn’t matter if it exists, we should act anyway (6)
• North African Solar project could provide a sixth of Europe’s electricity (4)
• Follow up - Satellite pictures of the ice-free North West Passage (0)
• Expect future resource conflicts as Arctic melts (0)
• CO2 rising 25% faster than previously thought - a SF Call to Arms (3)

Science teacher Greg Craven posted a video entitled ‘The Scariest Video you’ll ever see’ on Youtube in June 2007. The ten minute video garnered over 7000 replies including many criticisms from global warming sceptics. Craven decided to rebut these criticisms. He spent four months of his spare time researching data on the debate, ticking off each criticism that had been made. He then released “How It All Ends”, another ten minute video but this time with an ‘expansion pack’ of videos going into each of his arguments in exhaustive detail.

Interestingly, much of the content of the six-hour, 44 part series is not devoted to proving whether global warming is happening or not, or whether man is causing it or not. He looks instead at the four main outcomes: global warming exists and we do something, it exists and we don’t do something, it doesn’t exist and we do nothing or it doesn’t exist and we do something. He concluded the costs of doing nothing far outweigh the cost of doing something, so it makes sense to take action even if we don’t know whether global warming is happening or not.

A site has also started up devoted to the videos, where the forum members critique and find responses to each new criticism as it comes through on Youtube. The efforts of these people to encourage reasoned debate is heartening. Many of the arguments against combating climate change revolve around the fact that science doesn’t agree 100% with the precise outcome. Well, science never will agree, not totally, especially with oil industry-paid advocates in the mix. But even without more and more evidence leaning towards the ‘we need to do something camp’, the logical thing to do is to take action, even if it turns out we didn’t need to. There’s also a great interview with Kim Stanley Robinson at BLDGBLOG about this.

Related posts

• Study finds little solar link to cloud formation, not the driver of climate change? (29)
• The internet is a major feature of reducing carbon emissions (13)
• North African Solar project could provide a sixth of Europe’s electricity (4)
• Follow up - Satellite pictures of the ice-free North West Passage (0)
• Expect future resource conflicts as Arctic melts (0)

Now this is very positive. Last week there was talk of a giant ’supergrid’ connecting much of Europe to wind turbines across the continent, to take advantage of whenever the wind was blowing.

Now the Guardian reports on Desertec, the plans to put hundreds of solar concentrating plants on the North African coasts and in the Middle East. Two thirds of the estimated 100 Billion Watts would stay in the countries producing the energy, with another 30 Billion Watts (around of all of Europe’s use) being pumped via underwater cables to the EU, which would provide a chunk of the funding for the project. With the Bali talks now underway to find a new version of the Kyoto treaty, projects like this could be a major facet of reducing carbon emissions. German energy expert Gregor Czeich reckons with new higher efficiency power lines a 100% renewable powered Europe could be possible in the near future without costing much more than the current fossil fuel system.

[via the guardian, picture by TREC]

Related posts

• Study finds little solar link to cloud formation, not the driver of climate change? (29)
• Follow up - Satellite pictures of the ice-free North West Passage (0)
• Expect future resource conflicts as Arctic melts (0)
• CO2 rising 25% faster than previously thought - a SF Call to Arms (3)
• Climate change explained through probability and risk: It doesn’t matter if it exists, we should act anyway (6)

A lot of the plans for sustainability try to provide the energy for what we already do using new sources of power. Whether you subscribe to the peak oil camp or you fear global warming or even if you want to prudent ahead of a possible recession caused by sub-prime mortgages, each problem has the same solution: use less. Buying less consumables, reducing food miles, rebuilding soils and producing electricity from renewables can only do so much.

Transport is a huge part of the energy (and money) we spend. A future coming to terms with the ‘Peak Century’ will need to travel much less distance for work, play and neccessity. The 50 mile commute seems illogical now at close to $100 dollar a barrel of oil. If oil gets harder to extract and prices rise, that commute won’t just be an annoying expense, it’ll mean bankruptcy. Fortunately new technology has arrived, seemingly perfect timed to coincide with reducing our carbon footprint and energy consumption.

A geologist recently said “My hopeful view is that we’ll be living like we did at the turn of the 20th century, but with computers.” I like the analogy. The internet and low-energy computers offer us a real potential of making a low carbon economy yet still providing jobs and a worldwide community. As Worldchanging puts it, the ‘High bandwidth, Low Carbon future’ could be both sustainable and more personally fulfilling. Google is investing $100Million in Green computing and the Asus EEE laptop uses 11 watts. All this talk of choose your own price music, online markets for fiction and e-readers is important because it’s a first step to creating an entertainment economy that could work in the low-energy world that’s coming, sooner or later.

[picture by jaaron]

Related posts

• Contest to design a new e-reader (0)
• Thermoelectrics - conduct electricity well but heat badly (1)
• The Future of short fiction (6)
• Striking writers look to open new internet ventures (0)
• Peak food is an inevitable consequence of peak oil (11)

The Telegraph has an article today about the British coastline and flooding. A few days ago, a storm surge travelling down the North Sea nearly combined with high tides to overtop the flood defenses across much of the East coast of England. Another few inches could have caused widespread flooding similar to that experienced in 1953, when 300 people were killed. Today the UK government admitted rising sea levels mean a number of coastal communities will disappear within the next thirty years. Some low lying villages and farms in Norfolk, Suffolk and Somerset are too vulnerable and would be impossible to save without spending inordinate billions on sea defences. This is a discussion many governments will be having over the coming decade.

[via Daily Kos, image from the Telegraph]

Related posts

• Floating houses - Dealing with flooding without fighting it (21)
• The internet is a major feature of reducing carbon emissions (13)
• Study finds little solar link to cloud formation, not the driver of climate change? (29)
• North African Solar project could provide a sixth of Europe’s electricity (4)
• New carbon dioxide molecule found to heat Venus more (1)

The self-adjustment of the science consensus tends to make it reliable - credible research is promoted and those not backed out by evidence fall. So if the scientific consensus thinks global warming is a problem, I’m inclined to believe them. However, sometimes real science offers some positives, like today. Researchers at UAHuntsville’s Earth System Science Center found that the amount of heat-trapping Cirrus clouds in the atmosphere decreases rather than increases as global temperatures go up. High altitude clouds like Cirrus ones tend to trap heating escaping from the atmosphere, amplifying any existing warming (low altitude clouds tend to have the opposite effect by reflecting sunlight back into space).

It was expected that as temperatures rose, more evaporation would lead to more clouds. Studies of smaller warming and cooling cycles in the tropics showed that actually higher temperatures created less Cirrus clouds, encouraging a cooling period in reaction to the added heat. This negative feedback system is an exciting discovery and could cut the amount of temperature rises in global warming models by as much as 75%. It’s not a get out of jail card and it would still be prudent to work on a worst-case scenario basis but this kind of mechanism could give us the time needed to adapt to a lower carbon economy.

[via ScienceDaily, image by acewill]

Related posts

• The internet is a major feature of reducing carbon emissions (13)
• Study finds little solar link to cloud formation, not the driver of climate change? (29)
• North African Solar project could provide a sixth of Europe’s electricity (4)
• New carbon dioxide molecule found to heat Venus more (1)
• Hydrogen Dreams (1)

Climate scientists released a scary report this week saying that global warming is likely to be both ’stronger than expected and arrive earlier than expected’. Since 2000 large spikes in releases of the gas have seen the amount in the atmosphere grow much faster than expected when the Kyoto treaty was drawn up in 1990. The principle reasons for this increase include the growing economy, China’s increased use of coal and most worryingly, a decrease in the amount of absorption by the world’s natural ’sinks’.

The UK and New Zealand have both had news stories this week with ministers seeking to go back on ‘unrealistic’ Carbon emission cuts. The problem for all these countries is as the world economy is in such a delicate balance right now (and always, you could argue), to be the first one to start making the drastic changes neccessary means a massive hit to your economy and job market. 12 States including California and New York are sueing the US government for failing to do enough about the problem. All across the news, there are gloomy tales of doom if we don’t change but very little positives highlighted of changing to a less energy intensive future.

SF Writers have a huge part to play in all this. I’m not saying we should all run off and become Mundane. However, science fiction has a capacity to inspire unlike any other genre - just look at the Space Race to see the dreams of the genre in action in the real world. At the moment people understand global warming is a problem. They just don’t have an image in their head of what can replace the current state of affairs. Most of the books that deal with climate change are overwhelmingly apocalyptic, offering no respite and little hope. If we as SF writers can paint a picture of a future where we have adapted to the problems globalisation has caused us without the world ending or life becoming depressingly morbid, we can achieve something that few people are able to do. We can stop scaring people into change and start inspiring them.

[story via the new Guardian America site, image by alasam]

Related posts

• The tipping point for climate change denial? (13)
• Study finds little solar link to cloud formation, not the driver of climate change? (29)
• North African Solar project could provide a sixth of Europe’s electricity (4)
• MAQUECH by Silvia Moreno-Garcia (3)
• Kim Stanley Robinson interviewed (0)

A lot of money has been pumped into Carbon Sequestration recently, to try and put some of the CO2 we produce back into the earth in the underground aquifers where we got the oil and gas that caused it in the first place. However, another way of storing carbon is in the soil, which benefits agriculture as well. Indigenous tribes in the Amazon basin have been using a technique of introducing charcoal to soil to produce darker ‘terra preta‘ soil for millenia. The low temperature charring of plants and trees introduces more carbon to the soil and encourages worms to break down the charcoal and soil to make a nutrient-rich loam.

A study into the method by MIT professor Amy Smith found that using agricultural char methods could be a great way of producing low-cost fuel for developing nation. You can view a speech on the subject she made at TED 2006 here. By burning waste materials in a gasifier, the methane, hydrogen and other burnable gases it produces can be used as fuels, leaving behind a charred solid that can be mixed into the soil as fertiliser, building back the soil content. Because the organic content has charred, it doesn’t decompose to be released into the atmosphere. WorldChanging has a great analysis that the process could actually provide power whilst potentially reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

[via WorldChanging, image via Papa Goiaba]

Related posts

• New carbon dioxide molecule found to heat Venus more (1)
• Will cleaner fuels raise the cost of food? (1)
• Water-propelled jetpack patented (2)
• Want to use biofuel? There’s oceans of possibilities. (0)
• The internet is a major feature of reducing carbon emissions (13)

A big team of astronomers studying Venus’ atmosphere have found a new type of heavier carbon dioxide molecule that absorbs more heat than the one more commonly found on Mars or Earth. The molecule, which is believed to have two additional neutrons in one of its oxygen atoms, allows it to absorb an additional infrared wavelength of 3.3 microns, which is what tipped the teams off to the discovery. They believe this is part of the reason Venus has such a hot atmosphere - the bigger percentage of these molecules creates an even bigger Greenhouse Gas effect than normal CO2.

As soon as I read this article comparing Mars’ cold atmosphere to Venus’ hot one in relation to the quantities of this new molecule, I immediately thought of Kim Stanley Robinson’s ‘Red Mars’. If this gas contributes more global warming than normal CO2, in the future it may be a very valuable tool if we ever came to terraform our red neighbour.

[link and image via ScienceDaily]

Related posts

• Shooting the moon (1)
• Nasa finds doorway structure on Mars (0)
• Every month the Earth beats up the Moon with its magnetotail (1)
• Asteroid may hit Mars at end of January (0)
• Ancient Amazonian soil enrichment technique may provide ‘carbon negative’ fuel (3)

Last week I wrote about the Northwest Passage, the ocean channel across the top of Canada connecting the Atlantic and Pacific, being free of ice for the first time in modern history. Now thanks to Nasa’s satellite imagery, you can see the ice-less water in all its scary glory. Here is the high definition image. A smaller image and article is here. It really is stunningly beautiful, despite the implications.

[via Daily Kos' excellent weekly round up of environmental posts, picture via NASA Earth Observatory]

Related posts

• Study finds little solar link to cloud formation, not the driver of climate change? (29)
• North African Solar project could provide a sixth of Europe’s electricity (4)
• Expect future resource conflicts as Arctic melts (0)
• CO2 rising 25% faster than previously thought - a SF Call to Arms (3)
• Climate change explained through probability and risk: It doesn’t matter if it exists, we should act anyway (6)

{image from the Hubble Heritage Project}

It’s amazing just how interlinking life can be when you think about it. As well as the fact that when oil, gas and coal run out we’ll have no choice but to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, this great article links peak oil and global warming to another large-scale problem - The Fermi Paradox.

It’s an interesting article to ponder, particularly in relation to mankind’s future. Is the reason we can’t see any evidence of alien life out there because they all ran out of resources before they could get off their own planet?

[Edit - another good article on the subject here - thanks to Tom James and Sentient Developments for that link! The original article seems to be having server trouble but this alternative is just as interesting.]

Related posts

• The internet is a major feature of reducing carbon emissions (13)
• Visible Magnetic Fields (1)
• Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo images released (0)
• Virgin astronauts to undergo centrifuge training (0)
• US military proposes space-based solar power station (6)

Choosing a big story to kick off with was pretty easy. This week, it was announced that the famous Northwest Passage is open for the first time since records began. The Passage, which connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the coast of Canada, has always been impenetrable due to high levels of ice.

Now for the first time even boats with fibreglass hulls are able to make the journey, opening a major trade route. With the possibility that the Northeast Passage across the Arctic near Russia might soon be open too, expect a grand old tussle for the rights for the oil and gas previously hidden beneath the frozen depths. The unexpectedly fast melting is possibly due to a couple of feedback systems - the release of methane as permafrost melts and the albedo effect. As the average global temperature rises, the temperature of the Arctic is expected to increase by two or three times as much. [image courtesy of wikipedia commons.]

Related posts

• Study finds little solar link to cloud formation, not the driver of climate change? (29)
• North African Solar project could provide a sixth of Europe’s electricity (4)
• Follow up - Satellite pictures of the ice-free North West Passage (0)
• CO2 rising 25% faster than previously thought - a SF Call to Arms (3)
• Climate change explained through probability and risk: It doesn’t matter if it exists, we should act anyway (6)