Economic Consequences of the Ukraine War

My last post mentioned the USSR collapse. One of the longer term consequences has been this Ukraine war. Currently, there have been problems of shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, and this appears to have happened in that our TV news has shown some of the smashed concrete, etc. The net result is the plant has shut down. Each side accuses the other of doing the shelling, but it seems to me that it had to be the Ukrainians. Russia has troops there, and no military command is going to put up with his side shelling his own troops. However, that is far from the total bad news. So far, Ukraine has been terribly lucky, but such luck cannot last indefinitely. There are consequences outside the actual war itself. The following is a summary of some of what was listed in the August edition of Chemistry World.

The Donbas area is Ukraine’s heavy industry area, and this includes the chemical industry. Recently, Russian air strikes at Sieverierodonetsk hit a nitric acid plant, and we saw images of the nitrogen dioxide gas spewing into the atmosphere.

Apparently, in 2017 Ukrainian shelling was around a chemical plant that contained 7 tonne of chlorine. Had a shell hit a critical tank, that would have been rather awkward. Right now, in the eastern Donbas there is a pipeline almost 700 km long that pipes ammonia. There are approximately 1.5 million people in danger from that pipeline should it burst; exactly how many depends on where it is broken. There are also just under  200,000 t of hazardous waste stored in various places. The question now is, with all this mess generated, in addition to demolished buildings and infrastructure, who will pay what to clean it up? It may or may not be fine for Western countries to use their taxes to produce weapons to give to Ukraine, but cleaning up the mess requires the money to go to Ukraine, not armament-making corporations at home.

The separation of the Donbas has led to many mines being closed, and these have filled with water. This has allowed mercury and sulphuric acid to be leached and then enter the water table. During 2019, a survey of industrial waste was made, and Ukraine apparently stores over 5.4 billion t of industrial waste, about half of which is in the Donbas. Ukraine has presumably inherited a certain amount, together with some of the attitudes, from the old Soviet Union. From experience, their attitude to environmental protection was not their strong point. I recall  one very warm sunny morning going for a walk around Tashkent. I turned a corner and saw rather a lot of rusty buildings, and also, unbelievably, a cloud. How could water droplets form during such a warm dry climate? The answer was fairly clear when I got closer. One slight whiff, and I knew what it was: the building was emitting hydrogen chloride into the atmosphere and the hydrochloric acid droplets were the reason for the rust.

Meanwhile, some more glum news. We all know that the sanctions in response to the Ukraine war has led to a gas shortage. What most people will not realize is what this is doing to the chemical industry. The problem for the chemical industry is that unlike most other industries, other than the very sophisticated, the chemical industry is extremely entangled and interlinked. A given company may make a very large amount of chemical A, which is then sold as a raw material to a number of other companies, who in turn may do the same thing. There are many different factories dependent on the same raw chemical and the material in a given chemical available to the public may have gone through several different steps in several different factories.

An important raw mixture is synthesis gas, which is a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The hydrogen may be separated and used in steps to make a variety of chemicals, such as ammonia, the base chemical for just about all nitrogen fertilizer, as well as a number of other uses. The synthesis gas is made by heating a mixture of methane gas and water. Further, almost all chemical processing requires heat, and by far the bulk of the heat is produced by burning gas. In Europe, the German government is asking people to cut back on gas usage. Domestic heating can survive simply by lowering the temperature, although how far down one is prepared to go during winter is another question. However, the chemical industry is not so easily handled. Many factories use multiple streams, and it is a simple matter to shut down such a stream, but you cannot easily reduce the amounts going through a stream because the reactions are highly dependent on pressure, and the plant is in a delicate balance between amount processed and heat generated.  A production unit is really only designed to operate one way, and that is continuously with a specific production rate. If you close it down, it may take a week to get it started again, to get the temperature gradients right. One possibility is the complete shutdown of the BASF plant at Ludwigshafen, the biggest chemical complex in the world. The German chemical industry uses about 135 TWhr of gas, or about 15% of the total in the country. The price of such gas has risen by up to a factor of eight since Russia was sanctioned, and more price rises are likely. That means companies have to try to pass on costs, but if they face international competition, that may not be possible. This war has consequences far beyond Ukraine.

A Plan to Counter Global Warming Must be Possible to Implement

Politicians seem to think that once there is a solution to the problem in theory, the problem is solved so they stop thinking about it. Let us look at a reality. We know we have a problem with global warming and we have to stop burning fossil fuels. The transport sector is a big problem, but electric vehicles will do the trick, and in theory that might be true, but as I have pointed out in previous posts there is this troublesome matter of raw materials. Now the International Energy Agency has brought a little unpleasantness to the table. They have reported that global battery and minerals supply chains need to expand ten-fold to meet the critical needs of 2030 if the plan is to at least maintain schedule. If we take the average size of a major producer as a “standard mine” according to the IEA we need 50 more such lithium mines, 60 more nickel mines, and 17 more cobalt mines operating fully by 2030. Generally speaking, a new mine needs about ten years between starting a feasibility study and serious production. See a problem here? Because of the costs and exposure, you need feasibility studies to ensure that there is sufficient ore where you can’t see, that there is an economic way of processing the ore, and you must have a clear plan on what to do with what to do with minerals you do not want, with materials like arsenates or other undesirables also being present. You also have to build new roads, pipe in water, provide electricity, and do a number of other things to make the mine work that are not directly part of the mine. This does not mean you cannot mine, but it does mean it won’t be quite as easy as some might have you think. We now want our mines not to be environmental disasters. The IEA report notes that ten years, and then adds several more years to get production up to capacity.

The environmental issues are not to be considered as irrelevant. Thus the major deposits of lithium tend to be around the Andes, typically in rather dry areas. Then lithium is obtained by pumping down water, dissolving the salts, then bringing them up and evaporating the brine. Once most of the lithium is obtained, something has to be done with the salty residue, and of course the process needs a lot of water. The very limited water already in some locations is badly needed by the local population and their farms. The salt residues would poison agriculture.

If we consider nickel, one possible method to get more from poorer ores is high-pressure acid leaching. The process uses acid at high temperatures and pressure and end up with nickel at a grade suitable for batteries. But nickel often occurs as a sulphide, which means as a byproduct you get hydrogen sulphide, and a number of other effluents that have to be treated. Additionally, the process requires a lot of heat, which means burning coal or oil. The alternative source to the sulphide deposits, as advocated by the IEA, is laterite, a clayish material that also contains a lot of iron and aluminium oxides. These metals could also be obtained, but at a cost. The estimate of getting nickel by this process is to double the cost of the nickel.

The reason can be seen from the nature of the laterite (https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/4340/1/nickel_laterite_processing.pdf), which is a usually a weathered rock. At the top you have well weathered rock, more a clay, and is red limonite. The iron oxide content (the cause of the red colour) is over 50% while the nickel content is usually less than 0.8% and the cobalt less than 0.1%. Below that is yellow limonite, where the nickel and cobalt oxides double their concentration. Below that we get saprolite/serpentine/garnierite (like serpentine but with enhanced nickel concentration). These can have up to 3% nickel, mainly due to the garnierite, but the serpentine family are silicates, where the ferrous such as in olivine has been removed. The leaching of a serpentine is very difficult simply because silicates are very resistant. Try boiling your average piece of basalt in acid. There are other approaches and for those interested, the link above shows them. However, the main point is that much of the material does not contain nickel. Do y9ou simply dump it, or produce iron at a very much higher cost than usual?

However, the major problems for each are they are all rather energy intensive, and the whole point of this is to reduce greenhouse emissions. The acid leach is very corrosive, and hence maintenance is expensive, while the effluents are troublesome for disposal. The disposal of the magnesium sulphate at sea is harmless, but the other materials with it may not be. Further, if the ore is somewhere like the interior of Australia, even finding water will be difficult.

Of course all these negatives can be overcome, with effort, if we are prepared to pay the price. Now, look around and ask yourself how much effort is going into establishing all those mines that are required? What are the governments doing? The short answer, as far as I can tell, is not much. They leave it to private industry. But private industry will be concerned that their balance sheets can only stand so much speculative expansion. My guess is that 2030 objectives will not be fulfilled.

Limits to Growth

A little over fifty years ago, the Systems Dynamics group at MIT produced a 200-page book called The Limits to Growth. Their message was, continued economic and population growth would deplete Earth’s resources and lead to global economic collapse by 2070. At the time, this was considered heresy. The journal Nature was scathing (See vol 236, pp 47 – 49, 1972). How could the foundations of industrial civilization, such as coal mining, steel-making, oil production, crop spraying, cause lasting damage? It was accepted that such industries caused pollution, but such effects were considered to be only temporary. At the time computer modelling was looked down upon. This is understandable; at the time computers were quite primitive compared with now, and big computers were only available to the major organizations. I recall four years before that someone doing a chemical bond calculation and coming back from the computer with what looked like a couple of kg of printout. His problem was that his program only produced two answers, depending on what he changed in the code. The answers were zero or infinity. As I remarked, the truth would be somewhere in between.

It is unlikely that any other computer model has made a bigger impact. There are still debates, but it is now clear that our activities have made irreversible environmental effects. As I have also noted in a previous post, there is also significant resource depletion. The elements have not gone anywhere, but that does not help if they are so diluted with other material that we cannot use them. Of course, it is arguable we could with unlimited energy, but we do not have that. The sun effectively produces unlimited energy, but it is too far away; here all it delivers is approximately 1360 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere, which is reduced to somewhere between 1000 – 1150 W/m^2 on a surface at right angles to the radiation at the surface. These numbers have to be divided by three for a 24-hr day, assuming no clouds.

The obvious problem for people is economic growth. Some people assume that economic growth can continue if we adopt technology much faster, particularly employing more renewable energy. Others argue we have to abandon the idea of growth. Was living as per we did in, say, 2016 that bad? One problem is that politicians need votes, and to get them they want to raise GDP. Thus if there is a choice of what to do, politicians will go for that which produces the most jobs. Excessive spending on the military increases jobs; corresponding spending on healthcare does not, but which is the more useful?

One analysis (Rockström et al. 2009, Nature 461: 472 – 475) argued there were boundaries. If we stayed within these the planet would adjust and correct our behaviour, but as we approached those boundaries (i.e. too much of something is being emitted) the planet may respond in a non-linear and often in an abrupt way. Most of these thresholds depend on one, or sometimes more, variables. They suggest ten such processes have such boundaries, three of which, biodiversity loss, climate change, the nitrogen cycle, are already exceeded, while a fourth, the phosphorus cycle is close to the breaking point and a fifth, ocean acidification is troublesome. Two more, chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol loading were not quantified. Three, fresh water use, land use, and ozone depletion are considered to be under control.

The last time the poles were essentially ice-free the CO2 levels were approximately 450 ppm. As can be seen from my last post, exceeding that seems inevitable without drastic action. For biodiversity, extinctions are currently about 100 – 1000 times greater than natural. Biodiversity is very important to maintain the resilience of the system. The production of nitrogen fertilizer and the cultivation of legumes convert around 120 million t/a of nitrogen, which is more than the combined efforts of all Earth’s terrestrial processes. This ends up as pollution, it erodes resilience of some of the plant life, and it sends nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, and this makes a major contribution to greenhouse forcing. Excess nitrogen fertiliser leads to turbid waterways, lakes, etc, and sometimes pronounced algal blooms. About 20 Mt of phosphorus is mined each year, and about half of this finds its way into oceans. This is around eight times the natural erosion rate. When critical levels of phosphate enter the oceans, large scale anoxic events occur, which can lead to mass extinctions of marine life. The authors conclude that as long as we do not exceed the thresholds, we can pursue long-term economic and social development. Our problem is, we are crossing some.

Will We Do Anything To Stop Global Warming?

There is an interesting review on climate change (Matthews & Wynes, 2022, Science 376: 1404 – 1409). One point that comes up early is how did this sneak up on us? If you look at the graph on global temperatures, you will see that the summers in the 1940s were unusually hot, and the winters in the 1960 – 1980 period were unusually cool, with the net result that people living between 1940 – 1985 could be excused for thinking in terms of extremes instead of averages that the climate was fairly stable. As you will recall, at 1990 there was a major conference on climate change, and by 1992 goals were set to reduce emissions. It is just after this that temperatures have really started rising. In other words, once we “promised” to do something about it, we didn’t. At 1960 the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were about 320 ppm; by 1990 the CO2 levels were about 365 ppm, and at 2022 they are about 420 ppm. The levels of CO2 emissions have accelerated following the treaty in which much of the world undertook to reduce them. Therein lies out first problem. We are not reducing emissions; we are increasing them, even though we promised to do the opposite. (There was a small reduction in 2019-2020 as a result of the Covid lockdowns, but that has passed.) In short, our political promises are also based on hot air.

The current warming rate is approximately a quarter of a degree Centigrade per decade, which means that since we are now about 1.25 degrees warmer than the set 1850 baseline, we shall hit the 1.5 degrees warming somewhere just after 2030. Since that was the 1990 target not to be exceeded, failure seems inevitable. According to the models, to hold the temperature to 1.5 degrees C above our baseline we must not emit more than 360 Gt (billion tonne) of CO2. The IPCC considers we shall emit somewhere between 400 -650 Gt of CO2 before we get carbon neutral (and that assumes all governments actually follow up on their stated plans.) What we see is that current national targets are simply inadequate, always assuming they are kept. Unfortunately, there is a second problem: there are other greenhouse gases and some are persistent. The agricultural sector emits nitrous oxide, while industry emits a range of materials like sulphur hexafluoride, which may not be there in great quantity but it is reputedly 22,800 times more effective at trapping infrared radiation than CO2, and it stays in the atmosphere for approximately 3,200 years. These minor components cannot be ignored, and annual production is estimated at about 10,000 t/a. It is mainly used in electrical equipment, from whence it leaks.

Current infrastructure, such as electricity generators, industrial plant, ships, aircraft and land transport vehicles all have predictable lifetimes and emissions. These exceed that required to pass the 1.5 degree C barrier already unless some other mitigation occurs. Thus, the power stations already built will emit 846 Gt CO2, which is over twice our allowance. People are not going to abandon their cars. Another very important form of inertia is socio-political. To achieve the target, most fossil fuel has to stay in the ground, but politicians keep encouraging the development of new extraction. The average voter is also unhappy to see major tax increases to fund things that will strongly and adversely affect his way of life.

One way out might be carbon capture. The idea of absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and burying it may seem attractive, but how is it done, at what cost in terms of money and energy required to do it, and who pays for it? Planting trees is a more acceptable concept. In New Zealand there is quite a bit of land that was logged by the early settlers, but has turned out to be rather indifferent farm land. The problem with knowing whether this is a potential solution or not is that it is impossible to know how much of such land can be planted, given that a lot is privately owned. However, planting trees is realistically something that could help, even if it does not solve the problem.

The article seems to feel that the solution must include actions such as lifestyle changes (carless days, reduced speed limits, reduced travel, a reduction of meat eating). My feeling is this would be a very difficult sell in a democracy, and it is not exactly encouraging to persuade some to purchase electric vehicles then be told they cannot use them. The article cites the need for urgency, and ignores the fact that we have had thirty years where governments have essentially ignored the problem. Even worse, the general public will not be impressed to find they are required to do something that adversely affects their lifestyle, only to find that a number of other countries have no interest in subjecting their citizens to such restrictions. The problem is no country can stop this disaster from happening; we all have to participate. But that does not mean we all have to give up our lifestyles, just to ensure that politicians can get away with their inability to get things done. In my opinion, society has to make changes, but they do not have to give up a reasonable lifestyle. We merely need to use our heads for something better than holding up a hat. And to show that we probably won’t succeed, the US Supreme Court has made another 6:3 ruling that appears to inhibit the US Federal Government from forcing certain states to reduce emissions. We shall cook. Yes, this might be a constitutional technicality that Congress could clear up easily, but who expects the current Congress to do anything helpful for civilization?

Energy Sustainability

Sustainability is the buzzword. Our society must use solar energy, lithium-ion batteries, etc to save the planet, at least that is what they say. But have they done their sums?. Lost in this debate is the fact that many of the technologies use relatively difficult to obtain elements. In a previous post I argued that battery technology was in trouble because there is a shortage of cobalt, required to make the cathode work for a reasonable number of cycles. Others argue that we could obtain sufficient elements. But if we are going to be sustainable, we have to be sustainable for an indefinite length of time, and mining is not sustainable; you can only dig up the ore once. Of course, there are plenty of elements left. There is more gold in the sea than has ever been mined; the problem is that it is too dilute. Similarly, most elements are present in a lump of basalt; just not much of anything useful and it is extremely difficult to get it out. The original copper mines of Cyprus, where even lumps of copper could occasionally be found, are all worked out, at least to the extent that mining is no longer profitable there.

The answer is to recycle, right? Well, according to an article [Charpentier Poncelet, A. et al. Nature Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022- 00895-8 (2022)] there are troubles. The problem is that even if we recycle, every time we do something we lose some of the metal. Losses here refer to material emitted into the environment, stored in waste-disposal facilities, or diluted in material where the specific characteristics of the elements are no longer required. The authors define a lifetime as the average duration of their use, from mining through to being entirely lost. As with any such definition-dependent study, there will be some points where you disagree.

The first loss for many elements lies in the production state. Quite often it is only economical to obtain one or two elements, and the remaining minor components of the ore disappear in slag. These losses are mainly important for specialty elements. Production losses account for 30% of rare earth metals, 50% for cobalt, 70% for indium, and greater than 95% for arsenic, gallium, germanium, hafnium, selenium and tellurium. So most of those elements critical for certain electronic and photo-electric effects are simply thrown out. We are a wasteful lot.

Manufacturing and use incur very few losses. There are some, but because materials are purified ready for use, pieces that are not immediately used can be remelted and used. There are exceptions. 80% of barium is lost through use; it is used in drilling muds.

The largest losses come from the waste management and recycling stage. Metals undergoing multiple life cycles are still lost this way; it just takes longer to lose them. Recycling losses occur when the metal accumulates in a dust (zinc) or slag(e.g. chromium or vanadium), or get lost in another stream, thus copper is prone to dissolve in an iron stream. Longest lifetimes occur for non-ferrous metals (8 to 76 years) precious metals (4 to 192 years), and ferrous metals (8 to 154 years). The longest lifetimes are for gold and iron.

Now for the problem areas. Lithium has a life-cycle use of 7 years, then it is all gone. But lithium-ion batteries last about this long, which suggests that as yet (if these data are correct) there is very little real recycling of lithium. Elements like gallium and tellurium last less than a year, while indium manages a year. Before you protest that most of the indium goes into swipeable mobile phone screens and mobile phones last longer than a year, at least for some of us, remember that losses occur through being discarded at the mining stage, where the miner/processor can’t be bothered. Of the fifteen metals most lost during mining/processing, thirteen are critical for sustainable energy, such as cobalt (lithium-ion batteries), neodymium (permanent magnets), indium, gallium, germanium, selenium and tellurium (solar cells) and scandium (solid oxide fuel cells). If we look at the recycled content of “new material” lithium is less than 1% as is indium. Gallium and tellurium are seemingly not recycled. Why are they not recycled? Metals that are recycled tend to be like iron, aluminium, the precious metals and copper. It is reasonably easy to find uses for them where purity is not critical. Recycling and purifying most of the others requires technical skill and significant investment. If we think of lithium-ion batteries, the lithium reacts with water, and if it starts burning it is unlikely to be put out. Some items may have over a dozen elements, and some are highly toxic, and not to be in the hands of the amateur. What we see happening is that the “easy” metals are recycled by organizations that are really low-technology organizations. It is not an area attractive to the highly skilled because the economic risk/return is just not worth it, while the less-skilled simply cannot do it safely.

Seaweed and Climate Change

A happy and prosperous New Year to you all. The Great New Zealand Summer Vacation is coming to an end, so I have made an attempt at returning to normality. I hope all is well with you all.

Last year a paper in Nature Communications (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22837-2) caught my eye for two reasons. First, it was so littered with similar abbreviations I found it difficult to follow. The second was that they seemed to conclude the idea of growing seaweed to absorb carbon dioxide would not work, but  they seemed to refuse to consider any option by which it might work. We know that much of seaweed biomass arises from photo-fixing CO2, as does biomass from all other plants. So there are problems. There were also problems ten thousand years ago for our ancestors in Anatolia or in the so-called fertile crescent wanting to grow some of those slightly bulky grass seeds for food. They addressed those problems and got to work. It might have been slow, but soon they had the start of a wheat industry.

So, what was the problem? The paper considered the Sargasso Sea as an example of massive seaweed growth. One of the first objections the paper presented was that the old seaweed fronds get coated with life forms such as bryozoans that have calcium carbonate coatings. They then state that by making this solid lime (Ca++ + CO3 -> CaCO3, a solid) it releases CO2 by reducing seawater alkalinity. The assertion was from a reference, and no evidence was supplied that it is true in the Sargasso. What this does is to deflect the obvious: for each molecule of lime formed, a molecule of CO2 was removed from the environment, not added to it as seemingly claimed. Associated with this is the statement that the lime shields the fronds from sunlight and hence reduces photosynthesis. Can we do anything about this? We could try harvesting the old fronds and keep growing new ones. Further, just as our ancestors found that by careful management they could improve the grain size (wild wheat is not very impressive) we could “weed” to improve the quality of the stock.

I don’t get the next criticism. While calcification on seaweed was bad because it liberated CO2 (so they say) they then go on to say that growing seaweed reduces the phytoplankton, and then the calcification of that gets reduced, which liberates more CO2. Here we have increased calcification and decreased calcification both increase CO2. Really?

Another criticism is that the seaweeds let out other dissolved carbon, which is not particulate carbon. That is true, but so what? The dissolved sugars are not acidic. Microalgae will gobble them up, but again, so what?

The next criticism is if we manage to reduce the CO2 levels in the ocean, we cannot calculate what is going on, and the atmosphere may not be able to replenish the levels for a up to a hundred years. Given the turbulence during storms I find this hard to believe, but if it is true, again, so what? We are busy saving the ocean food chains. Ocean acidification is on the verge of wiping out all shellfish that rely on forming aragonite for their shells. Reducing that acidity should be a good thing.

They then criticise the proposal because growing forests on land reduces the albedo, and by making the land darker, makes the locality warmer. They then say the Sargasso floating seaweed increases the albedo of that part of the ocean, and hence reflects more light back to space, which reduces heat generation. Surely this is good? But wait. They then point out that other proposals have seaweed growing in deep water and this won’t happen. In other words, some aspect of some completely different proposal is a reason not to proceed with this one. Then they conclude by saying they need more money to get more detailed information. I agree more detailed information would be helpful, but they should acknowledge possible solutions to their problems. Thus ocean fertilization and harvesting mature seaweed could change their conclusions completely. I suspect the problem is they want to measure things, possibly remotely, but they do not want to actually do things, which involves a lot more effort, specifically on location. But for me, the real annoyance is that everyone by now knows that global warming is a problem. Growing seaweed might help solve that problem. We need to know whether it will contribute to a solution or merely transfer the problem. They may not have the answers, but they at least should identify the questions that need answers.

What to do about Climate Change

As noted in my previous post, the IPCC report on climate change is out. If you look at the technical report, it starts with pages of corrections. I would have thought that in these days the use of a word processor could permit the changes to be made immediately, but what do I know? Anyway, what are the conclusions? As far as I can make out, they have spent an enormous effort measuring greenhouse gas emissions and modelling, and have concluded that greenhouse gases are the cause of our problem and if we stopped emitting right now, totally, things would not get appreciably worse than they are now over the next century. As far as I can make out, that is it. They argue that CO2 emissions give a linear effect and for every trillion tonnes emitted, temperatures will rise by 0.45 Centigrade degrees, with a fairly high error margin. So we have to stop emitting.

The problem is, can we? In NZ we have a very high fraction of our electricity from renewable sources and we recently had a night of brown-outs in one region. It was the coldest night of the year, there was a storm over most of the country, but oddly enough there was hardly any wind at a wind farm. A large hydro station went out as well because the storm blew weeds into an intake and the station had to shut down and clean it out. The point is that when electricity generation is a commercial venture, it is not in the generating companies’ interests to have a whole lot of spare capacity and it make no sense to tear down what is working well and making money to spend a lot replacing it. So, the policy of using what we have means we are stuck where we are. China has announced, according to our news, that its coal-fired power stations will maximise and plateau their output of CO2 in about ten years. We have no chance of zero emissions in the foreseeable future. Politicians and environmentalists can dream on but there is too much inertia in an economy. Like a battleship steering straight for the wharf, the inevitable will happen.

Is there a solution? My opinion is, if you have to persist in reducing the heat being radiated to space, the best option is to stop letting so much energy from the sun into the system. The simplest experiment I can think of is to put huge amounts of finely dispersed white material, like the silica a volcano puts up, over the North Polar regions each summer to reflect sunlight back to space. If we can stop as much winter ice melting, we would be on the way to stop the potential overturn of the Gulf Stream and stop the Northern Siberian methane emissions. Just maybe this would also encourage more snow in the winter as the dust falls out.

Then obvious question is, how permanent would such a dispersion be? The short answer is, I don’t know, and it may be difficult to predict because of what is called the Arctic oscillation. When that is in a positive phase it appears that winds tend to circulate over the poles, so it may be possible to maintain dust over summer. It is less clear what happens in the negative phase. However, either way someone needs to calculate how much light has to be blocked to stop the Arctic (and Antarctic) warming. Maybe such a scheme would not be practical, but unless we at least make an effort to find out, we are in trouble.

This raises the question of who pays? In my opinion, every country with a port benefits if we can stop major sea level rising, so all should. Of course, we shall find that not all are cooperative. A further problem is that the outcome is somewhat unpredictable. The dust only has to last during the late spring and summer, because the objective is to reflect sunlight. For the period when the sun is absent it is irrelevant. We would also have to be sure the dust was not hazardous to health but we have lived through volcanic eruptions that have caused major lowering of the temperature world-wide so there will be suitable material.

There will always be some who lose on the deal. The suggestion of putting the dust over the Arctic would make the weather less pleasant in Murmansk, Fairbanks, Yukon, etc, but it would only return it to what it used to be. It is less clear what it would do elsewhere. If the arctic became colder, presumably there would be colder winter storms in more temperate regions. However, it might be better that we manage the climate than then planet does, thus if the Gulf Stream went, Europe would suffer both rising sea levels and temperatures and weather more like that of Kerguelen. In my opinion, it is worth trying.

But what is the betting any proposal for geoengineering has no show of getting off the ground? The politically correct want to solve the problem by everyone giving up something, they have not done the sums to estimate the consequences, and worse, some will give things up but enough won’t so that such sacrifices will be totally ineffective. We have the tragedy of the commons: if some are not going to cooperate and the scheme hence must fail, why should you even try? We need to find ways of reducing emissions other than by stopping an activity, as opposed to the emission.

Microplastics

You may have heard that the ocean is full of plastics, and while full is an excessive word, there are huge amounts of plastics there, thanks to humans inability to look after some things when they have finished using them. Homo litterus is what we are. You may even have heard that these plastics degrade in light, and form microscopic particles that are having an adverse effect on the fish population. If that is it, as they say, “You aint heard nothin’ yet.”

According to an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, there is roughly 1100 tons of microplastics in the air over the Western US, and presumably there are corresponding amounts elsewhere. When you go for a walk in the wilderness to take in the fresh air, well, you also breathe in microplastics. 84% of that in the western US comes from roads outside the major cities, and 11% appear to be blowing in from the oceans. They stay airborne for about a week, and eventually settle somewhere. As to source, plastic bags and bottles photodegrade and break down into ever-smaller fragments. When you put clothes made from synthetic fibers into your washing machine, tiny microfibers get sloughed off and end up wherever the wastewater ends up. The microplastics end up in the sludge, and if that is sold off as fertilizer, it ends up in the soil. Otherwise, it ends up in the sea. The fragments of plastics get smaller, but they stay more or less as polymers, although nylons and polyesters will presumably hydrolyse eventually. However, at present there are so many plastics in the oceans that there may even be as much microplastics blowing out as plastics going in.

When waves crash and winds scour the seas, they launch seawater droplets into the air. If the water can evaporate before the drops fall, i.e. in the small drops, you are left with an aerosol that contains salts from the sea, organic matter, microalgae, and now microplastics.

Agricultural dust provided 5% of the microplastics, and these are effectively recycled, while cities only provided 0.4%. The rest mainly come from roads outside cities. When a car rolls down a road, tiny flecks come off the tyres, and tyre particles are included in the microplastics because at that size the difference between a plastic and an elastomer is trivial. Road traffic in cities does produce a huge amount of such microplastics, but these did not affect this study because in the city, buildings shield the wind and particles do not get lifted to the higher atmosphere. They will simply pollute the citizens’ air locally so city dwellers merely get theirs “fresher”.  Also, the argument goes, cars moving at 100 k/h impart a lot of energy but in cities cars drive much more slowly. I am not sure how they counted freeways/motorways/etc that go through cities. They are hardly rural, although around here at rush hour they can sometimes look like they think they ought to be parking lots.

Another reason for assigning tyre particles as microplastics is that apparently all sources are so thoroughly mixed up it is impossible to differentiate them. The situation may be worse in Europe because there they get rid of waste plastics by incorporating them in road-surface material, and hence as the surface wears, recycled waste particles get into the air.

Which raises the question, what to do? Option 1 is to do nothing and hope we can live with these microplastics. You can form your own ideas on this. The second is to ban them from certain uses. In New Zealand we have banned supermarket plastic bags and when I go shopping I have reusable bags that are made out of, er, plastics, but of course they don’t get thrown away or dumped in the rubbish. The third option is to destroy the used plastics.I happen to favour the third option, because it is the only way to get rid of the polymers. The first step in such a system would be to size reduce the objects and separate those that float on water from those that do not. Those that do can be pyrolysed to form hydrocarbon fuels that with a little hydrotreating can make good diesel or petrol, while those that sink can be broken down with hydrothermal pyrolysis to get much the same result. Hydrothermal treatment of wastewater sludge also makes fuel, and the residues, essentially carbonaceous solids, can be buried to return carbon to the ground. Such polymers will no longer exist as polymers. However, whatever we do, all that will happen is we limit the load. The question then is, how harmless are they? Given we have yet to notice effects, they cannot be too hazardous, but what is acceptable?

Fire and Environmental Changes

Last week a fire went through the little town of Ohau and destroyed about 40 homes. Some other homes have survived, with varying degrees of heat damage, but the destroyed ones are simply reduced to heaps of ash, with lumps of fractured concrete and bits of metal. Various photographs show devastation where you cannot even distinguish where the sections were, or where the houses were, except for the odd place where there was a burnt-out car frame, and you can probably assume there was a residence there. And this is not even the fire season. Strangely enough, the fire completely burnt out a narrow strip alongside the lake, but further away, the “non-scenic, non prime” properties were largely unaffected. There was a very strong wind blowing at the time, and presumably it was blowing towards the lake. Further away from the town there are large areas that are burnt out and over six thousand hectares was obliterated in a very few days.

So, you may think, the effects of global warming striking home. I would think not. Two weeks previously there was another fire nearby, but it was soon extinguished by a major snowstorm. A major snowstorm around the spring equinox is not exactly unusual, but with that sort of weather present we can hardly blame global warming for the fires.  Obviously something else was responsible. In my opinion, environmentalists.

That probably needs a simple explanation. What has happened is there is a fairly large area that local farmers had used for free grazing, but the city environmentalists, members of the Green Party, were shouting out, “No, you must preserve native species growing there. They don’t grow anywhere else in the world, and anyway, why should farmers get free grazing?” Now, is that valid or misuse of political influence. (We have MMP as a form of government, and the small Green contingent is part of the present government.)

So surely it is reasonable to preserve a unique environment? First, it is true that there are native plants there that are not found in other countries. But the predominant vegetation is NOT unique native species. Humans have seriously changed the area, and most people do not know what it was like originally. The vegetation has been altered by an infestation of wilding pines and a number of other shrubby introduced species that got out of control. 

The problem with such introduced plants is that the scrubby ones die, and unless something is done with them, they stand there, dessicated, and become excellent fuel for fires. This land was declared conservation land, but then the Conservation Department did nothing with it to get rid of the potential fuel. The argument was, the area was simply too big. They had bitten off far more than they could chew. In that case, they badly needed to let farmers graze the area. One characteristic of well-grazed land is most of that shrubbery is eaten, and the inedible ones are removed by farmers. The “they shouldn’t have free grazing” is just envy, while, “The animals might eat native plants” is correct, but this fire hardly left them intact. Failure to have some control, like grazing, over this shrubbery was simply making fuel for a fire.

The real question is, what are we trying to preserve? Humans have changed the environment. It may be reasonable to try and protect modest areas in their original form, if you can find any, but the great bulk of the area needs to be permitted to evolve, and if humans have done something to alter it, they must permit corrective action to stop phenomena like fires. Conservation is all very well, if what you are conserving is worth while, but why conserve an area of miscellaneous scrub mainly comprising plats that were never there three hundred years ago?

Geoengineering: Shade the World

As you may have noticed when not concerned about a certain virus, global warming has not gone away. The virus did some good. I live on a hill and can look down on some roads, and during our lock-down the roads were strangely empty. Some people seemed to think we had found the answer to global warming, as much less petrol was bing burnt, but the fact is, even if nobody drove we were still producing net amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and even if we were not doing that, the amounts currently in the air are still out of equilibrium and would continue to melt ice and lead to high temperatures. In the northern hemisphere now you have a summer so maybe you notice.

So, what can we do? One proposal is to shade the Earth’s surface. The idea is that if you can reflect more incoming solar radiation back to space there is less energy on the surface and . . .  Yes, it is the ‘and’ wherein lies the difficulties. We get less radiation striking the surface, so we cool the surface, but then what? According to one paper recently published in Geophysical Research Letters (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL087348 ) the answer is not good news. They have produced simulations of models, and focus on what are called storm tracks, which are relatively narrow zones in oceans where storms such as tropical cyclones and mid-latitude cyclones travel through prevailing winds. Such geoengineering, according to the models, would weaken these storms. Exactly why this is bad eludes me. I would have thought lower energy storms would be good; why do we want hundreds of thousands of citizens have their properties leveled by hurricanes, typhoons, or simply tropical cyclones as they are known in the Southern Hemisphere? This weakening happens through a smaller pole to equator temperature difference because most of the light reflected is over the tropics. Storms are heat engines at work, and the greater the temperature difference, the more force can be generated. The second law of thermodynamics at work. Fine. We are cooling the surface, and while it may seem that we are ignoring the ice melting of the polar regions, we are not because most of the heat comes from ocean currents, and they are heated by the tropics.

More examples: we would reduce wind extremes in midlatitudes, possibly lead to less efficient ventilation of air pollution, may possibly decrease low cloud cover the storm‐track regions and weaken poleward energy transport. In short, a reasonable amount of that is what we want to do anyway. It is also claimed we would get increased heat waves. I find that suspicious, given that less heat is available. It is claimed that such activities would alter the climate. Yes, but that is what we would be trying to do, namely alter it from what it might have been. It is also claimed that the models show there could possibly  be regional reductions in rainfall. Perhaps, but that sort of thing is happening anyway. Australia had dreadful bushfires this year. I gather forest fires were going well in North America also.

One aspect of this type of study that bothers me is it is all based on models. The words like ‘may’, ‘could’ and ‘possibly’ turn up frequently. That, to me, indicates the modelers don’t actually have a lot of confidence in their models. The second thing that bothers me is they have not looked at nature. Consider the data from Travis et al.(2002) Nature 418, 601.  For the three days 11-14 Sept. 2001 the average diurnal temperature ranges averaged from 4000 weather stations across the US increased on average 1.1 degrees C above the average from 1971 – 2000, with the highest temperatures on the 14th. They were on average 1.8 degrees C greater than the average for the two adjacent three-day periods. The three days with the increase were, of course, the days when all US aircraft were grounded and there were no jet contrails. Notice that this is the difference between day and night; at night the contrails retain heat better, while in daytime they reflect sunlight.  Unfortunately, what was not stated in the paper was what the temperatures were. One argument is that models show while the contrails reflect more light during the day, they keep in more heat during the night. Instead of calculations, why not show the actual data?

The second piece of information is that the eruption of Mount Pinatubo sent aerosols into the atmosphere and for about a year the average global temperature dropped 1 degree C. Most of that ash was at low latitudes in the northern hemisphere. There are weather reports from this period so that should give clues as to what would happen if we tried this geoengineering. This overall cooling was real and the world economies did not come to an end. The data from that could contribute to addressing the unkn owns.

So, what is the answer? In my opinion, the only real answer is to try it out for a short period and see what happens. Once the outcomes are evaluated we can then decide what to do. The advantage of sending dust into the stratosphere is it does not stay there. If it does not turn out well, it will not be worse than what volcanoes do anyway. The disadvantage is to be effective we have to keep doing it. Maybe from various points of view it is a bad idea, but let us make up our minds from evaluating proper information and not rely on models that are no better than the assumptions used. Which choice we make should be based on data, not on emotion.