Liquid Fuels from Algae

In the previous post, I discussed biofuels in general. Now I shall get more specific, with one particular source that I have worked on. That is attempting to make liquid fuels from macro and microalgae. I was recently sent the following link:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/25/exxonmobil-to-climate-change-activists-chew-on-thi.aspx

In this, it was reported that ExxonMobil partnering Synthetic Genomics Inc. have a $600 million collaboration to develop biofuels from microalgae. I think this was sent to make me green with envy, because I was steering the research efforts of a company in New Zealand trying to do the same, except that they had only about $4 million. I rather fancy we had found the way to go with this, albeit with a lot more work to do, but the company foundered when it had to refinance. It could have done this in June 2008, but it put it off until 2009. I think it was in August that Lehmans did a nosedive, and the financial genii of Wall Street managed to find the optimal way to dislocate the world economies without themselves going to jail or, for that matter, becoming poor; it was the lesser souls that paid the price.

The background: microalgae are unique among plants in that they devote most of their photochemical energy into either making protein and lipids, which in more common language are oily fats. If for some reason, such as a shortage of nitrogen, they will swell up and just make lipids, and about 75 – 80% of their mass are comprised of these, and when nitrogen starved, they can reach about 70% lipids before they die of starvation. When nitrogen is plentiful, they try to reproduce as fast as they can, and that is rapid. Algae are the fastest growing plants on the planet. One problem with microalgae: they are very small, and hence difficult to harvest.

So what is ExxonMobil doing? According to this article they have trawled the world looking for samples of microalgae that give high yields of oil. They have tried gene-editing techniques to grow a strain that will double oil production without affecting growth rate, and they grow these in special tubes. To be relevant, they need a lot of tubes. According to the article, if they try open tanks, they need an area about the size of Colorado to supply America’s oil demand, and a corresponding lot of water. So, what is wrong here? In my opinion, just about everything.

First, you want to increase the oil yield? Take the microalgae from the rapidly growing stage and grow them in nitrogen-starved conditions. No need for special genetics. Second, if you are going to grow your microalgae in open tanks (to let in the necessary carbon dioxide and reduce containment costs) you also let in airborne algae. Eventually, they will take over because evolution has made them more competitive than your engineered strain. Third, no need to consider producing all of America’s liquid fuels all at once; electricity will take up some, and in any case, there is no single fix. We need what we can get. Fourth, if you want area, where is the greatest area with sufficient water? Anyone vote for the ocean? It is also possible that microalgae may not be the only option, because if you use the sea, you could try macroalgae, some of which such as Macrocystis pyrifera grow almost as fast, although they do not make significant levels of lipids.

We do not know how ExxonMobil intended to process their algae. What many people advocate is to extract out the lipids and convert them to biodiesel by reacting them with something like sodium methoxide. To stop horrible emulsions while extracting, the microalgae need to be dried, and that uses energy. My approach was to use simple high pressure processing in water, hence no need to dry the algae, from which both a high-octane petrol fraction and a high-cetane diesel fraction could be obtained. Conversion efficiencies are good, but there are many other byproducts, and some of the residue is very tarry.

After asking where the best supply of microalgae could be found, we came up with sewage treatment ponds. No capital requirement for building the ponds, and the microalgae are already there. In the nutrient rich water, they grow like mad, and take up the nutrients that would otherwise be considered pollutants like sponges. The lipid level by simple extraction is depressingly low, but the levels that are bound elsewhere in the algae are higher. There is then the question of costs. The big cost is in harvesting the microalgae, which is why macroalgae would be a better bet in the oceans.

The value of the high pressure processing (an accelerated treatment that mimics how nature made our crude oil in the first place) is now apparent: while the bulk of the material is not necessarily a fuel, the value of the “byproducts” of your fuel process vastly exceeds the value of the fuel. It is far easier to make money while still working on the smaller scale. (The chemical industry is very scale dependent. The cost of making something is such that if you construct a similar processing plant that doubles production, the unit cost of the larger plant is about 60% that of the smaller plant.)

So the approach I favour involves taking mainly algal biomass, including some microalgae from the ocean (and containing that might be a problem) and aiming initially to make most of your money from the chemical outputs. One of the ones I like a lot is a suite of compounds with low antibacterial activity, which should be good for feeding chickens and such, which in turn would remove the breeding ground for antibiotic resistant superbugs. There are plenty of opportunities, but unfortunately, a lot of effort and money required it make it work.

For more information on biofuels, my ebook, Biofuels An Overview is available at Smashwords through July for $0.99. Coupon code NY22C

The future did not seem to work!

When I started my career in chemistry as an undergraduate, chemists were an optimistic bunch, and everyone supported this view. Eventually, so it was felt, chemists would provide a substance to do just about anything people wanted, provided the laws of physics and chemistry permitted it. Thus something that was repelled by gravity was out, but a surprising lot was in. There was a shortage of chemists, and good paying jobs were guaranteed.

By the time I had finished my PhD, governments and businesses everywhere decided they had enough chemists for the time being thank you. The exciting future could be put on hold. For the time being, let us all stick to what we have. Of course there were still jobs; they were just an awfully lot harder to find. The golden days for jobs were over; as it happened, that was not the only thing that was over. In some people’s eyes, chemicals were about to become national villains.

There was an element of unthinking optimism from some. I recall in one of my undergraduate lectures where the structure of penicillin was discussed. Penicillin is a member of a class of chemicals called beta lactams, and the question of bacterial tolerance was discussed. The structure of penicillin is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin) where R defines the carboxylic acid to that amide. The answer to bacterial tolerance was simple: there is almost an infinite number of possible carboxylic acids (the variation is changing R) so chemists could always be a step ahead of the bugs. You might notice a flaw in that argument. Suppose the enzymes of the bug attacked the lactam end of the molecule and ignored the carboxylic acid amide? Yes, when bacteria learned to do that, the effectiveness of all penicillins disappears. Fortunately for us, this seems to be a more difficult achievement, and penicillins still have their uses.

The next question is, why did this happen? The answer is simple: stupidity. People stopped restricting the use to countering important infections. They started to be available “over the counter” in some places, and they were used intermittently by some, or as prophylactics by others. Not using the full course meant that some bacteria were not eliminated, and since they were the most resistant ones, thanks to evolution when they entered the environment, they conveyed some of the resistance. This was made worse by agricultural use where low levels were used to promote growth. If that was not a recipe to breed resistance, what was?

The next “disaster” to happen was the recognition of ozone depletion, caused by the presence of chlorofluorocarbons, which on photolysis in the upper atmosphere created free radicals that destroyed ozone. The chlorofluorocarbons arose from spray cans, essential for hair spray and graffiti. This problem appears to have been successfully solved, not by banning spray cans, not by requesting restraint from users, but rather by replacing the chlorofluorocarbons with hydrocarbon propellant.

One problem we have not addressed, despite the fact that everyone knows it is there, is rubbish in the environment. What inspired this post was the announcement that rubbish has been found in the bottom of the Marianna trench. Hardly surprising; heavy things sink. But some also floats. The amounts of waste plastic in the oceans is simply horrendous, and only too much of it is killing fish and sea mammals. What starts off as a useful idea can end up generating a nightmare if people do not treat it properly. One example that might happen comes from a news report this week: a new type of plastic bottle has been developed that is extremely slippery, and hence you can more easily get out the last bit of ketchup. Now, how will this be recycled? I once developed a reasonably sophisticated process for recycling plastics, and the major nightmare is the multi-layered plastics with hopelessly incompatible properties. This material has at least three different components, and at least one of them appears to be just about totally incompatible with everything else, which is where the special slipperiness comes from. So, what will happen to all these bottles?

Then last problem to be listed here is climate change. The problem is that some of the more important people, such as some politicians, do not believe in it sufficiently to do anything about it. The last thing a politician wants to do is irritate those who fund his election campaign. Accordingly, that problem may be insoluble in practice.

The common problem here is that things tend to get used without thinking of the consequences of what is likely to happen. Where things have gone wrong is people. The potential failure of antibiotics is simply due to greed from the agricultural sector; there was no need for its use as a growth promoter when the downside is the return of bacterial dominance. The filling of the oceans with plastic bags is just sloth. Yes, the bag is useful, but the bag does not have to end in the sea. Climate change is a bit more difficult, but again people are the problem, this time in voting for politicians that announce they don’t believe in it. If everybody agreed not to vote for anyone who refused to take action, I bet there would be action. But people don’t want to do that, because action will involve increased taxes and a requirement to be better citizens.

Which raises the question, do we need more science? In the most recent edition of Nature there was an interesting comment: people pay taxes for one of two reasons, namely they feel extremely generous and want to good in the world, or alternatively, they pay them because they will go to jail if they don’t. This was followed by the comment to scientists: do you feel your work is so important someone should be thrown into jail if they don’t fund it? That puts things into perspective, doesn’t it? What about adding if they question who the discovery will benefit.

Trump and Climate Change

In his first week in office, President Trump has overturned President Obama’s stopping of two pipelines and has indicated a strong preference for further oil drilling. He has also denied that climate change is real. For me, this raises two issues. The first is, will President Trump’s denial of climate change, and his refusal to take action, make much difference to climate change? In my opinion, not in the usual sense, where everybody is calling for restraint on carbon dioxide emissions. The problem is sufficiently big that this will make only a minor difference. The action is a bit like the Captain of the Titanic finding two passengers had brought life jackets so he confiscates them and throws them overboard. The required action was to steer away from a field of icebergs, and the belief the ship was unsinkable was just plain ignorant, and in my opinion, the denial that we have to do something reasonably dramatic about climate change falls into the same category. The second issue is how does science work, and why is it so difficult to get the problem across? I am afraid the answer to this goes back to the education system, which does not explain science at all well. The problem with science for most people is that nature cares not a jot for what you feel. The net result is that opinions and feelings are ultimately irrelevant. You can deny all you like, but that will not change the consequences.

Science tries to put numbers to things, and it tries to locate critical findings, which are when the numbers show that alternative propsitions are wrong. It may be that only one observation is critical. Thus Newtonian mechanics was effectively replaced by Einstein’s relativity because it alone allowed the calculation of the orbital characteristics of Mercury. (Some might say Eddington’s observation of light bending around the sun during an eclipse, but Newton predicted that too. Einstein correctly predicted the bending would be twice that of Newton, but I think Newton’s prediction could be patched given Maxwell’s electrodynamics. For Newton’s theory, Mercury’s orbit was impossible to patch.)

So what about climate change? The key here is to find something with the fewest complicating factors, and that was done when Lyman et al. (Nature 465: 334-337, 2010) measured the power flows across ocean surfaces, and found there was a net input of approximately 0.6 W/m2. That is every square meter gets a net input of 0.6 Joules per second, averaged over the 24 hr period. Now this will obviously be approximate because they did not measure every square meter of ocean, but the significance is clear. The total input from the star is about 1300 W/m2 at noon, so when you allow for night, the fact that it falls away significantly as we get reasonably away from noon, and there are cloudy days, you will see that the heat retained is a non-trivial fraction of the input.

Let us see what that means for the net input. Over a year it becomes a little under 19 MJ for our square meter, and over the oceans, I make it about 6.8 x 1021 J. There is plenty of room for error there (hopefully not my arithmetic) but that is not the point. The planet is a big place, and that is really a lot of energy: about a million million times 1.6 tonnes of TNT.

That has been going on every year this century, and here is the problem: that net heat input will continue, even if we totally stopped burning carbon tomorrow, and the effects would gradually decay as the carbon we have burnt gradually weathers away. It would take over 300 years to return to where we were at the end of the 19th century. That indicates the size of the physical problem. The fact that so many people can deny a problem exists, with no better evidence than, “I don’t believe it,” is our current curse. The next problem is that just slowing down the production of CO2, and other greenhouse gases, is not going to solve it. This is a problem that has crept up on us because a planet is a rather large object. It has taken a long time for humanity’s efforts to make a significant increase to the world’s temperatures, but equally it will take a long time to stop the increase from continuing. Worse, one of the reasons the temperature increases have been modest is that a lot of this excess heat has gone into melting ice. Eight units of water at ten degrees centigrade will melt one unit of ice, and we end up with nine units of water at nought degrees Centigrade. The ice on the planet is a great restraint on temperature increases, but once the ice in contact with water has melted, temperatures may surge. If we want to retain our current environment and sea levels, we have some serious work to do, and denying the problem exists is a bad start.

Substitutes for fossil fuel

In my previous two posts I have discussed how we could assist climate change by reflecting light back to space, and some ways to take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. However, there is another important option: stop burning fossil fuels, and to do that either we need replacement sources of energy, or we need to stop using energy. In practice, reducing energy usage and replacing the rest would seem optimal. We already have some options, such as solar power and wind power. New Zealand currently gets about 80% of its electricity from natural sources, the two main ones being hydro and geothermal, with wind power coming a more distant third. However, that won’t work for many countries. Nuclear power is one option, and would be a much better one if we could develop a thorium cycle, because thorium reactors do not go critical, you cannot make bombs from the wastes, and the nuclear waste is a lot safer to handle as the bulk of the radioactive wastes have very short half-lives. Thermonuclear power would be a simple answer, but there is a standard joke about that, which I might as well include:

A Princeton plasma physicist is at the beach when he discovers an ancient looking oil lantern sticking out of the sand. He rubs the sand off with a towel and a genie pops out. The genie offers to grant him one wish. The physicist retrieves a map of the world from his car, circles the Middle East and tells the genie, ‘I wish you to bring peace in this region’.

 After 10 long minutes of deliberation, the genie replies, ‘Gee, there are lots of problems there with Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, and all those other places. This is awfully embarrassing. I’ve never had to do this before, but I’m just going to have to ask you for another wish. This one is just too much for me’.

Taken aback, the physicist thinks a bit and asks, ‘I wish that the Princeton tokamak would achieve scientific fusion energy break-even.’

After another deliberation the genie asks, ‘Could I see that map again?’

So, although there is a lot of work to be done, the generation of electricity is manageable so let’s move on to transport. Electricity is great for trains and for vehicles that can draw power from a mains source, and for short-distance travel, but there is a severe problem for vehicles that store their electricity and have to do a lot of work between charging. Essentially, the current batteries or fuel cells are too heavy and voluminous for the amount of charge. There may be improvements, but most of the contenders have problems of either price or performance, or both. In my novel, Red Gold, set during a future colonization of Mars, I used thermonuclear power as the primary source of electricity, and for transport I used an aluminium chlorine fuel cell. That does not exist as yet, but I chose it because for power density aluminium is probably optimal for unit weight, and chlorine the optimal for the oxidizing agent because chlorine would be a liquid on Mars, and further under my refining scheme, there would be an excess of it. Chlorine has the added advantage that it reacts well with aluminium and the aluminium chloride will contribute to the electrolyte. As it happens, since then someone has demonstrated an Al/Cl battery that works very well, so it might even be plausible, but not on Earth. One basic problem with such batteries is an odd one: the ions that have to move in the electrolyte usually interact strongly with any oxygen atoms in the electrolyte, thus slowing down, and reducing the possible power output. That is another reason why I chose a chloride mechanism; it might be fiction but I try and make the speculative science behind it at least based on some correct physics and chemistry.

So, in the absence of very heavy duty batteries, liquid fuels are very desirable. As it happens, I have worked in the area of biofuels (and summarised my basic thoughts in an ebook Biofuels) and with a little basic arithmetic we find that to replace our current usage of oil, and assuming the most optimal technology, we would need to add another amount of productive land equal to our total arable farmland, and that is simply not going to happen. That does not mean that biofuels cannot contribute, but it does mean we need to reduce the load.

There is more than one way to do that. In one of my novels I came up with the answer of having everyone live closer to work. Where I live, during the rush hours there are streams of cars going in opposite directions. If they all lived closer to work, this would be unnecessary. Everyone says, use public transport, except that if you do, you see the trains are choked at that time of day. Such an option would require a lot of social engineering because the bosses want work done at centres where they think it should be done, while the workers cannot afford to live anywhere even vaguely nearby. That means social engineering is required, and people tend to object to that, and politicians will not impose it on the bosses.

As mentioned in my last post, a slightly better option is to grow algae. Some of these are the fastest growing plants on the planet, and of course as far as area is concerned, the oceans are unlimited, at least at present. Accordingly, it should be possible in theory to solve this energy problem. The problem is, though, with the technologies I have recommended here, they all require serious development. We know in principle how they all should work, except possibly nuclear fusion, but we do not know how to put the technology into a useful form. Meanwhile, with the low price of oil there is no incentive. Here, the answer is clear: a serious carbon tax is required on fossil fuels. I would like to see the resultant money being at least in part spent on developing potential technologies. Maybe this is my personal bias coming through – the promising algal technology I was working on collapsed when fund-raising was scheduled for the end of 2007, and thanks to Lehmans, that was not going to succeed. I am not alone. I am familiar with at least three other technologies of which I had no involvement but looked extremely promising, but they ran out of funding. As a society, can we afford the waste?

Reducing Greenhouse Gases: The Problem

In the previous post, I looked at the prospects for helping combat global warming by decreasing the solar input to the planet, mainly by reflecting light back to space. The basic problem is the size of the planet: to reduce solar input by 1% you have to totally reflect one per cent of the incoming radiation, which involved ideal reflectors of area somewhat greater than 4 x 10^11 square meters.

Superficially, option two, which is to increase heat output, is easier. All you have to do is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, that is something of a problem because we are adding almost 9 billion tonne of carbon as greenhouse gases per year. So, to improve the current situation we have to devise a means of taking out more than 9 Gt of carbon, or over 33 billion tonne of carbon dioxide per annum. Worse, much of the carbon is in the form of methane, which is a much worse greenhouse gas, so a target of 50 billion tonne per annum of carbon dioxide is probably a minimal “hold the current state”. Again, the size of the problem is basically the problem.

Carbon dioxide is naturally removed from the atmosphere by weathering certain rocks. To oversimplify, silicates come in two main classes: granitic and basaltic. The granitic rocks have a much lower density than the basaltic, so they tend to float, and our continents are largely granitic, which, having a large fraction of their composition as aluminosilicates, and since aluminium does not form a stable carbonate, these rocks weather mainly to clays and not carbonates. Thus the main rocks of our continents are not going to help.

The basaltic rocks mainly comprise olivines or pyroxyenes, which are two families of iron/magnesium silicates, the former being nominally “salts” of silicic acid, and the latter salts of chains of polysilicic acid. These will weather to form silica and carbonates of their metals, but at varying rates. One of the proposals is to crush peridotite, one of the fastest to weather, into dust and incorporate it into soils. Powdering it increases surface area, thus increasing the rate of reaction because the reaction is limited to where the carbonic acid in water can get at something to react. It will still be slow, and the energy to crush the rock has to come from somewhere, and might be better used to substitute for the worst other means of producing energy. Another problem is that while peridotite is one of the most common rocks on the planet, that is because it is essentially an upper mantle rock, with only odd visits to the surface. Reacting the gaseous carbon dioxide with basalt is nature’s way of taking it from the atmosphere, but with all the basalt on the planetary surface, it will take centuries to remove the excess there now. This is not going work, although it would make sense to bury carbon dioxide if it were already isolated, but preferably into some basaltic zone.

A better way of removing carbon dioxide is to grow more forests, and in particular to permit the equatorial rain forests to regenerate. A further alternative is to grow massive amounts of algae, which would require ocean fertilization. Some marine algae are extremely rapid growing plants (with a microscope you can watch continuous cell division!). For macroalgae, in the 1970s the US Navy showed how such algae could be grown in open ocean water (as opposed to near coastlines) by growing on rafts and fertilizing with bottom water raised by wave power. The experiment succeeded until a rather unfortunate storm wrecked things, but that, to me is a design and engineering problem that could be solved. In short, the technology for growing plants is more or less available.

The algae could then be used to make synthetic fuels, and while that would merely cycle carbon dioxide, it is better than producing more. We could also bury carbon, as any such processing makes some carbon deposited as char. The growing of algae has one further possible advantage; it takes energy entering the oceans and stores it as chemical energy rather than as heat, and it also emits mercaptans, which should make more clouds after absorbing more ultraviolet light.

To be clear, neither of these will solve the problem, but growing plants will at least contribute to a solution.

So, why don’t we? Quite simply, economics. There are two main problems: the tragedy of the commons, and politicians. The first problem is that unless everyone contributes, the problem cannot be solved, but some, of course, will not mind climate change, or, alternatively, decide nothing will affect them, so why should they pay to fix it? Unfortunately, the expense is so great. This is part of why I favour the algal response. The growing of such algae will also support greater fish life, and hence improve the food supplies, and can be used to make liquid fuels, provided the right technology is used, and there is some chance it may increase cloud cover. By addressing three problems, two of which have money-making prospects as well, makes it more likely it would be successful. At first, of course, such algae could be grown near the current coastlines, and we know how to do that.

Politicians are a more intractable problem. An example: in New Zealand politicians were determined that an emissions trading scheme would be its response. Some New Zealanders began planting trees to get credits, but then Ukraine and Russia produced mountains of such paper credits, there price crashed, and while the current trees might be absorbing carbon dioxide, nobody is in a rush to plant more. If you have travelled the world, you will see vast area where forests have been removed and nothing done with the resultant land. Forests could be regrown, especially tropical ones. The problem then is, who pays for them? Why should Brazil, say, spend a lot of money to plant forests to benefit everyone else? It is politics and governance again.

Remedies for Climate Change: (1) Reflect!

In my post of a week ago, I raised the issue of climate change, and argued that because there is a net power input to the surface now, due to reduced cooling caused by the blanket effect of the so-called greenhouse gases, even if we stopped producing such gases right now, we would still have serious problems because the current rate of net ice melting would continue. Now, it is all very well to moan about it, but the question is, what should our response be? This is too complicated for one post, so this will start a small sequence, although not all will be consecutive.

The easiest response is to do nothing and keep going as we are. Eventually, the sea will rise by about 60 meters. That would drown London, Beijing, and a number of other cities, in fact almost every port city, and it would remove a huge amount of prime agricultural land. Suppose we do not wish that, what can we do? In logic, there are four main options: lower the heat input; raise the heat output; store input energy as chemical energy; increase snow precipitation on polar regions so that it makes up for the increased melting. The last option means we accept everything else, such as increased temperatures and worse storms, but we protect our land. Obviously, we should also reduce our output of so-called greenhouse gases, because while even stopping this output does not solve the problem, at least it stops making the problem increasingly more difficult.

You may argue that such options suffer from failure to be practical. Possibly, but unless we investigate, how do you know? Another argument sometimes put forward is we should not do anything because there could be unintended consequences. That too is true, but is drowning London and starving a great fraction of the population a desired consequence, because that is what happens if we do nothing?

Lowering the heat input is most easily achieved by reflecting more radiation to space i.e. increase the albedo of the planet or place reflectors in space. Increasing the albedo is probably most easily done by increasing cloud cover. One proposal I have seen to do that is to spray seawater into the air. The biggest single problem with this proposal is that there appear to be no readily available analysis of the costs and benefits. How would we power the sprays? If that were done through solar, or wind energy, that would be more helpful than doing it by burning diesel. How long would such salt-laden clouds last? We simply don’t know. Some might argue that clouds contain water, which is itself a powerful blanket material. That is true, and it is why cloudy nights are warmer than cloudless ones, nevertheless there should still be a significant net benefit, because the reflection to space is of visible and even ultraviolet light, whereas the blanket effect merely affects infrared light, of a moderate frequency range, although it does it 24 hrs/day.

How about space reflectors? The cost would be enormous, although there is one possibility. Suppose one could develop solar-powered lasers that were sufficiently powerful to ablate space junk. You do not need a major mirror, but merely a large surface area. If you could boil away the metal and condense it as dust, that would still qualify as area. As an aside, it does not need to be that bright, although it should be. If sunlight is absorbed in space, that is almost as effective because the dust then re-radiates the energy as heat, and most will be directed to space.

It is also possible that there could be other minor ways of contributing. Thus the concept of everyone painting their roof white, as suggested by physics Nobel laureate Steven Chu, or even using aluminium for roofs is often rejected as making contributions that are too small, nevertheless, every ordinary householder still has to paint their roof or replace it at some time, and does it hurt to be helpful?

Another possibility might be to inject something into the exhaust of jet engines at high altitude. The point here is the jets are flying anyway, and you would end with micron-sized white dust in the contrails. Materials have to be chosen so they do not form slags in the engines, hence the choice depends on technical details of which I am unaware. Materials, in order of higher melting point dust, might range from a mercaptan or dialkyl sulphide (no solid, but would produce sulphuric acid on oxidation, which would condense water vapour and make clouds), diethyl zinc (which would produce white zinc oxide, melting point 1975 oC, and hence would remain as a dust in any working engine) or alkyl silanes (which would produce silicon dioxide, similar to volcanic ash, with a melting point above 1600 oC. The actual melting point depends on the form of the solid).

Finally, there is also the possibility of growing certain crops that give off gases that may increase cloud cover. Thus certain marine algae are reported to give off mercaptans, which would be photooxidised to sulphuric acid and thus form clouds, and also each molecule would remove some number of photons from the solar input. Removing ultraviolet also removes the corresponding heat input.

An important point to consider is that all light that is not reflected to space is either converted to heat eventually, or is locked away as chemical energy. The Earth continually presents to the sun a cross-sectional area of about 40.5 x 10^12 square meters. You can work out for yourself the area required to reduce the solar input by whatever per centage you wish, after correcting for whatever efficiency you choose, but as you can see, it is a very large area, no matter what.

It may strike you that trying to solve this problem this way is simply too difficult and expensive. Possibly, but my argument is we are wrong to rely on one king hit. For me, this is the problem to be solved by a thousand cuts, so to speak. In later posts I shall add thoughts on the other alternatives. However, the above thoughts seem to me to form the start of a concept. There are some things we might try that either might have other benefits or are reasonably cheap to put into practice, and these should take some form of precedence. But the overall conclusion is clear: there is simply insufficient data available to reach any reasonable conclusion.

Where goeth Russia?

One of the themes of my futuristic ebooks is how economies might work, and one of the conclusions is that it may not matter all that much, because whatever economic system a country adopts, the outcome depends largely on the competence or incompetence of those in key positions. If we now look at Russia, we can see why, despite it having a very wide range of resources, it is in the economic doldrums.

Russia’s problems start with various Tsars, who basically wanted to control everything themselves, but did not want to do the required work. Probably the most successful economy led by a single person would have been Rome under Augustus. Augustus had several things going for him, namely the people of Rome wanted an end to civil wars, with Roman killing Roman, he had an economy that was working reasonably well considering the times, Rome had recently conquered a considerable amount of territory so it had a good income through taxing the conquered, the Roman system was essentially free enterprise, or at least much freer than anything else of the time, and also he had one of the most exceptional people who could get things done in Marcus Agrippa. Even so, Augustus was a workaholic, and even then, Roman civilization started its decline in terms of creativity. The Tsars were bone lazy, and spent most of their time terrifying the population.

The Soviet Union might well have worked, but for top management. Stalin actually had some ideas as to what had to be done, but his basic insecurity (kill anyone who looks like a political threat) and his total lack of care for the population (much better to kill a hundred innocent than let one guilty person escape, and, guilt merely involved disagreeing with Stalin, or even being disliked by Stalin) meant that not a lot really got done properly. Stalin was in too big a hurry to bring the Soviet Union into the modern age and he spent no time bringing the people with him. The reason: he feared an invasion from Hitler. He was correct.

Let us look at what happened at the end of WW2. Stalin offered the west a buffer zone. Stalin would withdraw to the Soviet boundaries IF the West left Germany to be neutral. What Stalin wanted was to have a good neutral barrier between him and the West because he believed the Americans hated Communism. He was not that wrong. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the economy was heavily distorted towards military manufacturing, with very little effective consumer goods being made. The agricultural sector was a mess because first collectivization led to few incentives, and second the transport and storage infrastructure was poor. Then when the Soviet Union fell, Yeltsin permitted a number of fly-by oligarchs to take over the industries, many of which they let collapse and after asset stripping, too much of the money ended up being shipped offshore. The net result was that Russia’s manufacturing base fell backwards, the agricultural sector still had a hopeless infrastructure, and as oil production grew, too much of that income simply went to oligarch’s offshore accounts.

Now, with sanctions and a falling rouble, the Russian economy can either collapse in a heap and western financiers can pick over the residues, but only if the military let them, or they can reorganize themselves and start up their own manufacturing base and make products. They may not be brilliant ones, BUT they will be competitive because in Russia there will be little else affordable. So Russia may finally construct a balanced economy. No guarantees, but their choices are do or not do, and not do leaves them in a real mess.

So, this is a triumph for the West? Anyone who thinks that is a clod. Russia is in trouble because oil prices have fallen, thanks to US fracking. What that does is to depress the price of oil to the extent that it is no longer economically sensible to proceed with many of the biofuel options, so oil replacements will stay not implemented. What that means is the sea level rises are inevitable, and the biggest losers from this may well be the Western economies. This is an example of the unintended consequences of something that is immediately good. Fracking has been great for the US economy, but not so good for global warming. Oddly enough, Russia, and Canada, will probably benefit from global warming, as most of it is not beside a coastline, and the north is horribly cold. Useful land will move north.

For the time being, though, Russia is in for a very hard time, no matter what happens, or what they do now. Even if they pulled out of Crimea and Ukraine and bent over and took their whipping from the West, that would not make a jot of difference. They must now pay the price for their history. The only question is, how do they do it? Their only real option is to use their resources and regenerate their economy themselves. Western investment is useless to them, because again, all the wealth from the resources will disappear offshore, leaving the average Russian as little better than an impoverished peasant. At present, Putin may not be what everyone wants to see, he is not exactly a genius leader, but he is all that Russia seems to have at present to avoid the worst of the collapse. Remember that while the West dislikes him, they do not care at all for the benefit of Russians; they only care about themselves, for that is the reality of the invisible hand of the market.