One feature of the next Issue of the CamACAG Climate Change Action Review will be re-writes and updates on several of the position statements. All feedback and suggestions for improvements or additions to the list of CamACAG Position Statements are greatly appreciated. (cambridge.slater[a]yahoo.co.uk spam prevention replace[a] with @)

One very useful query recently received relates to statement No. 7 (Issue # 3) concerning the potential utility of onshore wind powered electricity generation. Apologies for an editorial error that led to the entirely erroneous statement that onshore wind could only hope to save the CO2 output of ‘one large power station’ even if 10% of the land surface of the UK were to be used.

What should have been said was that the actual contribution of currently deployed wind generators is very approximately that of one large power station, but that we would have to cover 10% of the UK’s surface if we want to use wind power to replace and phase out fossil fuel and nuclear electricity generation entirely. (That statement itself may or may not be adequately accurate, but with a policy of continuous improvement and sufficient feedback we should be able to get a short, definitive, easily comprehensible and useful position statement written within the next few issues.)

Guest Commentary by Frank Zeman

[This is one of an occasional series on the science of mitigation/adaptation/geo-engineering that we hope to continue. Since this isn't our core expertise, we'd especially appreciate balanced contributions from other scientists.]

One of the central challenges of controlling anthropogenic climate change is developing technologies that deal with emissions from small, dispersed sources such as automobiles and residential houses. Capturing these emissions is more difficult as they are too small to support infrastructure, such as pipelines, and may be mobile, as with cars. For these reasons, proposed solutions, such as switching to using hydrogen or electricity as a fuel, rely on the carbon-free generation of electricity or hydrogen. That implies that the fuel must be made either by renewable generation (wind, solar, geothermal etc.), nuclear or by facilities that capture the carbon dioxide and store it (CCS).

There is however an alternative that gets some occasional attention: Air Capture (for instance, here or here). The idea would be to let people emit the carbon dioxide at the source but then capture it directly from the atmosphere at a separate facility.

The removal of carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere is a natural phenomenon that occurs in the surface ocean or during photosynthesis. Ocean absorption is a result of both the higher concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere and the alkaline nature of seawater (Note that this absorption that is leading to the “other” CO₂ problem, ocean acidification - which may prove detrimental to coral reefs and other organisms that use carbonate). Land-based air capture is an effort to enhance this mechanism at an industrial scale so that CO₂ can be removed from the atmosphere under controlled conditions. Given that it is performed under controlled conditions, we can use more alkaline solutions to improve the rate of capture without adversely affecting the biosphere.

Industrial air capture is based on the absorption of CO₂ using alkali earth metals such as sodium or potassium. The process is a variant of the Kraft Process used in most pulp and paper mills and as such, benefits from a long industrial history. The CO₂ is absorbed into solution, transferred to lime via a process called causticization and released in a kiln. With some modifications to the existing processes, mainly an oxygen-fired kiln, the end result is a concentrated stream of CO₂ ready for storage or use in fuels. An alternative to this thermo-chemical process is an electrical one in which an electrical voltage is applied across the carbonate solution to release the CO₂. While simpler, the electrical process consumes more energy as it splits water at the same time. It also depends on electricity and so unless the electricity is renewable or nuclear, will result in the storage of more CO₂ than the chemical process.

If the technology is well established and, aside from the oxygen combustion of lime, dates back over 50 years, what stops it from being used and what might change in the future?

The main barrier is the efficiency of the energy requirements during the reducing process. Air capture requires energy to move the air, manufacture the absorbing solutions and solids as well as to produce the oxygen, fuel and make up chemicals. All of these items will result in additional CO₂ emissions, which reduce the efficiency and therefore the benefits. The second important consideration, and maybe the dominant one, is cost. Air capture has to be more economical than the proposed alternatives (hydrogen, electricity, renewables, greater efficiency etc.). It should be stated clearly that air capture is not a viable alternative to capture at large, point source emitters such as power plants since it will always be more efficient to capture and store carbon dioxide from more concentrated streams. So while there are any non-CCS fossil fuel plants, Air Capture is a non-starter.

But recent suugestions have re-thought air capture as a thermal process. The early incarnations of air capture used electricity as the energy source and therefore depended on carbon-free sources. A thermal Air Capture system uses heat that can be generated on-site, reducing the inefficiencies associated with producing electricity, but of course it still needs a source of (carbon-free) heat. Notably, this implies that air capture could reduce greenhouse gas emissions independently of developments in the power generation or transportation sector. Preliminary experimentation has shown that causticization can occur at ambient temperatures and that conventional vacuum filtration is sufficient to avoid large evaporation penalties. These developments reduce the total energy required for the process by about half compared to the conventional method and thereby reduce the amount of CO₂ that would need to be sent to storage.

However, the cost of air capture is still basically unknown. Estimates have varied wildly and real numbers will only come from pilot projects over the next few years. In some sense, that puts this technology on par with the hydrogen economy with expansion potentially starting sometime after 2015. For now there are far easier (efficiency) and cheaper (power plants) ways of reducing emissions of CO₂ and so air capture is not a replacement for other efforts to reduce emissions. But in the long run, all carbon sources will require mitigation - including the transportation sector - and at that time air capture could be the most cost effective option for some sources. It is not any kind of panacea though.

Share This

On Friday, I saw Sir David King talk about his new book on climate change: ‘The Hot Topic‘. He came across as you’d expect: warm, authoritative, knowledgeable - the antithesis of ignorance.

One way to measure the advances made in the twentieth century is to look at the life expectancy, which has gone up from around 45 at the start of the 20th century to around 80 at the end. Women’s fertility has dropped as well - In the last 10 years the fecundity has gone down in Latin America from 5.5 to 2. But the population growth is still a given. at over 9 billion by the middle of the century.

It is this population growth that is causing our problems. The challenges of the 21st century: food, water, energy, security, disease etc. are strongly linked together - and climate change is a common factor.

One of the key policy tools for solving the problem is *forward looking regulation*. For example, telling car manufacturers that cars must be of a certain standard. Johnson Matthey - a local company - in fact even now makes very efficient catalytic converters. The air comes out cleaner than it goes in!!

After all this regulation of local pollutants you are simply left with CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas. Safe of course. But of course it has serious effects.

Look at the relation between CO2 and temperature. We know the temperature was at the Palaeocene-Eocene maximum about 8-10 warmer than it is now.

This has huge impacts, not least on biodiversity. The mountain gorillas of central Africa need 40 or so plants to survive, and lives in a specialised bamboo forest. The gorillas move with the - isotherms up the mountain but eventually they reach the top of the mountain and there is nowhere to run to. We’re not capable of recreating their natural habitat.

One difficulty is negotiating with so many countries that are in different current and historical states. e.g. US & Canada pollute twice as fast as Europe.

However we must involve the developing world too - as a graph of projected future BAU emissions shows. To reduce carbon emissions to safe levels, emissions need to peak at about 9GtC in next 10 years for 450ppmCO2only and about 12GtC per an in next 20 years for 550ppmCO2only. This is a huge task. But we’d better start now!

In short then, climate change is ‘The Hot Topic‘!

A

A

The pilot site’s up and running (on time - unbelievably) … which is a culmination of a busy few weeks for the dirt team. Tom’s insisted on calling it the “Beta” site … which apparently is the techy’s cooler way of saying it’s not the final site …!??? It would be good to get your feedback though - so any comments, insults, murmurings or positive stuff would be more than welcome.

Let’s bring you up to speed on how we got here …

Nick and I cruised down to the Cambridge University climate change day last month. It meant giving a quick talk (yes - in a proper lecture theatre) and mingling with the students, societies and professors over some veggie sandwiches. All seemed to run smoothly - I swiped a couple of Nick’s slides by a mistake … but Nick soon reversed the advantage by getting more girls numbers than I did in the society fair. The concept of PD seemed to be successfully introduced. The day was then finished off nicely with a good sing along to Guns n Roses back along the M11 - whilst getting lost in Stratford.

Wandsworth have also been in the PD firing line. Peter Brenan and his team have been hugely support of PD from the start … and we had a great meeting where his team threw the kitchen sink at us. We covered some very important topics and ironed out how best to take things forward. The meeting ended on a positive note - and now the trialing with Wandsworth is a whisker away. Nick and I have also been asked to speak at the next environmental forum … which is exciting, slightly scary - and importantly … an immense privilege.

The blog’s getting too long - so time to sign off …

Here featured in his Eco-Power Ranger leotard, Neil Jennings of UEA runs the Student Switch Off to save energy and emissions in campus Halls of Residence, and is an ambassador of the Ben and Jerry's Climate Change College

The major contribution to the IPCC of Professor Bob Watson, the Tyndall Centre's Director for Strategic Development, was recognised in the acceptance speech of current IPCC Chair, Dr Rajendra Pachauri

Routledge has published 'Politics of the Environment: a survey', edited by Chukwumerije Okereke at UEA, and 'Global Justice and Neoliberal Environmental Governance', which is authored by Chukwumerije Okereke

The Tyndall Centre is convening in London a two day conference of 250 international scientists and experts on 7 and 8 February

The Japan-UK Joint Project today launches its scenarios for a low-carbon economy that meets future energy demand. Jim Watson from Tyndall Sussex is part of this initiative that stems from the Gleneagles G8 Summit.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has named Professor Robert Watson as winner of the 2007 AAAS International Scientific Cooperation Award.

A number of key components of the earth's climate system could pass their "tipping point" this century, according to new research led by Professor Tim Lenton at the University of East Anglia

The magnitude and urgency of effective greenhouse gas reduction has led to renewed interest in planet-sized engineering solutions to climate change management.

Heather Lovell of Edinburgh University writes why non-state actors see themselves as more effective, efficient and faster at tackling climate change than nation-states

Tyndall receives 5% of the Collaborative Centres budget of the Natural Environment Research Council but is responsible for 17% of NERC's total mentions in Parliament, while Tyndall's scientific publications are on a par with other research with a similar level of funding

Tax reform is essential is we are to stop or slow many of the most persistent threats to our environment. Here Dr Adrian Wrigley lays out his ideas for a radical Carbon Tax and explains how replacing the Council Tax with a Land Value Tax could solve the current housing crisis

The Conservatives are considering an array of tax tweaks this week based on studies by the Centre for Social Justice. Their latest recommendations include tax rewards for married couples and welfare measures aimed at “ending the costs of social breakdown”. But although they deserve full marks for identifying the symptoms and establishing that the culprit is the structure of the tax and benefit system, their “solutions” show an astonishing failure to grasp the magnitude of the social, economic and environmental crises that we face.

Founded on the philosophically appealing but flawed concepts of “taxation based on ability to pay” and welfare assistance to “those most in need of support”, the tax and benefit system has become a terrible bureaucratic monster. Tax treatment of marriage is the tip of the iceberg since the impact of this tax monster runs deep - promoting environmental outrages such shelling British prawns in Thailand for sale back in the UK. The flights each way are exempt from tax and enable cuts in highly taxed British jobs. The poverty trap this creates causes unemployment and degrades the environment

The necessary reforms are simple but radical. We need to re-examine the tax, benefits, subsidies and laws that affect the core economic and environmental foundations of society, and embark on a 20-year programme to abolish those found to be unnecessary, complex or harmful. The few taxes remaining will be developed as the basis for a freer, fairer and sustainable society. Prosperity will rise as wastage falls.

A new Carbon Tax would allow the phased abolition of VAT across Europe. This would be a welcome step for business owners and customers alike, boosting the service sector and cutting red tape. The new tax would be levied on the extraction and importation of fossil fuels, and the release of global warming gases such as methane. The UK carbon tax rate needed to replace VAT today is £140/tonne CO2 – about 40p on a litre of petrol. A carbon tax would drive investment in the low-carbon sectors, particularly into power generation, transport and home energy efficiency. It would lead to the abandonment of calls for new airport runways and terminals as the aviation sector decreased in size, and green subsidies, biofuel mandates and pollution permit trading systems would become unnecessary.

Another high priority is addressing the root cause of the housing crisis. Almost any productive activity undertaken in the UK is subject to hefty taxes. Investment, saving, working and innovation all pay more than their fair share to The Exchequer. The only refuge from high taxes is the housing market, a situation that causes booms, busts and inequity.

Evidence of a real housing “shortage” is absent. A real shortage would show up as overcrowding nationwide. People would be walking the streets in the hope of finding a room. Room prices would be high, and there would be no empty houses.

We have a crisis of affordability and allocation. People are borrowing eight times their income to get on the housing ladder yet there are 700,000 derelict houses, 500,000 second homes, and hundreds of thousands of pensioners’ homes with at least three bedrooms spare. The overheated Spanish housing market shows that rapid building programmes do not cure price bubbles.

Turning the Council Tax into a monthly land value tax (LVT) paid by all landowners based on the full rental value of the underlying land is key to a just and rational tax system. This would allow the elimination of Inheritance and Capital Gains Tax, and Business Rates. Equivalent to 0.25% of current house prices, the LVT would also fund major welfare reform and a simple flat rate income tax.

The LVT would help bring derelict city land into productive use. Single people in large houses would tend to move to smaller ones. Under LVT, outsize homes cannot be an alternative to a pension so elderly people in large properties would either “roll up” their pension payments via a charge against their house, or would move to smaller premises.

The impact on housing supply and demand would be startling: plans for new towns would become redundant; the need for new roads and other infrastructure would evaporate and, together with the Carbon Tax, the LVT will protect the countryside and prevent suburban sprawl.

Green Party supporters will recognise the ideas here but also see substantial differences. Two things are certain: tweaking taxes will not do – sweeping reform must become mainstream, and the debate on ecological taxation is just beginning.

Originally published in the Ecologist magazine. Published here with permission from the author.

No sooner had I digested the Target Atmospheric CO2 paper than another one (pdf) arrived, courtesy of James Hansen’s mailing list.

The paper “Implications of ‘peak oil’ for atmospheric CO2 and climate”, Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen (pdf) makes a similar argument to that in “Target Atmospheric CO2″, though there are some differences. I’ll try to keep the translation brief this time. Summary The paper seeks to show that we can keep CO2 below 450ppm [Hansen argued for less in “Target Atmospheric CO2″] by avoiding burning coal to the atmosphere, and using a high price of CO2 to deter the use of unconventional (e.g. tar sand) and other expensive sources of oil. Various Peak Oil scenarios imply that we can keep below 450ppm CO2, based on the Bern carbon cycle model, with both a static pulse response function (PRF) and a dynamic PRF. That is, even if some carbon cycle feedbacks are allowed for, CO2 can be kept below 450ppm if we burn all the existing conventional oil and natural gas reserves. (more...)

The venerable James Hansen has drafted a paper (pdf) taking a broad step-back look at global warming (GW) science. This is important, because I don’t believe all the bad news is yet in the market. Unfortunately the paper is written in the Scienglish dialect, so I will try to translate.

Summary Estimates of the temperature rise due to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) only take account of “fast feedbacks”. The expected temperature rise should therefore be doubled (it turns out) if we take long-term “slow feedbacks”, such as changes in the planet’s albedo (reflectivity) due to the melting of ice-sheets. Therefore, to keep the temperature below dangerous levels, we need to keep atmospheric CO2 below 350ppm. We can do this by not burning coal to the atmosphere - carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) would be OK - and by ensuring agriculture and forestry practices capture and retain carbon. (more...)

If anyone can make it please go to the demonstration in London against the RTFO at 6pm on 15th April.

(more...)