International news media carried the news and photographs of the Bulletine of Atomic Scientists (BAS) assembling on January 25, 2018 and moving the arms of the Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to 12 midnight. This initiative started by some researchers involved in Manhattan Project has been initially looking at threats posed to global peace and harmony by nuclear weaponry they themselves had created; but in 2007 they noticed the significant threats associated with climate change as well and in the subsequent years they had taken advances made, or absence thereof, in this field as well into consideration.
On this 25th day of 2018, the BAS Officials lamented that while the nuclear weaponry related situation escalated in 2017 due to exchange of words between leaders of North Korea and USA, situation corresponding to climate change had also made no progress. Commenting on (a) 2017 been the warmest year on record, (b) hurricanes which hammered Texas, Florida, the Caribbean, (c) wild fires which scorched even Greenland (d) Bangladesh experiencing floods which killed 100 people and displaced thousands, they mentioned that the time for world leaders to address continuing march of climate change is long past.
We started researching on climate change in 2008, -- i.e. one year after BAS brought in Climate Change into its spectrum on deciding on Doomsday Clock– and adopted a different strategy to identify a suitable solution.
We identified three environmental aspects which lead to climate change as follows:
l We change how incoming solar radiation is utilized
l We generate waste energy when converting energy from one form to another.
l We do not allow this waste energy and unutilized solar radiation to escape from our system by generating greenhouse gases during this energy conversion
This indicated to us how we could arrest climate change and it opened up three avenues; namely (a) adjust the manner in which incident solar radiation is utilized, (b) convert energy from one form to another without generating (i) any waste energy nor (ii) any greenhouse gases
In 2007 while bringing in climate change to the spectrum of BAS, BAS scientists were talking about major cities along the Eastern Coast of USA – i.e. New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, Miami and nearly the whole of Florida – going underwater by 2100. Has that threat reduced to any significant degree during the last ten years? So basically, BAS agrees with us that climate scientist fraternity has wasted 20 years of valuable time and failed humanity miserably. You may add to that the most recently quoted reports about their plans to spray sulphur dust to atmosphere as a cheap quick fix costing only one to ten Billion dollars a year. Please note that we have entered the decreasing half of the solar cycle and it may be dangerous to do this during this half of the cycle as it may increase flooding in extent and level of damage.
Prompting solutions
Prof. Jefferson W. Tester, at Cornell University, et.al, in Figure 4.19 (Page208) of their book “Sustainable Energy – Choosing among options” talk about options available to Mitigate, Reduce and Remove exhaust gases emanating from energy generating processes as follows:
Mitigate: Meaning Geo-engineering defined as “human interventions to counteract prospective warming e.g. changing earth’s albe do or surface reflectivity”.
Reduce: It offers three main strategies, (a) Improved efficiencies, (b) Fuel Switching and (c) Capture.
Remove: This includes both (i) Biological Sequestration via reforestation (ii) Ocean fertilization.
Inherent contradictions
While this framework offers reasonable opportunities to move the Doomsday Clock at least a couple of seconds back, it is not free of contradictions. Let us first look at these contradictions.
Contradiction I
Although the Fuel Switching options include Nuclear Energy proliferation, from a Doomsday Clock point of view it may not be a recommended option. It is the opinion of BAS scientists that more and more nuclear energy is mobilized, the possibility of nuclear active material getting into the hands of the wrong type of persons will increase.
Contradiction 2
Authors suggest that usage of fuels with a lower C/H ratio will reduce greenhouse gases especially CO2. This statement is true to the extent that it will reduce the emission of CO2; but it will increase Newly Formed Water (NFW) vapour which is 100% more dangerous than CO2 on a kilogram to kilogram basis. Climate scientists say that because it spends only about 2 weeks in atmosphere before it condenses, water vapour does not bring about direct climate change effect; but only a positive feedback effect. As NFW vapour is different from water vapour entering atmosphere due to irrigation, trans-evaporation, evaporation from water bodies etc. NFW spends a longer time in atmosphere and brings about climate change – changes in temperature, precipitation, wind, flooding, landslides – whether it is in atmosphere or coming down or on the ground. In many earlier articles we showed how NFW led to hurricanes, cyclones and all imaginable disasters which battered the east coast of USA in 2017. The contradiction we see is that lower C/H ratios will always contribute more towards climate change. When you switch 1kWh from coal to gas, you start emitting 0.24kg of CO2 instead of 0.37kg from coal; but with this 0.24kg of CO2, there will be 0.19kg of NFW which will be as damaging as 0.38kg of CO2. So greenhouse gas impact will be equivalent to that from 0.62kg of CO2. And it also brings about precipitation and wind which is equivalent to hurricanes. Of course this impact depends on the type of large scale air circulations – Hadley & Walker – influencing the given area.
Contradiction 3
This again emanates from fuel switching. When renewable solar is installed in solar parks, deforestation takes place at1.8ha per MW. This would result in reduction of (a) CO2 absorption by the vegetation, and (b) conversion of solar radiation energy to chemical energy by the vegetation.
This is on the assumption that the albe do of vegetation is approximately equal to the reflection of solar radiation by the PV Solar Panels plus the solar energy converted to electricity. So there is a contradiction which does not lead to a negative impact; but only to a reduced impact.
Deriving the solution
Since we would like to have a proper mitigation action, let us look at this solution afresh. To adopt this mitigation – a Geo–engineering strategy -- we need to identify two aspects as follows: (a) places where the albe do is lowest and (b) mechanisms for increasing the albe do.
(a) When we build highways, we remove hectares and hectares of vegetation and lay an asphalt surface; or in other words we eliminate (i) reflection of solar radiation, (ii) its conversion into chemical energy, (iii) absorption of CO2 and then increase absorption of solar radiation by the black surface. That is large scale change of how incoming solar radiation is utilized.
(b) Then we drive thousands of vehicles with Internal Combustion Engines on these same highways we have built and convert chemical energy in oil or gas into mechanical energy while wasting 80% - yes, eighty percent – of energy we have supplied through oil or gas. And that is the second aspect we mentioned at the beginning.
(c) And we generate CO2 and NFW from these fuels burnt on the same highways, to complete the third aspect as well.
Yes, we can eliminate all these three using the strategies suggested by Prof. Jefferson Tester, et al.
This is through our proposal for implementing the geo-engineering solution which is basically laying Photovoltaic Solar Panels above and along the highways and use that energy to charge Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) or to supply to the grid. We consider this to address climate change through the following routes identified by Prof. Jefferson Tester et.al in their book.
(a) Geo-engineering road map – The mitigation path.
The geo-engineering solution for climate change
In this solution we are bringing about “human intervention to counteract prospective warming”. An asphalt road surface absorbs anything from 92% to 80% depending on age of the road (iean albedo of 8-20%). As we build more new roads, it is unlikely this total absorption will reduce as newly built roads absorb 92% and a country’s development is measured using the lengths of new roads built.
It was in early January, 2018, Australian media was reporting about a 10 km stretch on Humes Freeway being melted and traffic been diverted. When PV Solar Panels are installed above and along the roadways, 16% incident solar radiation will be converted to electricity and about another 10% will be reflected. As a result of this, for every onekWhr of electricity generated, it eliminates 1.4kWhr of infrared radiation (due to the absorption of solar radiation by the uncovered highway) leading to global warming.
(b) Fuel switching pathway
Since the energy generated could replace either (i) electricity fed into the grid from other fossil fuel origins or(ii) energy used in transportation, it qualifies to be considered as a fuel switching strategy as well. In this respect it eliminates CO2, NFW and waste heat that would have got otherwise generated and thus reduce global warming.
(c) Improved efficiency -- supply side.
When one talks about supply side efficiency improvements impacting climate change, what is implied is that less CO2 and waste heat will be generated throughout the supply side. In that respect, this methodology also reduces all CO2 and waste heat that would be generated from the well to supply tank of the energy machine.
(d) Improved efficiency -- demand side
When the energy generated is used for charging BEVs, then all the energy wasted and CO2 emissions during the tank to wheel energy conversion in a motor vehicle will be eliminated as a result of energy coming from the solar origin. Furthermore, energy will be generated on the highway itself and hence transmission losses/costs could also be significantly reduced whether the alternative used earlier were electricity or oil.
This simple solution – what we call Highway Solarisation – has the potential of providing energy for either the grid or Vehicle Solarisation in the most efficient and cost--effective fashion, while also acting as a Geo-engineering solution in the truest sense of the word. Now that this solution is described adequately, it is left to the policy makers and scientists to make it happen.
Moving the doomsday clock a few seconds back
Now that we have explained our solution for climate change and we have explained how it attempts to address climate change from a number of perspectives, it is left to the scientist community – that includes Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as well -- to study it and identify how it could be used to solve climate change. If, as BAS themselves proclaimed, climate change has become an issue capable of impacting the Doomsday Clock, one needs to look at a solution which has even the slightest semblance of being of use.
In our opinion this should be able to move the Doomsday Clock a few seconds back. In this respect the most important aspect of relevance is the ability to scale it up to bring about a significant reduction of CO2, NFW and waste energy generated. Roadways are being built all the time and these new roadways do have very low albedos. It is estimated that the total area of roadways globally will be around200 billion square meters and at a modest rate of 150kWhr/m2.yr annual PV solar generation on 50% of that extent would yield 15000 TWhrs which is about 50% more than the total energy actually utilized by global road vehicular transportation in 2016 and about 80% of total electricity generated in the whole world in 2016. As such Highway Solarisation could eliminate all CO2, NFW and waste heat been generated by road vehicular transportation in addition to eliminating 21000 TWhrs of thermal energy which would have led to global warming. Should a solution capable of such elimination of greenhouse gases and global warming deserve to be promoted and taken into consideration in deciding about the movement of the Doomsday Clock.
Issues to be resolved
In spite of all this potential, this approach would also present some issues to be resolved in order to achieve near 80% mobilization on existing roadways.
One of the key issues is related to the inclination of the PV Solar Panels and another may be in respect of snowfall in countries where it is relevant.
While for countries closer to the tropics as far as 100latitude, a solar panel fixed horizontally will not bring about a significant reduction in the energy to be generated, for angles of latitude beyond this there would be a decrease in the total energy that could be captured. But this need to be weighed against the cost of erecting such inclined solar panels, collecting and removing snow that would fall on it, etc. Of course, robots could be used for the purpose. Another important aspect is the ability to use the roadway even when there is snowfall; but no snow storms. We also need to remember that road accidents cost billions of dollars to the US economy and about 75% of this is due to wet road surfaces. USA also spends significant financial resources on spraying salt on the roadways with snow to get rid of it.When all these things are taken into consideration and the boost to the economy from roadways been available even during snowy periods is given adequate recognition, it will become attractive and contribute towards positive decisions on using Highway Solarisation and move the Doomsday Clock a few seconds back.
Role of USA implementing this
I always thought that USA will be the ideal place to implement this for a number of reasons we have enumerated earlier and we have already brought this to the notice of US administration at least five times. USA is the country which has the highest number of kilometers of highways per unit area of land surface and Bangladesh is the second. Are you surprised about both these countries getting battered by climate change?
I strongly believe it is the probability of these catastrophes impacting the Eastern Coast of USA – as mentioned in BAS statement in 2007 – which prompted BAS to bring climate change into the spectrum to decide on Doomsday Clock.
If we propose a solution, in line with the opinions of five of the best technical personnel in USAfrom Cornell and MIT, which will prevent the above mentioned catastrophe and provide the much needed energy for vehicular transportation, then the implementation of that solution in USA should make BAS relook at the Doomsday Clock and if that implementation catches up, then BAS should move the Doomsday Clock a few seconds back.
It was only very recently Reuters reported on an unpublished IPCC document about new opinions been formed on an experiment to spray chemicals such as Sulphur high in the atmosphere from aero planes which had drawn greater attention since Paris Accord as a cheap quick fix costing about $ 1-10 Billion per annum. If we keep on installing the necessary structures -- only the structures – for Highway Solarisation using this $ 10 billion a year, to enable power producers or oil companies or re-insurers to lay PV solar panels, then we could generate 300 TWhrs of electricity every year after 10 years in addition to eliminating 420 TWhrs of global warming every year.
Let us see how BAS Scientists, eternally (a) concerned about the well being of mankind and (b) looking for ways and means of preventing the Doomsday Clock striking 12 midnight would respond to this solution?
0 comments: