Lost On The Shore

Hot Enough For You?

The Baltimore Sun carries this article today on the predicted effects of climate change on Maryland.  The article describes a report by a group of scientists who have compiled the first comprehensive report on the potential effects of climate change on Maryland.  The report was prepared for the state by a committee of 19 scientists from five Maryland campuses, the U.S. Geological Survey and two environmental groups.  Among the findings:

• An increase in the average temperature in Maryland by about 3 degrees fahrenheit by midcentury is probably unavoidable.
• Many hardwood species in Maryland are likely to 'fade away' while pine trees more common in the south become more common here.
• A significant area will be inundated by the combination of rising sea levels and continuing land subsidence. Significant areas of wetland would be lost.
• Cool water species in the Chesapeake Bay such as soft-shelled clams, sturgeon and eelgrass will disappear, while warm water species, such as croaker, will become more prevalent.

Coincidentally, another article on climate change was published in the Washington Post today.  The article addresses the tendency of many to blame every hurricane, drought, heat wave, flood, frost or large cloud on global warming.  This, of course, just confuses the issue because weather is naturally variable.  If you attribute strong hurricanes to global warming then, when a year comes along without any strong hurricanes, people will logically say that global warming doesn't exist!

So let's look at some facts.  This graph [prepared by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration] shows the difference between the global average surface temperature from 1880 to 2006 and the average temperature during the period.

 

Note that the data displayed here have been quality controlled to remove the effects of urbanization at reporting stations in and around cities. The average surface temperature has increased by about one degree fahrenheit since 1970 and, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is now increasing by about 3.2 degrees fahrenheit each century.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 - approximately a 36% increase according to NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory. They also publish this nice graph.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase at a rate of about 1.9 ppm per year.  According to the IPCC's 2007 report, all of this increase is due to human activity. 

Methane is more abundant in the atmosphere now than at any time in the last 650,000 years according to the IPCC report and are now 148% above pre-industrial levels.

Nitrous oxide levels have increased approximately 18% in the past 200 years and continue to increase.  Increases in nitrous oxide are primarily due to agricultural activity and the use of artificial fertilizers.

These gases contribute to the increase in the temperature of the earth's surface and lower atmosphere through a process called the 'greenhouse effect', which was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824.  Without the greehouse effect, the earth would be a cold and barren planet unable to support life. But there can be too much of a good thing.  The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased the greenhouse effect and caused the average surface temperature to begin rising.  Water vapor is also a major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

There are a variety of feedback mechanisms which have either a positive or negative effect on the increase in global temperature.  Increased evaporation due to higher temperatures increase water vapor in the air which increases the greenhouse effect.  On the other hand, clouds reflect solar energy back into space thus reducing the heating of the earth.  It's uncertain how much the increase in water vapor will effect cloud formation.  Reduced amounts of ice and snow increase absorption of solar energy by the earth's surface contributing to the increase in temperature.

One of the most pernicious effects of global warming is the increase in the mean sea level.  Water, like most substances, expands slightly as it becomes warmer.  In Maryland, and particularly on the Eastern Shore, this effect is increased by the slow subsidence of the land over a period of thousands of years.  Here is a graph of sea level changes at Baltimore.  It is prepared by the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSML) at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory.

While there are significant year-to-year variations, the trend is unmistakable.  Much of Maryland, and particularly the Eastern Shore, is at a very low elevation and is very susceptible to inundation during periods of high tides and during storms.  The photo above shows storm surge flooding caused by Hurricane Isabel in Bowleys Quarters, MD in September of 2003.  With continued increases in sea level we can expect many more episodes like that.  Many of the islands that existed in the Chesapeake Bay at the time of the explorations by Captain John Smith are now gone, victims of rising sea levels.  We can expect more of the same. 

For barrier islands like Assateague and Ocean City, the prognosis is also grim.  The combination of rising sea levels and stronger storms made possible by increased ocean temperatures will make it increasingly difficult to maintain these islands in their current locations.  This photo of barrier islands in North Carolina breached by Hurricane Isabel is a good example of what to expect.

(photo by the US Geological Survey)

So what can we do?  I'll talk about that in my next post. 

Some Nuclear Issues

'TJH' has added an excellent comment to my recent post on nuclear energy options and raised some issues which I think need to be explored a bit more.  Basically, he makes three points:

• The nuclear waste disposal problem is not being solved,
• the cost of new nuclear generation is not competitive with coal without massive government subsidies, and
• the comparison of deaths due to nuclear energy to deaths due to coal is not a valid measure of nuclear safety.

He also asserts that carbon sequestration is likely to be available before the solution to nuclear waste disposal problem.  Let's look at each of these.

Nuclear Waste It's true the nuclear waste disposal problem has not been solved - at least in the United States.  The problem seems to be as much a political problem as an engineering problem.  Currently the standard which the engineers are supposed to meet would limit radiation exposure to 350 millirem for ONE MILLION YEARS taking into account the effects of climate change, earthquakes, volcanos, asteroids falling from the sky and other, unknowable, factors.  It's worth noting in this context that the entire recorded history of the human race is about four thousand years.  If such a standard were applied to other kinds of industrial waste, including carbon dioxide, most modern industry would shut down immediately.

Other countries seem to have solved the problem.  Canada has developed a system for burying nuclear wastes in batholiths some 500 to 1000 meters beneath the surface within the Canadian Shield - one of the most geologically stable formations on Earth.  The batholiths were formed some one to two billion years ago and have been stable since then.  Sweden has developed a method called KBS-3 which, after some interim storage during which the radioactivity is sharply reduced, buries the waste in bentonite clay some 500 meters beneath the surface.  The Finnish government has begun building a similar site.  France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Russia reprocess spent fuel.

Cost What will be the cost of electricity from a new generation of nuclear plants?  No one can say for certain.  The primary difficulty in estimating the cost is that a large part of the eventual costs are the up-front capital costs of the plant, and that depends largely on how long it takes the plant to be built.  The nuclear power industry does not have a good record in this regard.  They argue, however, that with standardized designs which are pre-approved, the time required to build new nuclear plants will be shorter and more predictable. 

The evidence is mixed.  A plant being built in Finland is significantly behind schedule and over budget.  Several others under construction in Japan, however, are both on time and under budget.  A study completed by MIT in 2003 found that nuclear power would be about 60 percent more costly than coal or natural gas power.  Another, by the Royal Acadamy of Engineering in 2005 put the cost of new nuclear energy at 2.26 pence per kilowatt-hour vs. 3.64 for natural gas power and 3.33 for coal.  This report has been disputed by many, though who argue it doesn't account for government subsidies to the nuclear industry and understimates disposal costs.  Nuclear power does receive some subsidy from the government.  Of course, coal, natural gas and renewables all receive signifianct government subsidies.

I believe that with experience, problems with the construction of nuclear plants will be resolved and the construction period will become shorter and more predictable leading to a cost per kilowatt that is competitive with coal.  Of course I have no data to back that up, but neither do those who say the cost will be much higher.  We won't know until we build a few plants.

Safety Of course, the number of deaths is only a rough indicator of the relative safety of nuclear power vs. coal.  And certainly, as TJH points out, the accident at Chernobyl devastated a significant amount of land.  But coal mining devastates a significant amount of land every year.  And coal is not only unsafe to mine, it's unsafe to burn.  Coal-fired power plants spew out an amazing amount of pollutants - 59% of total US sulfur dioxide pollution, 18% of total nitrogen oxides, 50% of total particulate pollution and 40% of total US carbon dioxide emissions.  These pollutants contribute to smog that threatens the health of tens of millions. According to the Sierra Club, particle pollution from power plants alone causes some 30,000 deaths a year in the US.  Coal-fired power plants are the largest single man-made source of mercury pollution.

There's lots else I could say about coal.  Sure, nuclear power has safety issues but they pale in comparison to what we're doing now.  We need to stop building new coal plants and get rid of the ones we have.  The only feasible alternative at the moment is nuclear.  Effective carbon sequestration from coal plants is making little progress- the Department of Energy recently pulled the plug on the FUTUREGEN demonstration project saying it did not make fiscal sense.

Sure, nuclear power is dangerous.  The eventual costs are only rough estimates and the waste disposal problem has not been resolved.  But where are the alternatives to generating the reliable quantities of electricity we need to allow us to retire the coal plants that are killing us.

[The photo is of the Bruce Nuclear Plant in Canada - the second largest in the world]

The Wrong Approach

State Senator Paul Pinsky has introduced legislation that would put into place a 'cap and trade' system to limit the amount of greehouse gases emitted by Maryland industry and eventually reduce them by 90%.  The legislation has the support of Governor O'Malley and many others.  Under the proposal the state would use a system of rewards and penalties to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Generally, under a cap and trade system, companies and other polluters are issued emission permits and are required to hold allowances which represent the right to emit a specific amount of of pollution, such as carbon dioxide.  If the company wants to emit more, it must purchase more allowances from some other company which needs less.  Thus, heavy polluters are penalized while those that reduce pollution are rewarded.  In theory, those who can reduce the pollution easiest will do so, thus reducing overall pollution at the lowest possible cost to society.

There are a number of problems with this approach.  It's bureaucratically cumbersome, requiring a system of monitoring, trading and management, it creates a potentially unstable market making investments riskier, it is prone to corruption, particularly in the allocation of credits and, to the extent that it involves allocating permits based on current emissions, it provides incentive to increase emissions in the short term.  Further, it's not clear what would happen to such a state system once a national greenhouse gas policy is put into place.

I prefer a carbon tax.  It has the advantage of simplicity - everyone understands it and it's transparent.  It's easier to administer.  The predictability of such a tax encourages businesses to invest in a way that minimized emissions and it can easily be merged into a national system when such a system is established.

A carbon tax recognizes and places a price on external costs and, by doing so, levels the market in a way that encourages cleaner forms of energy.  Let me explain.  A significant cost of generating electricity from coal is the air and water pollution that are a by-product of the generation.  Since the generating facility doesn't pay for these, the cost is not included in the price of electricity.  Thus, electricity from wind power, solar power and other, cleaner technologies can't compete on price.  If the price of electricity generated by coal included the cost of the pollution it caused, the cleaner technologies could compete very effectively.

Such a tax would raise a significant amount of money on an annual basis, allowing the state to reduce or eliminate other taxes such as the sales tax or the corporate income tax. 

Most of us are concerned with global warming.  We want to do something.  But let's not jump into this so fast that we use the wrong tools to attack it.  A carbon tax is the way to go.

[The photo shows breaker boys at Breaker #9 in Pittston, PA around 1911.  Boys as young as eight were employed by the coal companies to separate out bits of shale from the mined coal which flowed by in chutes under their feet.  They weren't allowed to wear gloves.  When they grew older, they became 'door boys' who controlled the doors that helped control ventilation in the mines.  Later they became miners themselves.  When black lung disease affected them so they could no longer mine, they went back to being breaker boys.  Click on the photo to see a larger version.]