The Environment & Techno-Fixes?

I have been asked to write publicly concerning whether "techno-fixes" holds the solution in answering a climate in crisis? The question posed is an interesting one because, at its heart, lies real-core issues of science and how climatic problems can be tackled.

Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't matter where one looks - right, left, sideways, up or down - it is common now to hear and feel the gathering momentum of environmental concerns. For me personally, it is apt. For too long the earth and its resources have been badly treated, mostly through the intent of capitalist gain and trade. The effects of this greed and manipulation has led, largely, to many of the problems we are now witnessing. Floods, droughts, distorted climate changes, a shifting chemical imbalance within the composition of the atmosphere and the need for responsible governments to start acting by shifting the onus towards personal and corporate responsibility.

Earlier this year, Al Gore teamed up with Sir Richard Branson in launching the world's largest-ever science and technology prize. The 'Virgin Earth Challenge' is reputed to be worth around $25-million for people who may be able to come up with ways in how carbon dioxide could be 'scrubbed' from the atmosphere.

Sir Richard's challenge is more than just holistic. Sir Richard himself has pledged to plough the next 10-years' profits from his trains and planes into developing bio-fuels and methods that will replace the current dependency on oil and fossil fuels.

Cynics and those critical of Sir Richard might well point to the obvious attraction of techno-fixes for someone like Richard Branson in the airline business. For instance, if it does become possible in cleaning up atmospheric CO2, what curbs would be needed in curtailing the growth in aviation travel? Moreover, if large polluting aircraft stopped depending on the use of fossil fuels would they still be in the dock as the whipping boys for climate change? The dichotomy of social morality combined with business and commercial interest is an interesting one because it might just be the chain-reaction that ignites interminable diplomatic deals and agreements.

Many methods and tests are currently ongoing within the field of science but the techno-fix that’s nearing maturity is CCS or ‘Carbon Capture Sequestration’. It is already being applied on an experimental basis within power stations, for example, by utilising ‘CO2 scrubbers’ in their chimneys. Once captured, the gas can be liquefied and pumped into storage – old oil and gas fields are a favoured option for disposal. However, the writer has made submission to the British government in terms of prohibited costs per tonne of sequestered carbon and, concerns over integrity of storage sites.

‘In-principle’ I am supportive of methods applying to CCS. The issue of waste and storage will always be a factor in any residue generated from energy combustion but, CCS does go an extra hurdle by focusing specifically on utilising further, waste ground. Whilst their will always be counter arguments in almost every topic associated with environmental science, the onus on CCS is to remove as far as can be practicable any by-products that might otherwise have passed back through the carbon-cycle.

Scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, however, is a completely different ball game. Readers can probably appreciate that once CO2 is up there it becomes incredibly difficult to do anything about it. However, difficult or not, the job of scientists and environmentalists is in using the advances of biological processes.

Plants, of course, are continually fixing carbon by photosynthesis. You will no-doubt recall that photosynthesis is the complete reverse of the energy process respiration. Photosynthesis combines 6-molecules of water vapour with 6-molecules of carbon dioxide in releasing oxygen and glucose molecules under sunlight. So, from this, can we dramatically increase the capacity of the planet’s own biological carbon sinks? It is this question, that in essence, lies at the heart of the environmental problem.

One idea that has generated a lot of excitement among scientists and environmentalists is the notion of seeding the oceans with iron filings, in stimulating the growth of marine plankton. Plankton, the tiny microscopic organisms remains the bedrock of continued life survival. The foundations of the food-chain, as we know it, depends wholly on the protection and regeneration of such micro-organisms. Destroy plankton completely – which may be done in a number of ways including environmental disasters such as mass oil spillage’s – and the earth is most certainly doomed for destruction. By seeding the oceans with iron filings would stimulate algae, almost at once, in taking up the CO2 from the atmosphere. The ‘bloom’, as it were, could then be harvested and stored – or even left to form corals which would, in due time, sink to the ocean floor. In theory that is the science. Pragmatically however, experiments to date have proved rather disappointing. A ‘bloom’ is certainly created, but it dies back or is eaten very quickly, which merely defeats the purpose – releasing the carbon back into the system.

The writer, Mark Dowe, has advocated through various circles in adapting further the idea of the ‘chimney scrubber’, mentioned earlier in this journal. For instance, for the process to be used and adapted in capturing the CO2 from within biomass-fired power stations. The net-outcome would, almost certainly, produce a fuel-cycle that would be better than carbon-neutral. It would actually be carbon negative because such power stations wouldn’t be releasing the CO2 that was sequestered by growing the plants in the first place. If carbon credits are valued highly by the government, and we hear almost daily now concerning carbon-footprints and the need to reduce our polluting capacity, then this process would be very profitable, if adapted further. I certainly feel confident of that and wish government scientists to consider the findings I have put before them in the last few weeks.

Biomass, however, is constrained by the availability of land required to be put over for the growing of woodlands specifically for that purpose. In global terms, the impact is compounded further. The world’s population is around 6.8 billion now which suggests by implication that the priority should be in utilising land to grow more food. Expounding land usage in growing exponential levels of fuel at the same time cannot be done if population growth continues in a similar vain over the next 10-20 years. The conflicts of interest are just too wide.

Preventing the rise in atmospheric CO2 is not the only problem being faced by techno-fixers. Some of the most ambitious schemes involve devising ways of living under denser greenhouse gas conditions - but, by putting up an artificial sunshade in keeping the greenhouse cool. Suggestions presently range from mirrors in space, to the launching of hordes of tiny sunlight-reflecting aluminium balloons into the upper atmosphere, filled with hydrogen or helium. Or, creating a similar shield with sulphate particles, sprayed up there deliberately to mimic the effect of the dust thrown up by massive volcanic eruptions. In essence, 'Living in a greenhouse - with an artificial sunshade to keep it cool'.

The point of 'sulphate particles' is one, I believe, in which the British Government will look closer because it could, arguably, place the onus onto the individual. You will be aware of the government's desire to place firmly, environmental responsibility, into the hands of households. The use of sulphate actually promotes such an initiative because every citizen or household could be compelled by injecting enough sulphate particles into the atmosphere that may well protect the environment for anything up to three years. It may create an individual cost of something in the region of £30 but, given its effect, such an idea could be wholly effective.

The use of sulphate particles could, however, block out too much sunlight. It would only require a small miscalculation that could easily tip the planet into a new ice age. Hi-tech mistakes can happen as was demonstrated when the 1999 Mars Observer probe crashed into the red planet because NASA mistook imperial units for metric ones. 'Geo-engineering' requires methodical analysis, a system of testing and impact that is more objective than not and, the likelihood of any residual effects affecting other parts of the Eco-system not currently considered.

Certainly, having an understanding of how the feedback systems work is an imperative. Although people may be concerned and sceptical of changing the Earth's atmosphere, the current unbalanced equilibrium of the environment was caused by mismanagement and manhandling by man in the first place. Scientists are now attempting to reverse the destruction that man has already caused. You cannot have it both ways. The shear wanton destruction of western foreign policies when many people have just stood and watched. The mass annihilation of global sinks and the very poor planning of how the threat of rising sea levels should have been countered. You sat back and simply allowed that to happen. Do not dare throw back into the face of scientists your unease about how things should NOT now be done in reversing past self-interests.

How perverse it is anyway, to regard the energy from the sun as the source of the problem? Is there not 'profit' in using it to generate emissions-free electricity? Photovoltaic cells (whether the 'conventional' or 'nanotech' type) aren't the only way to do this. An innovative new form of power station - the 'solar concentrator' - even uses these mirrors. In this particular innovation, technology is used in focusing the sun's rays to boil water - generating the steam to drive a turbine. Seville, for example, is now home to Europe's first commercial version, using around 625 giant movable mirrors. Research indicates that it's one of a planned series of such plants designed to produce 300MW in the area in the next 5-years. Scientists believe and estimate that covering only 1% of the Sahara - or 5,000 square km - with these mirrors could generate all the world's electricity.

Using 'solar power' from the Sahara could have a tremendous impact. Let's consider for a moment the central planks of the UK government's most recent energy white paper. It was to do, of course, with improving the security of energy supplies. It might not be the most cunning plan, ladies and gentlemen, in exchanging the dependency on oil from politically unstable countries in the Middle East, to a more dependence on solar power from North Africa.

Protagonists argue that huge transmission losses would result from bringing in such supplies from the Sahara to the National Grid. Reductionists argue that the UK receives at least half the solar radiation per unit area that falls on the Sahara desert and, as a result, why not simply install more PV tiles on the roofs of buildings? This, it is argued, would generate the power where it is going to be used without any loss in transmission and transit. However, the blog author, Mark Dowe, argues that this creates an entrenchment of 'micro-generation'. A future full of PV, wind turbines and combined heat and power - which could, in economic terms, create variations and conflicts between communities.

On ending this article I would like to make reference to the Thames Barrier in London. I could, and probably should, ask you to consider where London would be without its barrier? Since it was completed in 1984, the city's very own anti-flooding techno-fix has actually worked very well - on far more occasions than its creators ever expected. Faced with rising sea levels and storm surge threats, the Environment Agency (DEFRA) now plans to increase the height of the barrier - and the downstream flood defences. This should keep London free from flooding for the rest of the century. After that, however, the sea is likely to win.

DEFRA, however, requires to concentrate and focus heavily on many other UK cities that simply do not bear-up in terms of physical defences needed on the scale we are now faced with. East Anglia, for instance, is totally under-resourced. It's sea defences are totally inadequate in dealing with anything which the world itself has witnessed in recent times. Signalling systems, for instance, in providing an early warning system, for another surprise tsunami. The UK is not immune by way of geographical latitude in avoiding such tidal catastrophes.

The British Government falls far short within the area of techno-fix thinking. It also suffers, as historical trends show, on issues of being short-termist in outlook. It prefers, by some obscure explanation, in tackling the symptoms rather than their causes. Such a patent remedy may prove effective, for a while, but the underlying problems are certainly not being addressed. When underlying problems are not solved correctly, things do not correct themselves as a matter of course, they manifest themselves into other areas. All the government here seems to be doing is buying time. In the long-run it is ineffective and a complete waste of valuable resources being used now.

© Copyright MarkDowe, 2007: all rights protected