Courses Wayne State University College of Urban, Labor, and Metropolitan Affairs Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Times' Harvest courses, Winter 2001     ( http://www.is.wayne.edu/drbowen/thw05) Times' Harvest Advanced Seminar (online)     ISP 3360, Section 010, Call Number 25265, 4 credits Times' Harvest Advanced Directed Study (online)     a) ISP 3340, Section 010, Call Number 25785, 2 credits     b) ISP 3340, Section 011, Call Number 25786, 4 credits	Instructor
	David R. Bowen 2311 A/AB Wayne State University Detroit, MI 48202	Daytime tel: (313) 577-1498 Evening tel: (248) 549-8518 FAX: (313) 577-8585 Home Page:     http://www.is.wayne.edu/drbowen Email: d.r.bowen@wayne.edu At Ford: 313-390-2155

	Course welcome	Policies, assignments and course meetings	Online tools	The class and participants	Lectures and further information	Course descriptions	General DIS and WSU information

Last updated: 1/4/05
Link back to course Welcome...

Energy and Global Warming

1. What is Global Warming?
   1. Global Warming refers to a gradual warming of the earth over the past century or so, by about 1ºF, projected top increase substantially over the next century if present trends continue. It is supposed to be due to economic activity which releases "greenhouse gases", gases which rise to the upper atmosphere and act as insulators there, reflecting back heat from the earth's surface that would otherwise be radiate into space. This reradiated energy raises the earth's temperature. Greenhouse gases include  carbon dioxide (CO₂, a molecule with one atom of carbon bound with two atoms of oxygen), which we will much more to say about below, and others such as methane (CH₄,  significant sources include termite digestion and cow flatulence!), chloroflourocarbons (such as Freon), and sulfur hexaflouride (SF₆).
   2. Is Global Warming Real? Responses to this common question have several parts. For each of these questions, within the past five years or so, a consensus has been achieved within the community of researchers working in this area. It is unrealistic to expect unanimity - remember the cigarette companies denials that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, and the Flat Earth Society. There are something like 2,500 Global Warming researchers, and only one of these consistently claims that global warming is not caused by humans releasing greenhouse gases (this person is in no way a "captive" of industry, however). There are many other groups that are involved in other ways.
      1. Is the earth actually getting warmer? This is not an easy question to determine. Parts of the earth get colder and other parts get warmer continuously. There are year-to-year fluctuations. Measurements must be taken around the earth, over long periods of time. For years, it was felt that the temperature readings at high altitudes were not consistent with the ground-level measurements. Recently, all of these discrepancies have been explained to the satisfaction of the researchers. The consensus is that the earth has warmed about 9ºF since the last ice age, and about 1.5ºF since the last century, when industrial generation of greenhouse gases became significant.
      2. If the warming exists, is it due to natural or human causes? This is an even more difficult question. There are natural causes that could explain the warming, for example an increase in the number of sunspots or other changes in the amount of energy radiated by the sun, or changes on earth. These are all interrelated, and computer models are the only method that can separate these causes. There are three major models, and for years they gave different results, different enough that it was possible that they were all wrong. Gradually, though, the discrepancies have been investigated and removed, one by one, and there is now substantial agreement between the computer models. It is still a difficult problem, because there are multiple cases of "positive feedback." Positive feedback occurs when A causes an increase in B, and then the increase in B causes a further increase in A. Small changes in either can get magnified, and small errors in the models can have large effects. A specific example is that, if the earth does warm, more evaporation from lakes and oceans occurs, causing an increase in cloud formation. Clouds contribute to the greenhouse effect, and so can cause more warming and yet more evaporation. A recently-discovered example (January 2001) is that warming the earth causes certain bacteria to emit more methane, and methane is a greenhouse gas, so this warms the earth and causes these same organisms to generate yet more methane. (Negative feedback occurs when an increase in A causes B to change so that A is reduced. This diminishes the effect of any errors.) On the other hand, ice and snow reflect sunlight back into space, cooling off the earth and causing more ice and snow. Ice is prevalent at the poles, and clouds are prevalent elsewhere, so these competing effects must be balanced out. The consensus, most recently reported at a January 2001 meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (affiliated with the United Nations) in Shanghai, is that, if present trends continue, the earth will warm by another 10.5ºF over the next century, due to human activity leading to the release of greenhouse gases. There is virtual unanimity that there will be an increase, but more disagreement over the exact size of the increase.
         
         What the greenhouse gases are and how they are released is critical to understanding the full situation. First of all, there are many greenhouse gases. Many of the gases are released in small volumes, but have large effects per unit volume. An example is Freon, which was banned in the US years ago, but has a black market as well as a "white market", and can still be used in other countries. Many or even most of the gases are released by a single industrial process, such as Freon, which is overwhelmingly released by air conditioning systems when they age and leak, fail or are discarded and incinerated, or when they are serviced. The US banned the use of Freon in new air-conditioning systems several years ago, based on its contribution to Global Warming, and air conditioning industry accommodated to this quickly, but the replacements are not as efficient, requiring more energy to run and causing more carbon dioxide to be released with is also a greenhouse gas. Whether or not we have gained anything is open to question.
         
         In general, greenhouse gases rise to the upper atmosphere. Many persist for years until their molecules are broken up or sink back to earth. In the upper atmosphere, again, they reflect some heat radiation from the earth (the amount varies for each gas) back to earth, and this is what causes global warming. (The reflection is not like the reflection from a mirror, which all occurs at the mirror's face, but as heat radiation from the earth's surface penetrates the atmosphere, some is reflected at every point.
         
         The most significant greenhouse gas is CO₂, significant both because of the size of its greenhouse effect and because of the impact of controlling it. On a per-volume basis, its greenhouse effect is small, but we generate so much of it that the overall effect is large. It largely comes from the burning of the carbon in fossil fuels. Fossil fuels consist primarily of carbon and hydrogen. Carbon dioxide is not poisonous or noxious, and is not a regulated emission in any country in the world. When fossil fuels are burned in the "cleanest" possible manner, each carbon atom in them combines with two oxygen atoms from the air (which is roughly 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen, nitrogen being relatively inactive as a chemical) to form CO₂. Each two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom from the air to form H₂O, water, or since the temperature is high enough, water vapor or steam. Again, neither CO₂ nor H₂O are poisonous or unpleasant or smog-causing or otherwise harmful except to humans. The water vapor may increase the number of clouds, but clouds  disperse and blow away and are not that harmful anyway. The CO₂ is the problem here, and there is no way to avoid its release, since C + 2O ==> CO₂ is the way the energy is released. Once fossil fuels are burned, or otherwise reacted, for example in fuel cells, CO₂ is generated. The more energy from fossil fuels, the more CO₂. If there is more air, the emission of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) increase; if there is too much fuel, then CO (carbon monoxide, a poison) and other pollutants that cause smog, and smoke (particulates) increase.  Fossil fuels do have important differences in the amount of carbon: coal is almost pure carbon, petroleum is somewhere around one atom of hydrogen for one atom of carbon, and methane, the principal component of natural gas, has four atoms of hydrogen for one atom of carbon. So one way to reduce somewhat the amount of CO₂ is to transition away from coal, and then away from petroleum and towards natural gas.
         
         Also, Global Warming is not a recent scientific fad; the first suggestions of a problem date back to the 1950s, and used data going back to the 1750s.
      3. Will the earth get warm enough to cause problems? Here the fun really begins. 10.5ºF will cause problems, but some regions may actually benefit. I say "may" because the effects are so varied and so interconnected that the balance is far from clear. For example, Michigan may be able to extend its growing season and rely less on fuel for winter heating, but the level of the Great Lakes may fall as evaporation occurs, and we may be even more cloudy than ever. But some people do expect Michigan to benefit, so maybe we are not as concerned as we might be be if we had a more global perspective. It is pretty clear that the ocean levels will rise as the polar ice caps melt, and sea levels will rise enough to cause major changes. Where will all of those people from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts go to live, and will they respect our property rights if they come here? Global weather patterns are driven by differences in atmospheric warming between regions, and existing weather patters may change. The increase in hurricanes over the past five years is supposed to be consistent with the predictions from Global Warming. Some coastal cities with water system intakes near the oceans are already experiencing difficulties with their fresh water supply, as salt water moves further up the rivers. Will upstream communities allow these coastal cities to move their water intakes upstream, away from the salt water? What will happen to New Orleans, with most of its downtown area below sea level, protected by levees and pumps? Many of those lush tropical islands that we either vacation on or fantasize about vacationing on, expect to be completely underwater, and they are not exactly pleased that the rest of us seem to be taking our time in deciding what to do. Worldwide, coral reefs are dying off, and Global Warming is one possible culprit. These are only a few examples, and no analysts feel that all of the changes have been identifies. Clearly there will be disruptions, some already occurring, that we may or may not be able to control or adapt to. On the basis of the scientific consensus, there are effects now, and these will increase, before any foreseeable actions can control the increase.
      4. If there are problems, what can we do to avoid them, and when must we do it? "You cannot solve a problem that you do not admit that you have." I think that is from Tom Peters, the business guru. He said it about business problems, but it is true everywhere. (This is very similar to de Jouvenal's "There is no volition without an object.") The first step, then, is to admit that there is a problem. And here there is a problem. Looking at what we would have to do to solve the problems of Global Warming, the actions are so overwhelming, that some, including some major industries, are in the denial stage. Things have not yet reached the point of the cigarette companies denying what everyone else knew. George W. Bush publicly questions Global Warming, whether the effect or the consequences he did not make clear so far as I know. It is easy to call for more research, and more research is indeed needed, so it is hard to argue with that. In broad outline, the 1997 Kyoto agreement, resulting from an earlier world gathering, calls for industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 5% from their 1990 levels, by the year 2010, while non-industrialized countries are not required to cut their generation. Is this a fair sharing of the burden? That is still being argued. Third world countries emit less now, but are projected to have equal or higher emissions soon. The argument is: why should industrialized nations cut back if there will be no net improvement in the problem? This argument, of course, goes on between the first, second and third worlds, and within each between countries, and within countries between regions and between industries. If individual action is required for public good, what is fair, and what is practical? Third-world countries argue that western countries became rich by polluting, and now it is their turn. When they get rich, then they will clean up. Companies which own coal mines or potential coal mines, or those who own stock in those companies, or work for those companies, or who live in those town and states, are, not surprisingly, less inclined to admit that there is a Global Warming problem. Coal is cheap, and it currently generates about one third of our energy. The US does have a lot of coal; it will be a significant sacrifice to give that up. Those connected to petroleum aren't ecstatic either. (George W. Bush has stated his conviction that the US should make more use of its coal and petroleum resources.)
         
         So, the first step is to admit that there is a problem. The Kyoto accord was regarded as the first step. Not sufficient for the long term, but let's start somewhere. If Kyoto is not implemented, things will get worse, true enough, but by most accounts Global Warming is livable, sort of, until somewhere between twenty-five and fifty years from now, depending on how big a risk we want to take. Also bear in mind that the Global Warming problems of tomorrow are created today. However, Global Warming is not a problem for which there is a hard and fast deadline - things just get worse and worse. The US legislature has not approved the Kyoto accord, and many have come out in opposition. One recent question is what credits to give for forests. Forests "sequester" carbon - hold it out of the atmosphere. Countries that burn their forests release more carbon. There has been an agreement in principle that there should be a credit against the CO₂ reductions, for countries that have large forests. The US is one of these countries, and has proposed a level of credits that would mean we essentially don't have to cut back in our use of carbon, under the first-step Kyoto accord. Europe, which has few forests, does not support this level of credits for forests. Another issue is market credits. Can countries or companies buy and sell CO₂ credits? There are serious arguments, and some results, to show that this approach cuts other emissions. The general idea is that, in effect, first-world countries such as the US would pay third-world countries to build modern efficient power plants so that the first world could keep on using our older power plants. That is, we would pay these countries for the rights to emit more CO₂. While from one point of view the third world would end up with modern efficient equipment, the third-world countries are suspicious of Western motives.
         
         If all of this self-interest, suspicion and maneuvering is somehow overcome, and the world community does admit that it has a problem, what are our options in dealing with the problem? Moving from high-carbon to high-hydrogen is one obvious choice. This is unlikely to be enough, however. If the second- and third-world countries realize their stated goals of developing to the same level of economic activity as the first world, and there is no change from today in how much energy and what types of energy we use per unit of economic activity, then CO₂ emissions would increase approximately five-fold. Recall that the present levels of CO₂ emissions are a problem. With this level of global development, switching 100% to natural gas would not be anywhere near enough. And, natural gas is not a good fuel for automobiles - it takes a large volume to store a small amount of energy. True, the hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles coming into the market now and in the next few years will use about half the amount of gasoline. (Thinking of buying stock in a petroleum company? Better check out their transition strategy, or at least their denial and public relations strategies.) The table below describes some supply options. Conservation is a really good option. American business cut its use of energy per unit of economic activity in half over the last decade, based on market forces alone. Existing companies spent less on energy, and a new industry of energy-efficiency contractors and consultants was born, and can become another source of international economic strength for the US. My own guess is that nuclear energy will come back in a really big way - it already is coming back. We have learned a lot about design, and about regulation, since the 1950s and 1960s. The real question may be whether the US will be buying the plants from some other country, or whether we will be the ones doing the selling.
         
         Now, Global Warming is a truly Third Wave problem. Knowledge, lack of consensus over what is real, coordination in the absence of that consensus, belief in science, hopes for and fears of the future, the possible, desirable and probable futures, and many similar phenomena all come together. And finally, it may just have a Third Wave solution. If electronic communications can replace travel, we may be able to negotiate without having to "do with less," never a really popular option. A virtual vacation instead of a real one - what would it take to make that acceptable? How real would the illusion have to be? Is that level of realism something that we can develop? Could the illusion ever be better than the reality? Would it have to be better for everybody, or just for enough people? If we can't accept virtual vacations, could we accept virtual commuting? Virtual meetings? Do we have an alternative?

The major Global Warming problems are with coal, which is mainly used for generating electrical power. Electrical power is very desirable, because it can easily be used for almost all energy needs, including transportation and heating of both houses and water.

Characteristics of electrical power generation:

• User demand has dips and peaks, often going with the climate. In California and other southern climates, for example, usage peaks about 3 PM during the summer, with heavy air conditioning demand. In Michigan and northern climates, electrical demand is more balanced, peaking slightly more during the winter. There are also regular day-night cycles; electrical demand is less at night.
• Large-scale storage of electrical energy is generally not cost-effective. There is only one large project that I know of, the one in Ludington, MI, and that one pumps water uphill when energy is plentiful, and then uses hydropower generators when demand exceeds supply. Since this has not, to my knowledge, been duplicated elsewhere, I assume that there are either practical or economic problems.
• Therefore, energy generation must rise and fall with demand. The alternative is to let the voltage fall, which would generally be unacceptable (dimming lights, stalling motors, etc.)
• Utilities divide the load into "base" and "peak". (Often, the peak load is further subdivided, but this crude division is sufficient for our present purposes.) Base generators are run constantly, and so can be very efficient and generate electricity at low cost. Peaking generators run for much shorter times, but must be able to increase and decrease their output quickly. Since they are not generating revenues (power) all the time, their first cost becomes an important consideration. Consequently, peaking power is more expensive. Properly managing this balance between base and peaking power is necessary to deliver electrical energy at low cost. Base generators are typically coal- and nuclear-powered, while peaking generators are often powered by natural gas.
• It is very wasteful to transport electrical energy for long distances (hundreds of miles), since much of it is lost in the transmission lines (the lines heat up). It is cheapest to generate electrical energy within a few hundred miles of where it will be used. (The national power grid is still very important in assuring availability. In recent days - February 2001 - with the electrical supply crisis in California, some commentators have referred to the power grid as "fragile" but this is actually far from the case. Like most networks, the national power grid is much more stable than the individual power plants. Take away the networks, or decouple from the grid, and things would be worse.)

Global Warming options for electricity. (One Global Warming option is to change our energy system away from electricity. We would still need a lot of electrical energy. Conservation is another option, and should be explored vigorously: The cheapest and cleanest kilowatt hour is the one you don't use.)