It Came From the Sea J. Craig Venter on the search for biological energy replacements

Science stunner: Vast EaScience stunner: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting

NSF issues world a wake-up call: "Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.”

March 4, 2010

Methane release from the not-so-perma-frost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle. Research published in Friday’s journal Science finds a key “lid” on “the large sub-sea permafrost carbon reservoir” near Eastern Siberia “is clearly perforated, and sedimentary CH₄ [methane] is escaping to the atmosphere.”

Scientists learned last year that the permafrost permamelt contains a staggering “1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere,” much of which would be released as methane. Methane is is 25 times as potent a heat-trapping gas as CO2 over a 100 year time horizon, but 72 times as potent over 20 years!

The carbon is locked in a freezer in the part of the planet warming up the fastest (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss“). Half the land-based permafrost would vanish by mid-century on our current emissions path (see “Tundra, Part 2: The point of no return” and below). No climate model currently incorporates the amplifying feedback from methane released by a defrosting tundra.

The new Science study, led by University of Alaska’s International Arctic Research Centre and the Russian Academy of Sciences, is “Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf” (subs. req’d). The must-read National Science Foundation press release (click here), warns “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.” The NSF is normally a very staid organization. If they are worried, everybody should be.

It is increasingly clear that if the world strays significantly above 450 ppm atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide for any length of time, we will find it unimaginably difficult to stop short of 800 to 1000 ppm.

Note: As part of the Climate Science Project, I’m making this post as definitive as I can by including other recent scientific findings on the tundra. Please add other relevant links in the comments.

The lead author, Natalia Shakhova, explains the new findings in this video:

NSF explains:

“The amount of methane currently coming out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is comparable to the amount coming out of the entire world’s oceans,” said Shakhova, a researcher at UAF’s International Arctic Research Center. “Subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap.”

Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It is released from previously frozen soils in two ways. When the organic material (which contains carbon) stored in permafrost thaws, it begins to decompose and, under anaerobic conditions, gradually releases methane. Methane can also be stored in the seabed as methane gas or methane hydrates and then released as subsea permafrost thaws. These releases can be larger and more abrupt than those that result from decomposition.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a methane-rich area that encompasses more than 2 million square kilometers of seafloor in the Arctic Ocean. It is more than three times as large as the nearby Siberian wetlands, which have been considered the primary Northern Hemisphere source of atmospheric methane. Shakhova’s research results show that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is already a significant methane source, releasing 7 teragrams of methane yearly, which is as much as is emitted from the rest of the ocean. A teragram is equal to about 1.1 million tons.

“Our concern is that the subsea permafrost has been showing signs of destabilization already,” she said. “If it further destabilizes, the methane emissions may not be teragrams, it would be significantly larger.”

Shakhova notes that the Earth’s geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a relative frontier in methane studies. The shelf is shallow, 50 meters (164 feet) or less in depth, which means it has been alternately submerged or terrestrial, depending on sea levels throughout Earth’s history. During the Earth’s coldest periods, it is a frozen arctic coastal plain, and does not release methane. As the Earth warms and sea level rises, it is inundated with seawater, which is 12-15 degrees warmer than the average air temperature.

“It was thought that seawater kept the East Siberian Arctic Shelf permafrost frozen,” Shakhova said. “Nobody considered this huge area.”

Last August I discussed findings by German and British scientists “that more than 250 plumes of bubbles of methane gas are rising from the seabed of the West Spitsbergen continental margin in the Arctic, in a depth range of 150 to 400 metres” (see “So many amplifying methane feedbacks, so little time to stop them all” and figure on right).

A lead researcher of that work said, “Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming; we did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started.”

But the situation in the ESAS is far, far more dicey, as NSF explains:

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, in addition to holding large stores of frozen methane, is more of a concern because it is so shallow. In deep water, methane gas oxidizes into carbon dioxide before it reaches the surface. In the shallows of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, methane simply doesn’t have enough time to oxidize, which means more of it escapes into the atmosphere. That, combined with the sheer amount of methane in the region, could add a previously uncalculated variable to climate models.

“The release to the atmosphere of only one percent of the methane assumed to be stored in shallow hydrate deposits might alter the current atmospheric burden of methane up to 3 to 4 times,” Shakhova said. “The climatic consequences of this are hard to predict.”

And we also know that a key trigger for accelerated warming in the Arctic region is the loss of sea ice.

A 2008 study by leading tundra experts found “Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss.” The lead author is David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), whom I interviewed for my book and interviewed again via e-mail in 2008. The study’s ominous conclusion:

We find that simulated western Arctic land warming trends during rapid sea ice loss are 3.5 times greater than secular 21st century climate-change trends. The accelerated warming signal penetrates up to 1500 km inland….

In other words, a continuation of the recent trend in sea ice loss may triple Arctic warming, causing large emissions in carbon dioxide and methane from the tundra this century.

Oh, and the Arctic warming could lead to another feedback according to a 2008 Science article: “Continuation of current trends in shrub and tree expansion could further amplify this atmospheric heating 2-7 times.” The point is that if you convert a white landscape to a boreal forest, the surface suddenly starts collecting a lot more solar energy (see “Tundra 3: Forests and fires foster feedbacks“).

That trend is occurring now, as seen in these two photos from a recent ScienceNews article, “Boreal forests shift north.”

“Upper photo taken in 1962 shows tundra-dominated mountain slope in Siberian Urals. A 2004 photo of the same site, below, shows conifers were setting up dense stand of forest.”

Another major study warns that the warming-driven northward march of vegetation poses yet another threat to the tundra: “Greater fire activity will likely accompany temperature-related increases in shrub-dominated tundra predicted for the 21^st century and beyond.” The concern is not so much the direct emissions from burning tundra, but the albedo change.

And all that warming would cause massive melting of the tundra and faster emissions release. That must be avoided at all cost, since the tundra feedback, coupled with the climate-carbon-cycle feedbacks that the IPCC models, could easily take us to the unmitigated catastrophe of 1000 ppm.

The good news is that a 2009 NOAA-led study found “Near-zero CH₄ growth in the Arctic during 2008 suggests we have not yet activated strong climate feedbacks from permafrost and CH₄ hydrates” (see “Is it just too damn late?“)

The bad news is we clearly are on very thin ice. Literally.

Lawrence revised and updated his 2005 analysis of tundra loss under different emissions scenarios (after some scientists criticized the original work) in this 2008 study, “Sensitivity of a model projection of near-surface permafrost degradation to soil column depth and representation of soil organic matter” (subs. req’d). The updated analysis still found: “the warming is enough to drive near-surface permafrost extent sharply down by 2100.”

I had asked Lawrence if it was still reasonable to keep using this figure in my presentation, since it is so much easier to understand than the figures in his new paper.

He said, “Using the old figure is still fine as long as one mentions the caveats that permafrost is probably degrading a bit too rapidly in the original.

So I will certainly use that caveat, though, of course, I will also caveat the caveat by saying the slightly slower rate of permafrost degradation does not include Lawrence’s new analysis on the accelerated warming of the permafrost due to sea ice loss (or, for that matter, the accelerated warming of the permafrost due to faster shrub encroachment).

Note that the “B1″ scenario stabilizes CO2 concentrations in the air at 550 ppm — and the near-surface permafrost permafrost (down to 11 feet) plummets from over 4 million square miles today to 1.5 million. If concentrations hit 850 ppm in 2100 (A2), permafrost would shrink to just 800,000 square miles.

And while these projections were done with one of the world’s most sophisticated climate system models, the calculations do not include the feedback effect of the released carbon from the permafrost. That is to say, the CO2 concentrations in the model rise only as a result of direct emissions from humans, with no extra emissions counted from soils or tundra. Thus they are conservative numbers–or overestimates–of how much CO2 concentrations have to rise to trigger irreversible melting.

In short, the would-be point of atmospheric stabilization, 550 ppm isn’t stable at all — it is past the point of no return. We must stay well below 450 ppm to save the tundra and hence the climate. The new research underscores that conclusion, especially since the planet will keep warming (slowly) for decades even once we slash emissions to near zero.

And that means we must begin a staggering amount of clean energy deployment as soon as possible (see “How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution“).

Wake up media and politicians who are being duped by the anti-science disinformers into thinking there is any serious doubt about the catastrophe we face on our current path of unrestricted emissions!

UPDATE: WWF’s Nick Sundt points out:

A report released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, Abrupt Climate Change, said in December 2008 (during the Bush Administration) that warming in the Arctic could cause sea levels to rise substantially beyond scientists’ previous predictions and could result in massive releases of methane. The report said that the “rapid release to the atmosphere of methane trapped in permafrost and on continental margins” was among “four types of abrupt change in the paleoclimatic record that stand out as being so rapid and large in their impact that if they were to recur, they would pose clear risks to society in terms of our ability to adapt.”


SIIT

Prügist saab energiat, ehitusmaterjali ja vett

Mitte, et see uudis olek, aga konkreetsed numbrid teevad ettekujutuse asjast palju ilmekamaks. Tõenäosus, et selline asi massilisemaks ei kujune, on väga väike. Jätkusuutlik (globaalne) "Organism" (kus inimesed on "ensüümid" ja maavarad/ressursid on "toitained" organismile) peab olema suuteline töötlema oma sitta nii, et ta sinna sisse ära ei sure.

 

Why Let it go to Waste? Enerkem Leaps Ahead With Trash-to-Gas Plans

Ohutumad tuumajaamad edaspidi?

"Venus Flytrap" Molecule Can Capture Radioactive Waste, Make Nuclear Plants Safer
Jason Mick (Blog) - March 2, 2010 7:38 AM

---

Print

E-mail

del.icio.us

20 comment(s) - last by SoCalBoomer.. on Mar 2 at2:11 PM

---

So much for safety risks; a new "flytrap" molecule has been discovered that literally gobbles up nuclear waste ions.  (Source: Mercouri Kanatzidis / courtesy Argonne National Laboratory)

Molecule could be used to cleanup Chernobyl and make future plants even safer.

Mercouri Kanatzidis, a scientist at the U.S.Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory, and Nan Ding, a chemist at Northwestern University, have discovered a little molecule that may make a big difference in the nuclear power debate by making nuclear plants safer.

The molecule features a bizarre mechanism in which it behaves like a Venus flytrap, closing selectively on radioactive ions.  That's a big deal as few molecules in the past have shown the potential to effectively and permanently isolate radioactive particles.

The researchers were exploring ways to trap radioactive cesium ions, a dangerous component of nuclear waste water.  Cesium radioactive isotopes typically have a long half life meaning that if they are accidentally released they decay slowly and pose a serious health risk.  One cesium isotope, Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years, has played a critical role in maintaining dangerous levels of radioactivity in the Chernobyl disaster zone.  Residents of the region have experienced higher cancer rates and incidences of other problems.

That's why it's so exciting to find a molecule that could potentially isolate those stray particles and allow them to be filtered out of local water supplies -- finding the metaphorical needle in a haystack.

Describes Professor Kanatzidis, "The name of the game in cleaning up nuclear waste is to concentrate the dangerous isotopes as efficiently as possible.  That's where this new material does its job."

The new material is a rigid frame composed of negatively charged metal sulfides.  Its interior has a pore that attracts positively charged ions.  Non-radioactive sodium ions are freely attracted inside the pore, and then interchanged with other sodium ions.  However, when radioactive cesium ions enter the pore, they get stuck.

The researchers discovered the reason behind this.  Sodium, like most positively charged ions, attracts a shell of water that helps to isolate it within the pore.  Cesium, a large ion, only weakly interacts with water, so it's relatively unprotected.  Sulfur atoms in the ring framework around the pore bind to the cesium, changing the shape of the pore, much like a Venus flytrap shutting on its prey.

Professor Kanatzidis elaborates, "Imagine the framework like a Venus flytrap.  When the plant jaws are open, you can drop a pebble in and the plant won't close—it knows it isn't food. When a fly enters, however, the plant's jaws snap shut."

He adds, "As far as we know, this Venus-flytrap process is unique.  It also works over a large range of acidities—an essential property for cleanup at different sites around the world, where pH can range considerably."

The research was published in the prestigious journal Nature Chemistry and could lead to discoveries of similar flytrap molecules that could be used to capture other radioactive ions.

Argonne National Laboratory is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, but is privately managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC.  President Barack Obama has recently become a major advocate of the U.S. adopting nuclear power, pushing for more research grants and guaranteed loan funding for new plant construction.

Talk about good news!

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/492934

Eesti hakkab diislikütust tootma

Avalda arvamust Seitsme aasta pärast toodetakse kogu Eestis vajaminev diislikütus kodumaa tööstustes.

Andres Reimer   02. märts 2010 08:00

Teie nimi
Teie e-post
Sõbra nimi
Sõbra e-mail
Teade

Eesti Energia Õlitööstuse juhatuse esimees Igor Kond näitab vana õlitehase katuselt platsi, kus alustatakse aprillis Enefiti tehnoloogiaga õlitehase ehitust. Auvere metsadesse rajatakse järjestikku kuni neli õlitehast, samuti tuleb sinna 2015. aas Foto: Andres Reimer

Ida-Virumaa õlitööstused laovad alust Eesti majandusedu taassünnile – uutele õlitehastele. Lähiaastatel ehitavad keemiatöösturid vähemalt neli uut õliseadet, mis mitmekordistab Eesti õliseadmete arvu. Juba 2015. aastaks toodame nii palju põlevkiviõli, et ehitada rafineerimistehas diislikütuse tootmiseks.

Tosin aastat tagasi vaatasid Eesti töösturid põlevkiviõli tehastele kui risule, sest nafta hind oli madal ja roostetanud seadmed paistsid keskkonnareostusena. Eesti Energia kaalus Eesti Elektrijaama õlitehase saagimist vanarauaks. Viru Keemia Grupp müüs Kiviõli keemiatehase tööstuskaugele Ida-Virumaa transpordiettevõtjale Toomas Tammele.

Nüüd huugavad uuendatud vanad tehased täie võimsusega ning Auveres ja Kohtla-Järvel valmivad ehitusplatsid uute tehaste püstitamiseks. Põlevkiviõli tootmine tasub vanade seadmetega ära nafta 40-dollarilise maailmaturu barrelihinna juures, uute tehaste rajamise muudab mõttekaks 60-dollariline hind. Praegu kõigub nafta hind 80 dollari piirimail.


Ehitada üksi või kaasata teisi


Eesti Energia Õlitööstus alustab tänavu Auvere metsa ligi kolm miljardit krooni maksva Enefiti tootmisseadme püstitamist. Peatöövõtja, rahvusvaheline tehnoloogiafirma Outotec annab lõviosa töid Eesti alltöövõtjatele. Ehituse tipphetkel töötab platsil tuhat ehitajat. Kui tehas kahe aasta pärast valmib, toodab ta aastas 220 000 tonni õli ja annab tööd sajale inimesele.

Esimese Enefiti järel ehitatakse kohe kaks samasugust lisaks. Neljanda Enefiti ehitamine sõltub sellest, kas Eesti Energia seab eesmärgiks rafineerimistehase ehitamise üksinda või kaasab teised Eesti õlitootjad. Seni tegeleb Eesti Energia tehase äriliste ja tehnoloogiliste näitajate arvutamisega.

Detsembris avas Viru Keemia Grupp Kohtla-Järvel 120 000-tonnise aastavõimsusega tehase Petroter. Praegu tehast häälestatakse. Kui tehnoloogia end õigustab, asub ettevõte tuleval aastal seadmeid üksteise kõrvale kloonima. Aastas tahetakse jõuda 450 000 tonni õli tootmiseni.

Diislikütuse tootmisest unistavad kõik Eesti õlitootjad, kuid Eesti Energia on ainuke, kel jätkub võimalusi ja ambitsiooni tehase ehitamiseks üksi. Viru Keemia Grupp soovib osaleda, kuid ei jõua projekti üksi vedada.

Kui Eesti Energia jätab konkureerivad õlitootjad osanike seast välja, peavad need hakkama rafineerimisteenust ostma või leppima odava põlevkiviõli müügiga katlamajadele või laevade punkerdamise firmadele.


Kommentaar

Helle Kirs-Toiger

Eesti Statoili peadirektor


„Kui põlevkividiisel vastab Euroopa Liidu kvaliteedinõuetele, siis on ta Eesti kütuse jaekettides teretulnud. Kohalik diislikütus meeldib, sest me ei pea seda Norrast tankeriga vedama. Piisab, kui saadame auto Narva. Transpordikulude arvel võib selline diislikütus kujuneda Eestis seni müüdavast diislikütusest odavamaks. Kuna kütust hakatakse tootma kasumi nimel, kujundab tema hinna ikkagi nafta maailmaturu hind. Samuti pole tootjatel kohustust seda üksnes Eestis müüa. Põlevkiviõlist toodetava diislikütuse puhul tõuseb peamiseks küsimus, mis seisis ka biodiisli tootjate ees: kas Eesti tehased suudavad toota piisavalt palju?”


Kolm õlitehast


Eesti Energia

Enefiti tehnoloogia

•• Eesti Energia Õlitööstus kavatseb läbimurret mitte nii-võrd õlitoodete turule, kuivõrd juhtrolli maailma põlevkivitehnoloogia äris.

•• Tõenäoliselt kujuneb põlevkiviõli tehasest Enefiti rahvusvaheline kaubamärk nagu Caterpillar rasketehnika turul või Nokia mobiiltelefonide seas.

•• Auvere tootmiskompleksi saab pakkida dokumendikausta ja „kloonida” Ameerikas, Aasias või Aafrikas.


Viru Keemia Grupp

Petroteri tehnoloogia

•• Kohtla-Järvele püstitatav Petroteri-nimeline õliseade on mõeldud mugavaks ja käepäraseks tootmisüksuseks, millel puudub tehnoloogilise revolutsiooni lipuhoidja püüdlus.

•• Detsembris avatud tehas loodetakse kevadeks tööle häälestada ja panna rahamasinana tiksuma. Seejärel saab asuda järgnevate samasuguste seadmete püstitamisele Kohtla-Järvele, kuid tõenäoliselt ka Ukrainasse.


Kiviõli Keemiatööstus

UTT-500

•• Kiviõli üritab kasutusele võtta 30 aastat tagasi tehnoloogiauuringuteks loodud väikese võimsusega katseseadet UTT-500, mis paistab konkurentide arendustega võrreldes nagu rehepeksu-masin John Deere’i kombaini kõrval.

•• Ajakirjanikke vältiv omanik näib keskenduvat ettevõtte müümise probleemidele, jättes tehnoloogiainvesteeringud tagaplaanile.

•• Toomas Tamm soovis tehase kolme miljardi krooniga müüa õli kokkuostjale Select Oilile, kuid läks selle omaniku Nikolai Reismanniga leppimatult tülli.

•• Kiviõli argipäeva täidavad pankrotilõksud, kriminaalsüüdistused ja saboteerivad maaostud.

Tuuleturbiini energiabilanss

Taanis paiknev maailma suurim tuuleturbiinide tootja Vestas Wind System on teinud mitme oma turbiini kohta elutsüklianalüüsi ja väidab, et firma 3MW turbiin genereerib töötamisel ca 7 kuuga samas koguses taastuvenergiat, mis on kulunud antud turbiini tootmise jaoks.

https://www.lhv.ee/forums/index.cfm?id=106886&start=401#427

Subscribe to EconomistMagazine YTChannel