Summer Solstice, 2019 - How the Problem Could be Solved

There Is a Technical and Feasible Solution to Reducing CO₂ - But...

This is not a claim that we can solve the climate change problem. It certainly isn't a solution that will allow us to continue BAU. I cling to the belief that civilization as we know it will collapse. But just as an exercise in contrastive argument to show how improbable our taking action would be I offer this tidbit.

According to the 2018 IPCC Report: 1.5 Degrees Centigrade, not only must we get to zero carbon emissions but we will have to actively remove CO₂ from the atmosphere so that we have what are called negative emissions. This will be necessary (maybe not sufficient) to avoid the worst catastrophes from climate change. I will take it as a given that we all understand the proposals for reducing emissions. Longtime readers will know my skepticism regarding the use of alternative energies to replace carbon fuels and go on happily producing junk. I maintain that that side of the equation will involve significant changes to our way of living and especially our beliefs in capitalism's magic. The latter will come to be seen as waving the magic wand and kill a planet!

So, taken as a given that we could somehow significantly reduce our use of carbon-based fuels, the other factor in the equation for negative emissions is the removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Here is an outline of a feasible technical solution. I claim it is feasible only in the sense that the resources and technology to accomplish it do exist in sufficiency to get the job done. However, naturally, there are caveats.

First let me give some background for the solution. When I was a sailor on board a nuclear submarine I was responsible for keeping the CO₂ scrubbers functioning. This machine absorbed the gas directly from the ventilation system via a chemical process. There are several different chemical methods for capturing CO₂ from air and new approaches are being investigated. The actual absorption is the easy part, takes little energy to blow air through a mist of the chemical. But then you have a chemical that can no longer be used for that purpose. What you need to do then is to heat the chemical to a high temperature after which the CO₂ is released again, but in high concentration. On the submarine we had two great advantages for doing this. First we had a nuclear reactor to provide all of the heat we needed to recuperate the absorbent. And to dispose of the CO₂ we just pumped it overboard into the sea. At the depths we generally ran, the CO₂ would harmlessly bubble upward but get dissolved in sea water so that no bubbles reached the surface. For CO₂ capture and sequestration of the gas in the atmosphere an different scheme needs to be found.

People have looked at sequestration methods such as pumping the gas into caverns or oil wells to dispose of it. But this is risky. And we don't know for sure that it would stay put. An alternative is to mineralize it by combining the CO₂ with other chemicals, such as calcium to form calcium carbonate, which is a solid and can safely be disposed of.

The major reason that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) schemes are not being put into use, say for removing CO₂ from coal-fired power plant chimneys, is that it takes considerable energy to restore the absorbent and compress the gas, about a third of the total produced by the plant. Schemes for direct air capture (DAC) would take considerably more energy since they would need to be designed to circulate considerably more air per unit time than a simpler CCS approach would. They would need to run huge air compressors and that would take a lot of additional energy.

Thus if CCS is not practical, one should ask how could DAC be practical. It was the association between the submarine and the CO₂ scrubbers that triggered a thought.

Between the US, Russia, and NATO, there are perhaps four hundred operational submarines in service (most are meant to be missile deployment platforms) and perhaps half as many decommissioned sitting around. The nuclear reactors on-board are primarily used for propulsion and internal electricity generation. The scheme for marine-based nuclear plants is feasible because the boats are surrounded by cold water, used as the heat sink. But what if you didn't use the power for propulsion? What if you parked the boats in permanent locations out to sea and used the power to run really large CO₂ scrubbers?

Ballistic missile subs would be ideal. Take out the missile silos and build in the scrubber plant. Fast attacks would have to be outfitted with a side-barge to carry the equipment. They should probably retain their propulsion systems in case they need to move to get out of a big storm. But otherwise the heat and electricity generated from the reactor would be used for DAC (note the subs would not sit fully submerged of course!)

Other surface nuclear ships could be similarly repurposed. Either some of them could run scrubbers and minerilzation plants, or be converted to cargo ships to transport supplies to the subs and calcium carbonate back to land.

In other words, "make clean air, not war." It is altogether likely that the other militaries of the nation-states will similarly have to be repurposed to fight climate change. They may have to also maintain internal order when things get really bad. [To see that DAC is in the realm of feasiblity, check out the research at Arizona State U. on "negative carbon emissions."]

The nuclear navy has been going for over fifty years with an incredible safety record (short of a sub sinking) with respect to the operations of the reactors. They are of a design that keeps them working for years before needing refueling.

But...

It is hard to imagine a world in which militaries are so repurposed to fight for the survival of humanity when it isn't an alien invading force that they are fighting. This is especially the case in today's political climate where complete idiots seem to be taking over the governments. The US's idiot-in-chief still claims global warming isn't an issue.

We will do nothing to avoid catastrophic climate chaos, I am pretty sure, as long as such clowns and fools are in charge, and as long as there are enough less-than-sapient citizens who want them in charge. Even the so-called progressives (Democrats, social or otherwise) still buy into capitalism in some form and economic growth as a goal. Out ideologies are going to be our undoing.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but consider that in order to make the above scenario possible it would probably be necessary to have a mass uprising to throw out the current cadre of politicians and put a cadre of scientists who actually understand physics and reality in charge. A complete breakdown of civilization would almost certainly mean that the subs would either be used for their current purpose (firing missles) or be lost to access for the repurposing suggested.

You can, perhaps, see why I am not optimistic about the future of civilization. This kind of analysis, consider what might actually work in the real world and then ask if we humans would actually be willing to undertake the actions necessary, consistently ends with of a resounding, of course not. Every day I witness human behaviors the keep reinforcing my view that we humans, collectively, are seriously lacking in the mental ability to have and use wisdom. Instead of adopting and using the Precautionary Principle or the Golden Rule as guides for living, we are stuck in "what's in it for me" mentality. If I make as much money as I can I won't have to worry about anything. It will be interesting to watch Wall Street bankers chewing on their dollar bills and stock certificates for food.

It is somewhat encouraging that climate change is taking center stage for a number of the Democratic candidates in the US presidential race. Finally (perhaps too late), some politicians are realizing that we have a problem. But their visions are still constrained by their ideological commitment to capitalism, even Bernie, for example, still advocates for economic growth. He just wants to redistribute the wealth more "equitably". Since they are politicians they have to tell people what they want to hear. Note that the "Green New Deal" doesn't even come close to solving the problem that we have. Generating more wealth by building a bunch of solar panels is going to come to be seen as the cruelest lie of all.

Comments

[MM]

Third law of thermodynamics:
"There is no sucht thing as brushing the dirt under the rubber"
Fourth law of thermodynamics:
"There is no such thing as a reverse gear for life!"
Is there ?

[MM]

rubber ? carpet!

[Cantab]

Very true.

According to legend,the Prince of Balkh ('Mother of Cities') set out to find Wisdom, and finding a stone in his path reading 'Pick me up and turn me over'did so andread on the other side:

'Why do you seek Wisdom, when you do not act on what you already know?'

I have come to believe that we have enough accessible energy resources, and just enough intelligence, if not wisdom, to do ourselves in as a species.

How cruel these thoughts are when this is the loveliest summer in this part of the world - where both capitalist industrialism and constant agricultural revolution were born - for many years: such a profusion of roses, wild flowers, and even, for once, bees....

The ancient university here, which should carry the banner for sapience, is now merely a real estate developer, as far as I can see, having been quite a good custodian of the land for many centuries, it is now all being wrecked. Conctrete will be poured until the last.

Thank you for posting as usual ,and do enjoy these pleasant days: shades of the summer of 1914?

[Karl Kolchak]

It isn't just Trump--nothing will be done as long as long as neoliberals and neoconservtaives remain the dominant political forces in both the U.S. and in most of Europe (however much Trump plays the authoritarian populist card, he's really a neoliberal on steroids). How was Obama's administration different from Trump's in terms of practical action taken against climate change? He merely signed the U.S. on to the utterly toothless Paris Agreement so that American liberals could pretend that they had done something. Trump doesn't even bother pretending, but the end result is the same.

Ultimately, however, blaming the leaders is too easy. After all, they don't (yet) elect themselves. The citizenry votes them in because a majority of people refuse to make any sacrifices for the common good, especially the rich whose money dominates our election cycles.

So yeah, I agree with you that nothing is going to happen. On the whole, people are just too selfish and too stupid.

[Osky.]

First time reader here and loving it.
I think it’s not the leaders or goverments it’s us.
People does not see that buying an electric car is not a solution for anything it’s the same or even worst. I want to see in some years what are we going to do with the batteries and all this trash we are creating now...
Big companys are the ones who control the world and are the ones who tell everybody what to buy.

[anthony noerpel]

Hi George

my thoughts on DACCS. https://blueridgeleader.com/direct-air-capture/

A new paper by Daniel H. Rothman Characteristic disruptions of an excitable carbon cycle in PNAS might put the kibosh on storing it in the ocean.

thanks for the link to the ASU work. My other problem with DACCS and BECCS is what politicians hear when somebody tells them about it. "We're saved. No problem."

Tony Noerpel

[Robert Vogel]

It takes good government to maintain a balance between democracy and capitalism. The more inequality, the worse the government. Unfortunately, capitalism is winning now, so it is plundering and destroying the earth for profit. Climate devastation will be the mother of all market failures. We probably are destroying the planet for the kids.

[George Mobus]

All,

Apologies for my lateness in responses. Things are happening and demands are more than should be the case for a retiree!

My Autumnal Equinox blog, now up, may supply some thoughts in answer to points made in your commentaries. As always I expect nothing from the current governments and so as long as the citizens permit them to govern, they are committing species suicide! The truly sapient among us will drop out of the social structure and prepare for the worst.

George