Global Warming, the Carbon Cycle and Other Thoughts

Jeremy Leggett of Solarcentury outlines only two visions of the future: accelerating the use of fossil-fuel and nuclear without carbon capture into some dark and horrible future or expanding the use of renewable energy sources (specifically solar, wind and water) with falling clean energy prices, and ultimately mass market use of renewable sources of energy supplying the world’s needs. Nigel Calder co-author of “The Chilling Stars, A new theory of climate change” sees the world much differently. They believe in the Solar Irradiance theories and feel that the effects of greenhouse gases are likely to be a good deal less than advertised based on a different theory of climate change.
There is more than one theory of climate change and I certainly do not know the true importance of the factors that can impact global temperature change, but I am unwilling to dismiss any theory or area of investigation at this stage. The world is not black and white and our knowledge of the interlacing systems that make up the ecosystems of the earth is truly limited. The visions of the future are not cut and dried. The real world is the one that is subtly interconnected where we have limited knowledge and resources and we need to evaluate the best use of our resources, financial, intellectual, natural, and emotional.
Many greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere and are also produced by man’s activities, such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide, while others are entirely synthetic. Those that are synthetic, man-made include the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Atmospheric concentrations of both the natural and man-made gases are reported to have been rising over the last few centuries. With increasing global population and technology our reliance on fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and natural gas) has increased, so emissions of greenhouse gases have risen. While gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally in the atmosphere, man’s activities through burning forest lands, or mining and burning coal, we moved carbon from solid storage to its gaseous state, increasing atmospheric concentrations.

Carbon dioxide levels fluctuate throughout the year, but appear to be consistently rising. From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5 ppm each year, but since 2000 it has risen to an average 2.1ppm. (ppm is a part per million, a percentage is a part per hundred) These changes are believed to threaten the global environmental equilibrium. According to the National Climate Data Center at NOAA CO2 levels have increased from 280 parts per million in 1850 to 385 parts per million today. According to data from the US Department of Energy, and National Climate Data Center, the carbon in the atmosphere has increased 24% since pre-industrial times but only about 4% of that increase was attributed to human activity. Though this sounds incredibly small, many believe that this small percentage is the tipping point for the carbon cycle and the cause of global warming, the increase in the average temperature that was recorded during the past century.

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere accounting for 94%. It is believed by many that the small change in CO2 emissions due to man causes large changes in water vapor concentrations due to a climate feedback cycle. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from surface sources. Because the air is warmer, it is able to 'hold' more water leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so forth. The proposals to reduce greenhouse gases are intended to move the ecological cycle back from the tipping point.

The best measurements of global air temperatures come from our weather satellites, and they reportedly show fluctuations, but no overall change in air temperature since 1999. (Though record warm and cold years have been recorded since that time the average seems to be the same.) The leveling off of global warming as measured by air temperature while CO2 levels continue to increase is heralded by the school of thought, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do.

Solar cosmic rays intensity and frequency affect the production rate of radiocarbon, C14, the substance that is used by archaeologists to date objects. The original C14 content is due to the amount present in the air at the time of death or encapsulation. The atoms gradually decay back to nitrogen and thus provide a method for dating materials. It was discovered in 1958 by Hessel de Vries of Gronigen that the rate of C14 production varies. Measurements in well-dated annual rings of growth in ancient trees were the key to identifying this. The C14 variations allowed the variation in the solar production of cosmic rays to be measured. Roger Bray of the New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research then Jack Eddy of High Altitude Observatory in Colorado documented the correlation of solar cosmic rays and the earth’s climate changes.

After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, if solar activity falls. The earth is such a complicated system with so many inputs and dependent cycles that an accurate model has not been developed and is unlikely to be developed to test these theories. If something as relatively simple as the world economy could not be adequately modeled and controlled to predict and prevent a global recession, how is the more complicated system of earth to be simplified and controlled?

Loudoun County Health Department Leading the Way in Virginia

Starting next month (July 1, 2009) Loudoun County, Virginia will be requiring all non- traditional septic systems, which were permitted before November 2, 2008 to be inspected annually. Non-traditional systems approved after November 2, 2008 will require annual inspection and an annual maintenance contract. This regulation should ensure that non-traditional septic systems are appropriately maintained and operated in their county. These non-traditional septic systems include: aerobic tank or ATU’s, peat filter systems, single and re-circulation sand filters, mound, drip dispersal, spray and low pressure dispersal. Manufacturers of these systems include but are not limited to: Advantex, Aquarobic, Puraflo, Eco-Flo, Whitewater, FAST, BEST, American Drip, and Geoflo.

Though the three chamber system also known as aerobic tank or ATU system is becoming the most popular alternative type system, it is also the most sensitive to improper use and maintenance. They are great when they work, but you need to baby them. These systems were discussed in a previous post. The other non-traditional systems are essentially other methods of replacing a traditional leach field with other filtering methods.

The peat media filter system is a traditional septic tank with peat filtration system instead of a leach field. The filtration system is the aerobic portion of the treatment and is located in tanks which are filled with peat moss. The water is evenly spread over the peat moss then seeps through the media and has a place to collect at the bottom. The peat is an excellent media for allowing the natural secondary treatment of the sewage waste to take place: Absorption and filtration of any impurities chemical adsorption, and microbial assimilation. As a result, these systems are typically capable of removing 90% or more of the polluted mater (characterized as BOD, SS, Coli forms and E. Coli). The life of these systems are 15 years or less until the media is exhausted and needs to be replaced.

Sand filters are a type of aerobic treatment system these are less effective treatments than a peat medium system removing only around 70% of the polluted matter, but that is usually enough in the instances where they are used. These systems date back to the last century and were generally installed above ground to solve a problem with a failing septic. There are single pass sand filters and multi pass re-circulating sand filters. Both types of sand filter are built in a watertight container. Though these systems could be excavated and buried, but they are usually visible and above ground. In addition to physically filtering the water, they perform as a biological filter. A Mound is another form of above ground filtration system. The mound is used as an intermittent sand filter to treat waste water and to disperse effluent through the natural soil. These kind of filtration systems are usually very visible and can be very unsightly.

The basic principles for drip distribution are the same as for other soil-based treatment systems: filtering and bacterial decomposition of waste. The difference is that a drip distribution system distributes the effluent evenly over a large area. A drip distribution system has four main parts: a pretreatment device, a pump tank, a filtering/flushing device, and the distribution system.

I will watch with interest as the Loudoun County program is rolled out. The one area where the county did not think out the implications of their program was requiring all existing system inspections to take place between May 1 and June 30th annually. They need to spread these inspections throughout the year. Their program could serve as a model and test for the new Commonwealth of Virginia regulations required under § 32.1-164 of the Code of Virginia. Loudoun County’s proactive stance could serve the rest of the state in working out all the roadblocks and hurdles for the proper functioning of the regulatory scheme.

Test Your Private Well

When I purchased my home from a bank, one of my contingencies was water quality. I had the right to exit the purchase if the water quality did not meet US EPA Safe Drinking Water Standards. All we could negotiate was 12 day contingency period and in reality I had less time than that. The power needed to be turned on to operate the water pump, the hot water heater and water tanks drained and the water run to clear out the lines and tanks. Though an old friend at the US EPA had identified a reasonably priced informational oriented analysis package, the turn around time was 4-6 weeks. Currently, it is reported to be less than 4 weeks. My best option to verify water quality within the transaction time frame appeared to be to use an US EPA certified laboratory to perform a rush compliance analysis of the water sample for every primary and secondary contaminants listed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The good news is the results confirmed that the on-site drinking water well provided water that met the Safe Drinking Water Standards. The groundwater supplying the house was uncontaminated. To obtain that analysis within the time frame of the contingency period I spent $1,635.00. I paid for the rush analysis because occasionally I had experienced delays obtaining analytical results at laboratories during my engineering career. The house was the most expensive purchase of my life and I did not want to purchase a house with “bad” water. I comforted myself that the results met the compliance standard of the US EPA and could serve as evidence in court. If my groundwater were ever contaminated I could prove that on the date of the test it was uncontaminated. The water also tasted good.

This spring I used the WaterCheck with Pesticides to test my water quality. This is a test kit you can either buy and take the sample yourself and ship it off to the laboratory in Michigan or you can have a local laboratory do the sampling to ensure that the local laboratory does a same day analysis for Bacteria (presence/absence for coliform and E.coli) and nitrates. My confidence in the results of the bacterial tests for a sample shipped next day on ice was limited so I went with my local laboratory. The kits are made by National Testing Labs and can be purchased directly from them or from a variety of distributors. A sampling kit can be purchased at this link.

This is an informational test packages targeted to be an affordable option for consumers. It is easy to read with the simple four symbols of green check, blue dot, yellow triangle and red cross. If your entire report is green and blue there is nothing to worry about. If any yellow or red symbols appear, you want to gather more information starting with your department of health and the Laboratory that performed the analysis. Additional testing might be necessary. The WaterCheck with Pesticide covers total Coliform and E.Coli bacteria, 15 heavy metals, 5 inorganic chemicals, 5 physical factors, 4 trihalo methanes, 43 volatile organic chemicals (solvents), and 20 pesticides, herbicides and PCB’s. The Minimum Detection Levels, which are the lowest levels at which the laboratory detects that contaminant with an acceptable degree of accuracy are below the levels established by the Safe Drinking Water Act, but in many instances higher than those required for a compliance test. These tests are designed to give an overall picture of water quality, but do not cover all contaminants that are regulated by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act and are not admissible as evidence in court, which I hope never to need. I believe most people will find that their drinking water source has not been impacted, nonetherless; you should check.

Reducing the Carbon Footprint with Cap and Trade Legislation

The "American Clean Energy and Security Act" is HR 2454, it is also known as the Waxman-Markley energy bill, or simply as "ACES." The Bill includes a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. The current goal is a reduction of 17% by 2020. Other provisions include new renewable energy requirements for utilities, studies and incentives for carbon capture technologies, energy efficiency incentives for home and buildings, and grants for green jobs. The bill is expected to be on the House floor in June.

The Congressional Budget Office analysis estimated that price increases associated with a 15% cut in carbon dioxide emissions would cost the average U.S. household $1,600.00 a year. This weekend the World Business Summit on Climate Change will meet in Copenhagen. Bjorn Lomborg, in his opinion piece in the WSJ discusses the cost of green jobs in Spain as well as his opinion of the "Climate-Industrial Complex." (A lovely turn of phrase.) It is difficult to determine the cost benefit analysis of ACES since the exact relationship of man made greenhouse gas reduction and climate change is not known. It is evident, however; that reducing greenhouse gas emissions or any other custodial care of our planet takes resources: money, time, energy and passion. Spend to care for the earth and its atmosphere and there will be less for other things. We as a whole will be poorer, but hopefully with a more sustainable earth. We need to spend wisely to get the most effect from our resources and efforts.

A cap and trade system will cost the American consumer more for power, transportation and many goods. There will be profits to be made in a cap and trade system, who will hold the profits and who will bear the costs remains to be seen. Hopefully, the unintended consequences will not overwhelm the goals of the bill.

I do see the first glimmers of green jobs. This month in CEP (Chemical Engineering Progress) was a very helpful and inspiring article by Jeffrey H. Siegell titled "Improve Your Air Emissions Estimates." With the apparent goal to properly estimate the baseline, Mr. Siegell identified several problem areas in typical reporting estimates. I love system mass balance, waste stream sampling, release modeling-all of it. Though I have not modeled a processing plant since my US EPA and DuPont days, I think there will be great opportunities in systems emissions modeling.

Why Test Your Water

If your home drinking water is supplied from an onsite or private well, you are responsible for ensuring that your water is safe to drink. Unlike public drinking water systems serving many people which have experts regularly checking the water quality, no one is looking out for families with their own wells. The US EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act does not protect private wells; however, public drinking water supplies which serve the vast majority of Americans are tested for the complete list of primary and secondary contaminants .

A drinking water well that is contaminated could significantly impact your health and the value of your property. There is no requirement, but as one of the 15% of American families whose drinking water is supplied by a private well, I feel I should test my drinking water for these primary and secondary contaminants of concern to the US EPA. In this we need to serve as our own watch dogs. Part of the price of your own water supply is maintaining it and testing it. City and county health departments have local rules and regulations for the installation of wells and can often help with testing for bacteria and nitrates which are contaminants from septic systems, drain fields and livestock. The water well test that was performed when you bought your house probably only tested for bacteria and nitrates. Are you certain that the water you drink is safe?

Due to its protected location underground, most groundwater is naturally clean and free from pollution. However, not all groundwater is clean and safe because we as an industrial society have buried and poured out too much waste. The excellent case studies by Rosemary Stephen “Trichloroethylene (TCE) Water Contamination” illustrates this point better than I could here. For twenty or thirty years homeowners in Sterling, Virginia were drinking water contaminated with TCE and its biodegradation products. According to Ms Stephen “In 1988, Loudoun County Department of Health and the EPA started studies on the land fill, testing for hazardous substances. In three residential wells located close to the landfill, they found traces of TCE, its biodegradation products and pesticides. In 2005, Loudoun County Health Department carried out testing on 68 more wells in the area of the landfill. Forty-five wells tested positive for TCE; 17 of these wells contained concentrations of TCE above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 micrograms per liter (mcg/L) while 28 other wells contained TCE, but below the MCL.” The site was declared a CERCLA (Superfund) site in 2008. Between 1988 and 2005 no testing was done on the individual homeowner wells. The water was consumed by the young and old.

Have you tested your drinking water this year and if so what have you tested it for?

Private Drinking Water Wells

About 15% of American households get their drinking water from private wells. If the well goes dry or the water becomes contaminated it could impact both your health and the value of your home. Generally speaking, private wells consist of a pump, well casing (a pipe to prevent collapse of the well hole), a well head and a well cap to protect the well. The well casing is a solid pipe until the saturated zone then slotted or perforated within the saturate zone so that the pump can draw from the groundwater the slotting serves to filter out sand and silt. The groundwater that is pumped by the well is not a massive underground river or lake, but simply saturated earth.

Groundwater is water that fills the cracks and pores of rocks and sediments that lie beneath the surface of the earth saturating those materials. Gravel, sand, sandstone, or fractured rock have large connected spaces that allows water to flow through them allowing an aquifer to form. Impervious layers of clay and bedrock prevent ground water moving from one space to another. Usable aquifers are bound by impermeable layers; however, if the groundwater is isolated and prevented from flowing the groundwater is said to be perched and is unusable.

Groundwater is ubiquitous and like all water on earth it comes from precipitation that percolates through the soil until it reaches the zone of saturation. Though groundwater is everywhere the quantity and usability of groundwater varies from location to location based on geology and precipitation. Due to its protected location underground, most groundwater is naturally clean and free from pollution. Not understanding the nature of groundwater we have abused it. In the past when we buried things in the earth, fuel tanks, industrial and household waste at landfills, poured solvents out into the dirt, used excessive amounts of fertilizer, had uncontrolled waste from animal feedlots we were contributing to the contamination of groundwater. Homeowner disposal of chemicals, treating a home for termites, excessive use of fertilizers (even organic), and malfunctioning septic systems can all impact onsite groundwater quality and potentially down gradient sites.

Water Rights, Water Use and Sustainable Life

The Felicity Barringer reported for the NY Times yesterday that due to the increasing drought in California farmers have been pumping more groundwater to irrigate their crops, lowering the level of the groundwater. As a result the state has begun to try and collect data on groundwater supplies with an eye to regulation. When the level of groundwater falls it is an indication that water use is unsustainable. California, my former home, is a semi-arid state rich with sun shine and a long growing season, but all crops need to be irrigated. There is a huge demand for water for farming and for people, and limited water resources to supply it. California seems to go through drought cycles, but the long term forecasts by the climate change model builders is that water resources available to the state will decrease as the Sierra snow pack decreases.

According to the US EPA: "Ground water is an important natural resource. More than 50 percent of the people in the United States, including almost everyone who lives in rural areas, use ground water for drinking and other household uses. Ground water is also used in some way by about 75 percent of cities and by many factories. The largest use of ground water is to irrigate crops. We can run out of ground water if more water is discharged than recharged. For example, during periods of dry weather, recharge to the aquifers decreases. If too much ground water is pumped during these times, the water table may fall and wells may go dry.” Wells going dry is what some Californians are worried about. Compliance with the request for water monitoring in California has been limited. Regulation of the water use, charging for private well pumping is something the farmers and rural residents fear.

Americans do not appreciate the true value of clean, potable, on demand water. We take for granted its unlimited availability and overlook the interconnected nature of our water supplies. There are those who think only in the short term, those who do not appreciate the experience of the past, and those who think the past is a perfect predictor of the future. Like 15% of all Americans my water is supplied from a well on my land. All my water comes from groundwater. One of the selection criteria for this house was the water and its quality. Many of the decisions I make on how I live are about protecting my water and the watershed and river in the woods behind my yard. Who owns the water and has rights to it is an interesting question. Ideally, all property owners would see themselves as the custodians of the land resources that they are. We need to think beyond carbon footprint, to understand that all the resources of the earth are limited in some way. Air and water are critical elements of life. Water rights are tied not only to the land but to life.