By Paul Homewood

The Times reports:

Britain’s railways are to enter a new steam age with up to 100 ageing commuter trains poised to be converted to run on eco-friendly hydrogen. They could be on the network within three years and will be almost silent, with the same range and speed as traditional diesel and electric trains.

Their only emissions will be water, with some released as small puffs of steam above the train. The conversion programme — drawn up by Alstom, the French train maker — would make Britain a world leader in hydrogen train technology. Jo Johnson, the rail minister, called in February for all Britain’s 3900 diesel trains to be scrapped by 2040.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hydrogen-fuel-cell-trains-herald-new-steam-age-mdf78f2dk

There is no mention of where the hydrogen itself will come from, but the choice is between the steam reforming process, which uses fossil fuels and produces emissions of CO2 anyway, and electrolysis, which traditionally has been very small scale and expensive.

I came across this useful analysis, which helps to explain:

Hydrogen is not an energy source, but is an energy vector or carrier. This means that it has to be produced from one of the primary energy sources: fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, hydro, geothermal and urban waste resources. All the energy we use, including hydrogen, must be produced from one of these three primary energy resources.

On earth, hydrogen is found combined with other elements. For example, in water, hydrogen is combined with oxygen. In fossil fuels, it is combined with carbon as in petroleum, natural gas or coal. The challenge is to separate hydrogen from other naturally occurring compounds in an efficient and economic manner. See the "Hydrogen Production Paths" chart below for unique ways to produce hydrogen from the three sources.

There are several methods for producing or extracting hydrogen. Steam reforming is a well-established technology that allows hydrogen production from hydrocarbons and water. Steam-methane reformation currently produces about 95 percent of the hydrogen used in the United States.

Another conventional technique is electrolysis, which applies electrical current to decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The electricity for electrolysis can come from any of the three energy sources.

The cost of hydrogen production is an important issue. Hydrogen produced by steam reformation costs approximately three times the cost of natural gas per unit of energy produced. This means that if natural gas costs $6/million BTU, then hydrogen will be $18/million BTU. Also, producing hydrogen from electrolysis with electricity at 5 cents/kWh will cost $28/million BTU — slightly less than two times the cost of hydrogen from natural gas. Note that the cost of hydrogen production from electricity is a linear function of electricity costs, so electricity at 10 cents/kWh means that hydrogen will cost $56/million BTU.

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/production.htm

As is stated, the cost of producing hydrogen is directly linked either to the cost of fossil fuels, or the price of electricity.

Intrinsically then, hydrogen produced by steam reforming will always cost much more than natural gas, due to the processing involved. And there is nothing to suggest that electrolysis will suddenly become a cheaper, bulk scale alternative.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/2MdmuL9

June 9, 2018 at 05:33AM

Volcanologist Simon Carn is quoted by Smithsonian as saying “SO2 mass ejected was about ~2 orders of magnitude than the 1974 eruption, which had a significant stratospheric impact. “

It is well known that sulfur dioxide ejected into the stratosphere has a global cooling effect.

Handout picture released by the National Disaster Relief Agency of Guatemala showing the Fuego volcano erupting on June 3, 2018

From NASA:

Fuego in Guatemala is one of Central America’s most active volcanoes. For years, the towering Volcán de Fuego has puffed continuously, punctuated by occasional episodes of explosive activity, big ash plumes, lava flows, and avalanche-like debris slides known as pyroclastic flows.

Just before noon on June 3, 2018, the volcano produced an explosive eruption that sent ash billowing thousands of meters into the air. A deadly mixture of ash, rock fragments, and hot gases rushed down ravines and stream channels on the sides of the volcano. Since these pyroclastic flows often move at speeds of greater than 80 kilometers (50 miles) per hour, they easily topple trees, homes, or anything else in their path. According to news reports, more than two dozen people were killed. As a precautionary measure, thousands of other people have been evacuated.

The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on Suomi NPP acquired this image of the ash plume at 1 p.m. local time (19:00 Universal Time) on June 3, 2018, after the ash (brown) had punched through a deck of clouds. A report from the Washington Volcanic Ash Advisory Center estimated the plume’s maximum height at 15 kilometers (9 miles). Imagery from a geostationary satellite showed winds blowing the plume to the east. The eruption deposited ash on several communities surrounding the volcano, including Guatemala City, which is 70 kilometers (40 miles) to the east.

In addition to ash, the plume contains gaseous components invisible to the human eye, including sulfur dioxide (SO₂). The gas can affect human health—irritating the nose and throat when breathed in—and reacts with water vapor to produce acid rain. Sulfur dioxide also can react in the atmosphere to form aerosol particles, which can contribute to outbreaks of haze and sometimes cool the climate.

Satellite sensors such as the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on the Aqua satellite and the Ozone Mapping Profiler Suite (OMPS) on Suomi NPP make frequent observations of sulfur dioxide. The map above shows concentrations of sulfur dioxide in the middle troposphere at an altitude of 8 kilometers (5 miles) as detected by OMPS on June 3.

Upon seeing data collected by AIRS several hours after the eruption that showed high levels of sulfur dioxide in the upper troposphere, Michigan Tech volcanologist Simon Carn tweeted that this appeared to be the “highest sulfur dioxide loading measured in a Fuego eruption in the satellite era.”

• References

• Discover (2018, June 4) Rocky Planet: Deadliest Eruption of 2018. Accessed June 4, 2018.
• NASA Global Sulfur Dioxide Monitoring Home Page. Accessed June 4, 2018.
• Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program (2018) Fuego. Accessed June 4, 2018.
• The New York Times (2018, June 4) Guatemala’s Fuego Volcano Erupts, Killing at Least 33. Accessed June 4, 2018.
• U.S. Geological Survey Pyroclastic flows move fast and destroy everything in their path. Accessed June 4, 2018.
• Volcano Discovery (2018, June 4) Fuego volcano news & eruption update. Accessed June 4, 2018.

NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens, using VIIRS data from the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership and OMPS data from the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC). Story by Adam Voiland.

---

In a special bulletin from 0600 on 3 June INSIVUMEH noted increased activity at Fuego. Strong explosions were accompanied by rumbling sounds, and shock waves that vibrated local structures. Dense ash plumes rose 2.3 km above the crater and drifted SW, W, NW, and N. Pyroclastic flows descended the Seca (Santa Teresa) drainage on the W flank, and possibly other drainages, though poor weather conditions prevented clear views of the summit area. Ash plumes drifted in westerly directions, causing ashfall (on roofs and cars) in Sangre de Cristo (8 km WSW) and San Pedro Yepocapa (8 km NW). By 1000 pyroclastic flows were descending the Cenizas (SSW) drainage. Ashfall was reported in additional areas including La Soledad (10 km ESE), Quisache, and the municipality of Acatenango (8 km E).

Based on information from multiple agencies, the Washington VAAC reported an ash plume rising to 9 km (30,000 ft) a.s.l. at 1130 from an explosive eruption. In a report from 1340, INSIVUMEH described large pyroclastic flows traveling down the Seca, Cenizas, Mineral, Taniluya (SW), Las Lajas (SE), and Honda (E) drainages, producing dense ash plumes that rose 6.2 km above the summit (or 32,800 ft a.s.l.). A news article stated that the pyroclastic flows traveled at least 8 km and reached temperatures of 700 degrees Celsius. Tephra and lapilli fell in areas more than 25 km away, including in La Soledad, San Miguel Dueñas (10 km NE), Alotenango, Antigua Guatemala (18 km NE), and Chimaltenango (21 km NNE). Ashfall was reported as far away as Guatemala City, 70 km E. Explosions rattled structures within 20 km of Fuego. The La Aurora International Airport closed at 1415. Eyewitness accounts described the fast-moving pyroclastic flows inundating fields people were working in, overtaking bridges, and burying homes up to their roof lines in some areas. San Miguel Los Lotes, Alotenango, and El Rodeo (10 km SSE) were the worst affected.

According to Simon Carn, satellite data analysis showed that the event produced the highest SO2 loading measured from a Fuego eruption in the satellite era (since 1978), and therefore most likely the highest since the major 1974 eruption. He went on to note that the SO2 mass was about ~2 orders of magnitude than the 1974 eruption, which had a significant stratospheric impact. 

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2MddFkt

June 9, 2018 at 04:06AM

A process that changes the regulation of genes could help corals acclimatize to the impacts of global warming.

Colonies of the smooth cauliflower coral, Stylophora pistillata, were placed in seawater aquariums with varying acidity levels for two years.

Cells commonly control gene expression by adding a methyl group to part of the DNA, changing how the information on the DNA is read without changing its genetic code. Researchers at KAUST wanted to investigate whether DNA methylation could play a role in helping corals adapt to climate change.

They placed colonies of the smooth cauliflower coral, Stylophora pistillata, in seawater aquariums with varying acidity levels for two years. Ocean acidification is a consequence of climate change and hinders the ability of corals to produce the calcium carbonate skeleton they need to maintain their structures. The researchers hypothesized that DNA methylation might allow corals to mitigate these effects by changing the way they grow.

After two years, the team sequenced the genomes of the corals and determined changes in methylation patterns.

“We noticed that corals grown under more acidic conditions had higher levels of DNA methylation,” says geneticist Yi Jin Liew. “Genes with increased methylation were related to cell growth and stress response, but not to calcification as we initially proposed,” he says.

In line with this finding, the team discovered that cell and polyp sizes in the corals also increased with rising acidity. “The coral polyps sit in little cavities called calyxes in which they can retreat for protection,” explains molecular biologist Manuel Aranda. Larger polyps have larger calyxes. “If the calyx is bigger, the coral needs to produce less skeleton to grow at the same pace. I call this the ‘Swiss cheese hypothesis,’ where the coral makes bigger holes so it needs to make less cheese, which allows it to grow at the same speed even though skeletal production is impaired.” This trait would be advantageous in an environment where competition for space and light is an important selective pressure.

The findings indicate that DNA methylation can be used as a marker of coral stress. This epigenetic mechanism might also be harnessed to grow corals under future ocean conditions to prime them for increased temperatures before placing them on reefs, says Aranda. This process is known as environmental hardening.

“We hope our contribution will change the current perception among reef biologists that epigenetics do not contribute much to coral resilience,” says Liew.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2Jmwu73

June 9, 2018 at 04:04AM

Oil extraction [image credit: ewg.org]

The sub-heading to this is: ‘Liberal cities attempt a climate shake down of oil firms’. These cities run fuel-powered vehicles by the hundreds but still want massive compensation from oil companies. Success would likely make fuel prices rise to recover any losses.
H/T Climate Depot

San Francisco, Oakland, New York and Seattle have sued five global oil giants—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell —for billions in future damages from climate change, reports the WSJ.

Brass-knuckled plaintiff firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro has been shopping around the lawsuit to other cities desperate for cash.

No court has recognized common-law claims for injuries supposedly caused by climate change, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in AEP v. Connecticut (2011) that the Clean Air Act pre-empts public nuisance torts against corporations for greenhouse-gas emissions. So the cities are now arguing that the mere production and promotion of fossil fuels create a public nuisance, and the suits are heading to court.

“We won the Second World War with fossil fuels. If we didn’t have fossil fuels, we would have lost that war and every other war,” the judge mused during a recent hearing. “And so we have gotten a huge benefit from the use of fossil fuels, right?” Plaintiff attorney Steve Berman agreed.

Judge Alsup also pointed out that the federal government and states have encouraged the production of fossil fuels. “If the nation is saying, ‘please do it,’ how can we hold them liable for that?” he asked.

The cities’ ostensible trump card was a document purporting to show that the oil companies concealed evidence that they knew for decades that fossil fuels contribute to global warming. But as the judge noted, this “smoking gun” was merely a “slide show that somebody had gone to the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and was reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it. Nothing more.”

When Judge Alsup asked for an example of an out-of-pocket cost that San Francisco has paid due to climate change, Mr. Berman replied: “We have people that we’ve had to employ, outside consultants, to study global warming. Had to hire them to figure out how high the sea wall should be.”

Even this was contradicted by a 2017 San Francisco general-obligation bond document that says “the City is unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur.” If Mr. Berman is right, then the Securities and Exchange Commission should prosecute San Francisco for a fraudulent bond offering.

Cities are demanding billions for an “abatement fund” that will help backfill their budgets.

Continued here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/2JBXpvb

June 9, 2018 at 03:54AM