Biofuels are not ecologically or climate-wise friendly

Keskiviikko 24.1.2024 klo 13.39 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Burning causes carbon dioxide emissions. In the case of biofuels, the amount of carbon dioxide produced is actually higher than for fossil fuels. The claim that biofuels are climate-friendly is based on thinking that the produced carbon dioxide is taken up relatively rapidly by the plants used for further production of biofuels, i.e. the net emission of carbon dioxide can be zero, if the plants grown for  biofuels consume use up the carbon dioxide for oxygen production at the same rate as it is produced. However, this misses the point that burning causes carbon dioxide emissions, and any such emissions contribute to climate change. One could, and in my opinion should, decouple the plant growth, which is a carbon sink, and burning of plant products such as biofuels, which is a carbon dioxide emitter. One can grow plants without burning them.

Biofuels are produced especially using oil plants such as oil palm. Also other plants, such as maize and sugar cane are important sources of biofuels. Typically biofuels are produced by rich countries, often from plants grown in poor areas instead of food crops needed for the local population. This is true, e.g., for oil palm, which has got a really bad reputation. However, the bad reputation should not be warranted, if the palm oil were not used for biofuels but only for food oil. This would markedly reduce the need of agricultural land for oil plants, since oil palms produce at least 5-10 the amount of oil per unit area as other oil plants. Thus, if food oil production worldwide changed towards palm oil, decreased area of agricultural land were needed and more (tropical) forests could be saved (as soybean is one of the most important oil plants in use). So, ecologically, the important thing would not be to stop growing oil palms but stop producing biofuels made using them.

In addition to plants, food waste is a major source of biofuels. In my opinion, food and other wastes are good materials for thermal power plants, as then all the produced small particles and even carbon dioxide can be taken up by collectors inserted in chimneys. However, the carbon dioxide in car, truck, ship and plane exhausts will inevitably contribute to world’s carbon dioxide load. Further, in the case of food waste-based biofuel the link between carbon sink and source is more difficult to establish than for plant-based biofuel. In this case only the carbon dioxide produced in the burning process can reliably be established.

In conclusion, I do not think that biofuels are either ecologically or climatewise a sustainable solution. Instead, we should use cars and planes less, use e-meetings when we find them useful. Doing this we could easily diminish our need for biofuels for the short transition period from petrol- or diesel oil-using engines to more sustainable ones.

Climate change and right wing populism

Torstai 10.8.2023 klo 11.18 - Mikko Nikinmaa

With the hottest July ever in the world, heat spells in all continents of the northern hemisphere simultaneously, devastating wildfires, floods and droughts everywhere, one would think that people would finally accept that climate change is here already, and that mankind needs to put significant effort into preventing it from getting worse.

But no, in the minds of right-wing populists, climate change is left-wing hoax. No matter what the evidence says, no matter what the news are, no matter what the scientists say. In USA the conservative thinktank Heritage Foundation has given out a book Project 25, which would essentially scrap all the climate plans of the present government if a Republican president were elected in 2024. Needless to say that it would be a catastrophe for world’s climate, as USA is one of the countries with the greatest carbon dioxide emissions per capita. As compared to European Union, the emissions per person are roughly double, and as compared to world average more than four times greater. (Because of its large population, China is the country with the largest emissions in the world. However, its per capita emissions are about the same as EU’s). Similarly, the Finnish populistic right wing party – presently in government – has opposed “the green shift” of energy production and industrial production claiming that it is too expensive for the taxpayer. At the same time, the calculations of industry show that “green shift” would generate unprecedent amount of foreign investments in Finland. These examples indicate that right-wing populism has started treating climate change as “culture war” issue. To support actions against climate change makes you to belong to the left (or greens which is just as bad).

Because climate has become an issue in culture war, little can be done to change the opinions of right-wing populists. The only way to prevent the devastating implications their policy actions is to make sure that they cannot rise to power, or if they are in power, to make sure that they lose the power in next elections.

Is seawater alkalinization an unproblematic way of carbon dioxide removal?

Maanantai 1.5.2023 klo 17.30 - Mikko Nikinmaa

It is simple. One just has ships floating in the high seas spreading alkaline substances to seawater. As a result, the pH of the seawater increases, carbon dioxide-bicarbonate-carbonate equilibrium is shifted to the right, and consequently carbon dioxide is mopped up. What a neat and cheap way of combatting climate change, and it can be done without any requirements for technological advancements. No wonder technology-oriented people have been jumping in excitement. But are there serious downsides?

The question becomes immediately relevant, as apart from the climate crisis we are experiencing biodiversity crisis. And any large-scale bioengineering project such as seawater alkalinization will affect the biota of the area which is alkalinized. It is not known how large the effects are, which species suffer from, and which don’t mind about the pH changes. So, if an alkalinization project is carried out, one is really doing a large-scale experiment with unknown results.

A recent modelling study about alkalinization of seawater and its possible effects has been reported in Environmental Research Letters (18: 044047; https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acc9d4; Fakhraee et al.).

Liquid Sponges - Mopping up Carbon Dioxide and Methane

Keskiviikko 15.3.2023 klo 14.43 - Mikko Nikinmaa

I admit that I have never been overly enthusiastic about technological advances that make it possible to continue in the path of growth. That is because they cloud the primary issue of why the earth is in trouble: overconsumption and resource use. To have a healthy planet consumption, resource use and human population should all decrease. Instead of having the population of eight billion, the planet in balance should have about three billion, just like there was as late as 1960’s.

Having said that the primary goal for us should be to accept that the earth is finite and thereby cannot sustain limitless growth, the technological advances can speed up our aim to reduce and even abolish the damage we have caused during the years. Among the recent, promising technologies are liquid sponges, liquids that can take up the carbon dioxide or methane from the effluents of energy production and even exhaust fumes. The liquid containing the carbon dioxide or methane load can be stored as such or be heated, whereby the mopped gas is given up, and can be utilized as the starting material for any industrial process requiring them. That is an incredibly good way of mitigating climate change just as long as instead of continuing on growth path we choose to adopt sustainable life.

Amazonas may have reached the tipping point already - if not, urgent action is necessary

Maanantai 12.9.2022 klo 18.51 - Mikko Nikinmaa

If 20-25 % of a rainforest area is lost (deforested, burned), the forest turns to savannah. This is because the water cycle maintaining the forest is interrupted. The tree area of the forest needs to be adequate in order to guarantee that the evaporative water loss from the trees turns to rain that keeps the forest alive. With decreasing evaporation, the moisture generated is not enough to turn to rain, and the moisture-requiring forests disappear and are replaced by savannah. This generates an extensive loss of the carbon-dioxide absorbing capacity of the area. Since Amazonas has for good reason been called Earth’s lungs, the deforestation and burning can be called Earth’s lung cancer.

It is estimated that the area of Amazonas that has already been changed to agricultural land is a little less than 20 %. In addition, another 6 % is under quite heavy human influence, but could be returned to proper rain forest. Thus, we are clearly at the tipping point; if forest loss is allowed to continue, we lose the major carbon dioxide sink, if we take the countermeasures, restoring the heavily impacted area, Earth’s lungs may survive.

When the international agreements on combatting climate change were done, one point that was agreed upon was that the industrialized North would give lots of funds for third world countries to enable them to establish, e.g., protected forest areas. Hitherto only less than ten % of the promised funds have been allocated. It would, however, be easy to fulfil the monetary promises, e.g., by placing a small climate tax on the superrich. Then their riches would be more beneficial to mankind than the short space explorations.

Forest Fires of the Arctic - as Big Problem as Amazonian Forest Fires

Maanantai 22.8.2022 klo 17.34 - Mikko Nikinmaa

When people are talking about the role of forest fires in climate change, the talk is almost invariably restricted to destruction of Amazonas and other major rain forest areas. Without doubt the problem of Amazonian deforestation is highly important as it has been estimated that if more than 20 % of the rainforest area disappeared, the rainforest would start turning into savannah. Amazonas has already lost more than 15 % of the forest area. For the world’s carbon dioxide balance this is a huge threat, as savannah is a much weaker carbon dioxide sink than rain forest.

However, wildfires elsewhere can be as big a problem to the earth’s well-being as fires in rain forests. To give an idea of the overall problem of wildfires, the estimated carbon dioxide release in 2022 already exceeds the yearly carbon dioxide emissions of European Union. Thus, small reductions in anthropogenic emissions cannot compensate for the forest fires.

The Arctic forest fires cause many additional problems. The magnitude of forest fires in the Arctic areas has tripled in the last 50 years. The first immediate problem is naturally the carbon dioxide given up in the burning forest. Luckily, much of the carbon dioxide is quite rapidly taken up by regrowth. Much worse problem of the Arctic wildfires is that the permafrost starts to melt. It is estimated that about twice the amount of carbon as is currently present in atmosphere is currently stored below permafrost, mainly as natural gas. Imagine if that becomes liberated via the craters developed by the melting permafrost – such a catastrophe is not included even in the most pessimistic climate models.

In comparison to the liberation of natural gas the other problems associated with wildfires may be considered small but are still serious. For salmonids migrating up the rivers to spawn, the fires cause problems liberating significant amount of nutrients and muddying the water. Consequently, the oxygen level of the water decreases, and the bottom becomes unsuitable for egg development. This, together with increased water temperature may wipe out the populations of salmonids altogether. Lichens, which are an important food item for deer (such as reindeer and caribou) may take up to 50 years to recover from burning. Similarly, cranberries and blueberries can rapidly grow back from roots, if only the above-ground part of the plant burns. However, if the fire is so severe that also the roots burn, the recovery is slow, as seeds must come from elsewhere to replace earlier growth. Losses of plants and animals can also otherwise be replaced only slowly, so that since the biodiversity of Arctic areas is low, it will remain extremely low in burnt areas for many years after fires.

Did you know?

Perjantai 12.8.2022 klo 10.08 - Mikko Nikinmaa

The carbon dioxide emissions from wildfires in the northern hemisphere in 2022 already exceed the emissions of the whole European Union.

The highest temperature measured (“in shade”) in 2022 is 63 degrees Celsius.

The carbon dioxide emissions per person are highest in oil-producing small Arab countries, tightly followed by Luxembourg, Canada, Australia, Estonia and USA. The emissions by an average American are approximately double of that of and average Chinese. An average European’s emissions are currently slightly above an average Chinese, but whereas the emissions by Europeans are decreasing, those of Chinese are increasing. An average Russian emits much more carbon dioxide than Europeans, being in the middle between Chinese and Americans. Within Europe, an average Finn emits twice the amount of carbon dioxide as an average Swede. Currently, an Indian emits about 15 % of the emissions of an American, and an African only 5 %.

Humans are using more than half of all habitable land to either agriculture, roads or habitation. Forests make up ca. 35 % of habitable land, and a large part is subject to human activities, so one can estimate that currently less than 20 % of all habitable land is free from human use. Out of the agricultural land use, 75-80 % is used for livestock (either directly or to produce fodder).

Virtually all seas are overfished. The present aquacultural practices do not decrease overfishing, as most of the feed for the cultivated preferred species is obtained by catching and processing less valuable species.

The sea ice extent in Antarctica has been the lowest ever throughout 2022 and also in Arctic much less than the long-time average. While the Arctic temperatures in 2022 are generally much higher than the long-time average, the area between Alaska and Eastern Siberia makes a notable exception as it has been very cold there.

The world’s glaciers have lost more than 25 meters of ice by 2022 relative to the situation in 1970. Since the water from glaciers is the primary water source in many areas, and glaciers have melted, the water availability decreases.

In England, July was driest after 1935. Lake Mead (the most important reservoir in Colorado river) is drying up. In other places deadly floods occur (Kentucky, South Korea)

Climate Change and US Supreme Court

Maanantai 20.6.2022 klo 15.16 - Mikko Nikinmaa

President Trump was able to nominate three Supreme Court judges during his presidency. This changed the Court to a significantly more conservative direction than earlier. This is now seen in the likelihood that the Roe vs. Wade decision from 1973 guaranteeing abortion right to women throughout USA will be overturned.

But maybe even more terrible to the world is the West Virginia vs. EPA case, which the conservative Supreme Court judges likely decide in favour of West Virginia. That decision would mean that EPA would not be allowed to limit the carbon dioxide emissions of power plants. This would effectively mean that USA will not be able to combat climate change unless coal and oil industry wishes.

In addition to this, there are several lower court cases, which would, e.g., limit the possibility of federal government to restrict carbon dioxide emissions of traffic or require that electricity production shifts from the use of fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Altogether the conservative court cases may mean that the worst producer of greenhouse gases will not be able to carry out any meaningful actions in combatting climate change. Ironically, the conservative circles are working against any climate actions at the same time that the temperature in almost every part of USA has increased to highest level ever. And it is only mid-June. But, according to conservative circles, there is no connection between burning of fossil fuels and heat waves. Or is there?

The Seas and Climate Change

Tiistai 22.10.2019 klo 15.57 - Mikko Nikinmaa

When one talks about climate change, one quite often forgets the 75 % of earth, the seas. The seas hold 50 times the carbon dioxide that the atmosphere has, and has absorbed about 30 % of the heat that has been generated in the past decades. Further, the carbon taken up by organisms is not rapidly released to the atmosphere as happens with terrestrial decomposition, but sinks to the bottom of the sea when the organisms die. It can take thousands of years before the carbon returns to atmosphere. The seas have consequently buffered much of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide production. In fact, the cumulative human emissions starting from the beginning of Industrial Revolution represent only about a percent of the total amount of carbon within the oceans. Thus, we would not have any problem, if all the anthropogenic carbon could be absorbed in the ocean.

Unfortunately, more than half of the extra production of carbon dioxide by humans remains in the atmosphere. Further, the changes occurring in the seas decrease its effectiveness in buffering carbon dioxide loads, and the carbon dioxide uptake itself causes ocean acidification with difficult problems for oceanic organisms. Coral bleaching is the event that has received most attention as a result of climate change, but all the animals with calciferous shell (shell composed mainly of calcium carbonate) are increasingly having problems in shell formation as the oceans are cidified. This decreases the removal of carbon from the atmosphere, as dead invertebrates with calcium carbonate shells sink to the bottom of the sea, whereby the carbon is removed from atmospheric circulation for thousands of years. Ocean acidification also causes sensory problems for fish; the ecological consequences of this are not known. Another major problem associated with the seas is that the solubility of garbon dioxide decreases with increasing temperature. Thus, the water in temperate areas can hold much more carbon dioxide than tropical seas – this can be seen as a good feature, as temperate areas have produced most carbon dioxide, which has partially been absorbed by the ocean. However, the problem with climate change is that the sea water temperature increases everywhere, and consequently the ability of water to absorb carbon dioxide decreases. This can speed up temperature increase by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide left in the atmosphere, and cause a vicious circle: temperature increase results in less carbon dioxide contained in the water, consequently temperature increases further and decreases the carbon dioxide holding capacity. Also, the (mainly microscopic) algae of the oceans account for approximately half of the photosynthetic carbon dioxide fixation. The removal of carbon dioxide by algae has decreased by 10-20 % during recent years, probably because of aquatic pollution. This also contributes to climate change, and about as much as the recent changes in forestation.

As possibilities for removing carbon dioxide with the help of oceanic properties two solutions have been advocated. Both may have undesirable ecological consequences, and should not be used. First, the growth of algae in most parts of oceans is limited by iron availability. Thus, fertilizing the water with iron salts  could result in increased algal growth and removal of carbon dioxide by algal photosynthesis. The question here is that the ecosystems have evolved millions of years with low iron availability. What will a marked increase in iron availability do to the organisms in the ecosystem. Second, carbon dioxide could be pumped to deep in the oceans. At high pressures of ocean depths, carbon dioxide would remain as liquid. However, the organisms living in water above the liquid carbon dioxide will encounter hypercapnia to which they are not adapted. Again, the consequences to the ecosystem are unknown. Instead of increasing carbon dioxide removal, one should decrease its production.

From Acid Rain to Ocean Acidification

Keskiviikko 11.9.2019 klo 18.42 - Mikko Nikinmaa

In 1980’s the environmental problem in the news in Europe was acid rain. The sulphur dioxide (and to smaller extent oxides of nitrogen) emitted in the smoke from coal burning, condensed in clouds, and was part of the rain entering Scandinavian poorly buffered lakes. The pH of the lakes could decrease from 7 to 4 and wipe out virtually all the fish, shellfish and crayfish of the lakes. The toxicity of acid rain was aggravated by aluminium (Al). Aluminium is insoluble at high pH values, but acid rain solubilized it. The free metal ion, predominant at pH-values below 5 is highly toxic, and kills fish and crustaceans by disturbing their ion regulation. At higher pH values the aluminium hydroxides precipitate on the gills of aquatic animals causing their death. As a result of acid rain, the lakes had clear water, but virtually no animal life. At that time aluminium was considered to be a very bad toxicant. Having studied the acid rain-aluminium toxicity, it is difficult for me to understand that presently aluminium sulphate is used to “restore” lakes. Toxic aluminium will kill fish and invertebrates also in this case. Naturally, if the purpose is to get clear water, that is the thing to do, but as the acid lakes justify, clear water does not mean water, where animals can live.

In comparison to freshwater acidification, where water pH could decrease up to 3 pH-units, the most likely pH-decrease in ocean acidification is 0.3-0.4 units by 2100. As a pH change this would not be a problem for animals, if it were not the result of changes in the carbon dioxide-bicarbonate-carbonate equilibria. In 1970’s and 1980’s the acid-base regulation of animals was studied extensively, using, e.g., hypercapnia (increased carbon dioxide level) as a disturbance. It was found that fish and other aquatic animals are quite poor in handling external carbon dioxide loads. While the degrees of hypercapnia used were much higher than the environmentally relevant ones during ocean acidification, it seems quite clear that any disturbances observed in animals are due to hypercapnia. The reasons for this are at least the following: (1) Aquatic animals have low total carbon dioxide levels. Consequently, any increase in external carbon dioxide tension, as happens during ocean acidification, will decrease the efficiency of carbon dioxide excretion. Since carbon dioxide is the major end product of aerobic energy metabolism, this causes disturbances of energy metabolism. (2) Increased carbon dioxide level can only be achieved at the expense of carbonate levels, which must decrease. All the shells of invertebrates are made of calcium carbonate. Thus, shell formation may be disturbed by ocean acidification. So, it is really the problems of handling carbon dioxide, i.e. hypercapnia, and not the pH-changes, that are the questions in ocean acidification.

Record Deforestation of Amazonian Rainforest

Keskiviikko 3.7.2019 klo 19.19 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Brazilian President Bolsonaro is keeping his promises. He belongs to the group of world leaders together with Trump and Putin, who deny that such thing as climate change is taking place. Or actually in an interview Trump said: “I don’t deny climate change, but it can go both ways – it can go both ways.” Anyhow, for some time now, deforestation of Amazonas has decreased, and that has been good news for world’s climate. But unfortunately the positive trend has now stopped. The deforestation of Amazon is now record high. Just as President Bolsonaro said, when coming into power. He wowed to stop environmentalists from disturbing the agroforest industry. He is now keeping his promise. It does not matter that the cutting of Amazon rainforest will make agricultural land everywhere, also in Brazil less fertile and increase the number of unpredictable weather events, including droughts all over the world but especially in the tropical and subtropical areas. However, if you deny that anything is happening to the climate, then doing what the present Brazilian government is doing is logical. It would actually be very pertinent for the rich Americans, who have said to use billions of dollars to combat climate change, to buy forest around areas, which are now being cut. That would make future deforestation more difficult.

Climate change, biodiversity loss - reincarnations of population bomb

Perjantai 2.11.2018 klo 12.46 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Very recently several important contributions on environmental questions have been published. First, the IPCC report on Climate Change, and, second, the WWF Living Planet 2018 report  (WWF. 2018. Living Planet Report 2018. Aiming Higher. Grooten, M. and Almond, R.E.A.(Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.). In addition, an article in Nature (Resplandy et al. 2018   Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition, Nature 563, 105-108) indicates that more heat has been absorbed by the oceans than conservative estimates suggest, i.e. that climate change may be worse than previously thought

Surprisingly, the reports do not give virtually any attention to the size of human population, although looking at the above two pivtures, a striking similarity in the population increase and athospheric carbon dioxide level graphs can be seen. In the future, it can unfortunately be estimated that if climate actions are not effective, carbon dioxide production increases much more than population growth, since population growth occurs in areas, where carbon dioxide production per person has increased markedly during recent past. Also, the major reasons for the huge (60 %) biodiversity loss are habitat loss and exploitation, both the result of the need of increasing population to get food and other commodities.

It is shocking that economic circles and politicians throughout the world forget that all economic activity ultimately depends on healthy environment. As a result, growth is not possible indefinitely, and economic theories should center not around growth but around sustainability. And one of the major aims of future global planning should be to limit world population. However, as long as the growth-based ideology predominates, population growth is needed. Naturally, actions to corb population growth should be such that nobody is offended. I have toyed with the idea that foreign aid would be given to individuals, not the (mostly corrupt) governments. The direct funding would depend on the size of the family, increasing with a decrease in the number of children. Another significant action would be the schooling of women: this would significantly decrease the population growth, and would also foster equality - certainly opposed by many in male-dominated societies.

Many innovative solutions to decrease the exploitation of wild animals and habitat distruction have been already advanced. Also, there are a plenty of possibilities to decrease the energy needed for transporting goods and new ways of energy production. However, in my opinion, a success in combatting both climate change and biodiversity loss requires that we are succesful in limiting population growth. If we cannot do that, there is bound to be a collapse resembling one that is always seen with animal populations, which have become too dense.

Population explotion and climate change - close connection

Tiistai 9.10.2018 klo 20.26 - Mikko Nikinmaa

In the late 1960s, when I became an environmentlaists (and still am 50 years later), the major worry was population growth. Then it was estimated that food production would soon become a problem. However, as a result of advances in agricultural methods, the absolute hunger in the world has decreased, although the population has increased threefold. However, one can say that virtually all of the present mejor global problems are due to population growth. I was shocked to see two charts superimposed: the population growth and the energy consumption in the world. The graphs were more or less identical. So, the climate change is very much to do with population growth. If the population could decrease to the level that it was in 1960s, there would be no climate change, nor would there be the global plastic problem etc.

Naturally we cannot forcefully decrease world population, but one of the ways to migitate  climate change should be to decrease population growth in Asia and Africa. And there could be quite a simple way to do this with everyone being happy. Much of the developmental aid could be tied to birth control: if a family had maximally two children, they would be given a certain yerly sum of money. This would probably be more effective way of combatting climate change in developing counties than anything else.

Climate change - why seas matter

Keskiviikko 25.7.2018 klo 16.37 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Compared to the terrestrial environment the seas contain fifty times more carbon dioxide. Further, about half of all photosynthetic carbon dioxide removal is done by oceanic organisms, mainly phytoplankton, which partly remove carbon from circulation, when they sink to seabottom after dying.

An increasing temperature decreases the solubility of carbon dioxide and ocean acidification means that the equilibrium between carbon dioxide, bicarbonate and carbonate is driven towards carbon dioxide. Further, the pollution of the seas has resulted in reduced  photosynthesis despite eutrophication in some areas.

The net result of the above is that liberation of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the seas to the atmosphere increases simultaneously as its photosynthetic fixation decreases. Furthermore, the marine environment enters vicious circle: the higher the temperature and lower pH, the more carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere and causes further temperature increase.

The well-being of the seas thus matters - also in mitigating climate change.

Kelps - combatting climate change and a source of food

Perjantai 29.12.2017 klo 19.29 - Mikko Nikinmaa

An important contributor to the climate change is that photosynthesis in the oceans has decreased. Thus, any way of increasing it would be beneficial for combatting carbon dioxide accumulation. One way of doing this would be to cultivate kelp. It could be eaten as part of sallads, as binding the rice in sushi meals etc. The growing kelp would convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. Simultaneously the kelp fields would harbour a rich invertebrate fauna. I have yet not come across any negative sides in advocating kelp farming to combat climate change.

Solar power cheaper than coal

Maanantai 3.7.2017 klo 10.25 - Mikko Nikinmaa

It has now happened. Solar energy has become cheaper than coal - at least for places where old coal power plants do not exist. The decrease in relative price of energy produced using renewable sources has surprised everyone. One needs to go back only 20 years, when "energy experts" said that renewable energy (referring mainly to solar and wind energy) will always be so expensive that its commercial use will not be feasible without marked financial state support.

The fact that solar energy has now become quite cheap has important ramifications. For example, oil and gas prices cannot increase markedly, since one is always able to use alternative energy sources instead, if the price is too high. Nuclear energy with its huge building costs is not an attractive alternative. And imagine if even a half of the 10 billion € now needed to build a nuclear power plant would be used to research on how to store energy, which is the major problem with solar power.

Yes, storing energy so that the solar energy would be usable in the dark times is still not solved satisfactorily. Plants do it, and the energy stored is the basis of fossil fuels. This actually shows that energy storage is a solvable problem. And if even a half of funds needed to build a nuclear power plant were directed to this type of applied research, the result would likely to enable us to produce cheap, clean energy, which is usable overnight - for the benefit of mankind.

Climate change, and the effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, just imagination?

Lauantai 11.3.2017 klo 16.05 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Quite incredibly the US Environmental Protection chief Scott Pruitt said that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is not the primary reason behind climate change. The scientists in EPA are of opposite opinion - thus a politician can say how things are opposite to what scientiststs who have carried out careful research on the topic have given as the conclusion by EPA. This shows the views of the present US president and his government. Lets go back to the past when there was no EPA and the environment could be be polluted so that a burning river resulted in generation of EPA. Personally, I think that if there is even a possibility that human influence endangers our environment, for the sake of future generations we should carry out corrective actions as best we can.

Another smoggy day

Sunnuntai 8.1.2017 klo 16.01 - Mikko Nikinmaa

In the past days one has again seen alarming pictures of the air quality in major cities. The worst ones are from Chinese cities like Beijing, but also big European ones, Paris and Madrid, have been in the news.

In Chinese cities the problem has mainly been that the energy production for warming houses and making steel is obtained using fossile fuels, largely coal with poor smoke purification. This is a well acknowledged problem, and the major reason why China has now become a very strong supporter of climate agreements. It is much better to get world's good opinion simultaneously as the number of people getting lung and airway diseases and dying from air pollution decreases. Against this background the opinion of future American president, favouring the use of fossil fuels is an unfortunate cry from the past.

The situation of Madrid and Paris is more of a problem. Poor air quality is mainly due to diesel cars. It is not long since diesel motors were considered environmentally friendly. However, their development has not been able to reduce the amount of small particles causing smog. So, one can almost predict that diesel cars are a disappearing feature. Only electric cars with electricity produced using wind, solar or different forms of water energy, are a real long-term solution for clean city air. Note that I have not included energy obtained burning wood, because burning produces both microparticles and carbon dioxide (naturally these can be removed using filters, and much less air pollution to the cities is given up from centralized energy producing units than from individual cars or fireplaces).

The removal of carbon dioxide from smoke is of utmost importance. As this is the case, innovations that enable the removal are important for combatting climate change. Recent news have indicated this kind of innovation. The produced carbon dioxide is precipitated as baking soda, which is then used. As a consumer product is the result, the removal of carbon dioxide does not cause cost as long as the product can be sold.

Future solutions for cleaner air require changes in thinking. We cannot rely on the solutions from the past, but need to find new ways of thinking. Instead of trying to go back to "Good Old 60's" we should think of ways of having sustainable future.