Continental Glaciers and CO2

The latest ice age started a little over 2.5million years ago and consisted of numerous glaciated periods (glacials) in which continental glaciers covered greater or lesser parts of Eurasia and North America.  These were interspersed with interglacial  periods (interglacials).  Early in the  present 2.5 million year glaciated age (Quaternary), the severity of the icy periods was relatively mild (compared to recent periods) and the cycle lasted about 41,000 years.  Around a million years ago, ice periods began to be more severe and to last around 100,000 years.  The end of the glaciated periods appears to be synchronous with one of the Milankovitch cycles, namely the variation in the tilt of the earth (Obliquity) which has a 41,000 year cycle.  The recent, longer glacials we have had for the past million years are still synchronous with the Milankovitch cycle but only every third or so Milankovitch nudge manages to kick the world into an interglacial.

Some exquisite work done by Larry Edwards et. al. of the U of Minnesota using corals and stalactites#  has dated the ends of the ice periods much more accurately than previously and allowed a much clearer picture of when the glacials and interglacials within the latest ice age occurred.  It is now clear that Carbon dioxide concentration in the air rises steeply as each glacial ends and an interglacial  starts.  Carbon dioxide is then  sequestered, slowly declines in the atmosphere and new continental glaciers begin to grow.

#See New Scientist 22May 2010 p32

Despite the great improvement in dating, it still isn't clear if the sharp rise in Carbon dioxide precedes the end of an ice age or is a result of it.   It seems unlikely, though, that some source of Carbon dioxide suddenly increases, triggering the beginning of an interglacial exactly in sinc with the Milankovitch obliquity.  There are, however, a number of feasible scenarios that could explain the rise in Carbon dioxide as a result of the melting. Dating is not precise enough yet to definitely establish which came first   This blog explores some of the possible mechanisms by which melting ice could give rise to massive increases in CO2


Another question is why the ice started melting with the second or third nudge from the Milankovich cycle but wasn't triggered by a couple of previous ones.  One theory is that as the ice accumulates, it pushes down the land and hence the top of the glacier is at a lower altitude.  Since the basalt basement on which the continents float has a specific gravity of about 3, when you add a kilometer of ice with a specific gravity of about 1 on top, it will sink a third of a km down.  Put around the other way, every km of ice you add raises the top of the ice by 2/3 of a km.   The sinking explanation seems a tad unlikely.  The sinking takes time and even now, 11,000 years after the end of the most recent period of continental ice, land is still rebounding.  One tends to think that there has to be more to what triggered the end of an ice period and some ideas will be presented in a future blog.  This blog is concerned with which mechanisms could have led to a spike in Carbon dioxide once the melting had started.  Such sources of Carbon dioxide would keep us in an  interglacial period until various sinks had time to remove sufficient carbon from the air to allow snow to once more accumulate.



This blog is speculation.  Like any hypothesis, one looks for tests to apply to see if they support or weaken the argument.  For instance, one of the predictions of Einstein was that light from a distant star would be bent as it passed by a heavy object like the sun.  This was tested during an eclipse of the sun.  Stars that were made visible very close to the sun were seen to change their apparent position.  The change was consistent with Einstein's predictions.  While this was not unequivocal proof of Einsteins theory of gravitation, it did strengthen it.  In this blog, after suggesting a result, I will suggest a "test" or "observation" which would strengthen or weaken  the hypothesis.

Below are some possible sources of carbon dioxide caused by the melting of the Continental ice sheets.


Volcanoes
It is well known that volcanoes release large quantities of Carbon dioxide.  The source of at least some of this carbon dioxide, is the calcium carbonate that is heated when one tectonic plate sub-ducts under another, carrying with it the calcium carbonate that has accumulated on it. The accumulation of Calcium carbonate on the bottom of the ocean is one of the sinks for Carbon dioxide and volcanoes recycle this carbon back into the atmosphere.   

The volcanism which has been experienced since man has recorded such things has been relatively mild.  However there is ample evidence for giant caldera forming volcanoes such as Yellowstone in America, Lake Toba in Indonesia and Lake Tapo in New Zealand.  There is also evidence of massive volcanism of the sort that created the traps in India, South Africa and South America.  There is, however no evidence that any of these giant events occurred in sinc with the end of the numerous glacials over the present ice age.

However the following could have happened.  Many  magma's contain a lot of dissolved CO2.  Just like in  a bottle of soda, pressure keeps this gas in solution.  Release the pressure and the gas begins to come out of solution.  With three km of ice lying on top of the land, the added pressure would have an equivalent weight to about 1.2km of continental rock (sg 2.5).  Removing this weight would have been like the rock slide on Mt St Helena which removed the pressure on the underlying magma and allowed a massive outpouring of volcanism.  A bit like taking the lid of a pressure cooker immediately after removing it from the stove. (don't try this at home).


Test
Ancient volcanism is visible in core samples from the bottom of lakes and oceans and sulphate from volcanism is captured in ice cores. If there was increased volcanism at the end of the last glacial or even at the beginning of the Eemian interglacial, their signature might be visible in such cores.    In addition, the carbon that comes out of volcanoes will be old carbon.  That is to say, carbon that is poor in C14.  If carboniferous samples are available with independent dating from the beginning of the present interglacial, a C14 anomaly might be seen for he end of the recent glaciation*.


*Note: at a push, Carbon dating can date back 50,000 years.  The end of the recent glaciation is within this range (11,000 years) but previous ones are not.
 

Suppression of Phytoplankton
Variation in Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over a year is about 7ppm.  At present we have a yearly cycle of 8ppm up and  6ppm down as we add fossil carbon dioxide.  Imagine if each rise was not followed by a fall.  

 Phytoplankton growth depends on sunshine and a supply of nutrients.  If it has both, phytoplankton grows at phenomenal rates.  Phytoplankton  take up Carbon dioxide to build it's substance.To get an idea of the magnitude of this effect, consider the productivity of Anchovy in the waters off Peru in La Nina years when the upwelling of nutrient rich water is in full flow. This fisheries provides much of the fish meal for the livestock trade of the world.  When you consider that Anchovy are at the third tropic level (they eat zoo plankton which eat phytoplankton) and that only 10% of the mass from one tropic level is captured in the next level, it is clear that the production of algae is 100 times the production of Anchovy.    At this site, it is noted that the rate of increase in carbon dioxide today depends on the El Nino - La Nina cycle.  We are putting masses of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and as shown by the analysis from ManaLoa, it increases spasmodically, averaging about 2ppm per year.  When there is upwelling off the coast of Peru, carbon dioxide increase is  less than when the upwelling is not occurring. This is a small area when compared with, for instance, the whole Atlantic ocean.   Imagine the effect of greatly reducing carbon dioxide uptake by phytoplankton over much of the ocean. Here, instead of invoking a source of Carbon dioxide as the ice begins to melt, we have the suppression of a sink.  Same effect.  So how would it occur.

At present, much water is evaporated in the warm climate around the Gulf of Mexico but the resulting saltier water is warm enough not to sink.  It flows on the surface northward in what is called the Gulf Stream.  As it travels north, it cools and eventually is heavy enough to sink.  Added to this is the effect of the freezing of sea water in the North Atlantic and Arctic ocean.  Freezing crystallizes fresh water ice from the sea water leaving behind cold saltier water.  This also powers the sinking of cold surface water. The cold salty water from both of these sources flows south along the bottom of the ocean. The flow rate  of the Gulf Stream is estimated at about 30million cubic meters per second so the return flow will be if a similar magnitude. 

 As masses of ice begin to melt the resulting fresh water flows into the ocean and floats on top. This, it is believed, would shut down this system of sinking water and stop the Gulf stream.  The flip side of sinking water is that water has to rise somewhere.  When the Gulf stream is operating,  the heavy water flowing southward along the bottom of the ocean picks up nutrients from the rain of organic material from the surface.  Somewhere in the oceanic circulation system, this water surfaces.  The primary productivity powered by this system must be enormous and in fact, far greater than the Peru upwelling.  Shutting it down would eliminate this primary productivity and hence its absorption of CO2.

In addition to fresh water pouring into the north Atlantic from the St Lawrence and other coastal rivers,  the Mississippi system would transfer masses of water into the Gulf of Mexico.  It could well be that the melting of the continental glaciers would, to a large extent, stop the overturn of the oceans.  A similar situation would occur around Eurasia with the melting of her continental glacier.  

Test
Signatures of this may be present in ocean bottom cores.  One might find a great reduction in fish scales in mud cores from where the water used to return to the surface.  There also might  be reduced (chemically speaking) layers of mud if the bottom of the ocean became anaerobic due to the lack of circulation.



Release of Clathrates
Clatrates are curious substances.  They form when water and certain gases are mixed under pressure.  Here we are concerned with methane clathrates.  When methane is mixed with water, under pressure, it forms an ice.  With sufficient pressure (4000m of sea water), a methane clathrate (methane hydrate) can form at up to 30 degrees centigrade.  The higher the pressure, the higher the temperature at which a clathrate can form.  The minimum pressure needed is the equivalent of about 300m of water and at this pressure, methane clathrate will form at a couple of degrees above freezing.  

Of importance for our argument is that once a few hundred meters of ice have accumulated, the conditions are created at the bottom of the ice for the creation of clathrates. A clathrate contains considerable amounts of methane.  A liter of methane clathrate, for instance,  can contain as much as 160l of methane (measured at STP).  

The question then becomes, are there sources of methane that would accumulate as clathrates under a forming ice cap, once the ice thickness had reached a few hundred meters deep. If there are, all this carbon would be released when the ice sheets melts.  This would put the powerful green house gas, methane, into the atmosphere.  The half life of methane is about 7 years.  It combines with the oxygen of the air and forms Carbon dioxide.  On a geological time scale, the methane is instantly converted to carbon dioxide and would appear as such in ice cores.  However, during this transition period, green house warming could be strongly accelerated by the methane over the period of melting. There are a number of such sources. For instance:


Methane seeps from coal measures,  shales and oil deposits*.  Not only do such formations contain considerable methane but as the ice sheet pushed down on the continent, this pressure would have put strain on underlying rocks and possibly opened up cracks, allowing methane to escape in sort of a natural fracking.  Such methane escape happens all the time when there is no ice cover but the carbon is incorporated into the biosphere as it enters the air.  _{It is then available for sequestration in various sinks.}  However, with an ice cap, all this carbon would accumulated over the duration of the ice cap to be released suddenly when the ice melts. A hundred thousand years of geological methane seep could amount to a considerable amount of carbon  ready to be be released rather suddenly.

* Here is a quote from an article on the work of Katey Walter Anthony, a scientist working in the University of Alaska on the methane which is observed coming out of the land.

"During ground surveys, they examined the chemical and isotope composition of the bubbling methane to determine where it was coming from. In many of the smaller bubbling seeps methane was newer, formed when plants and other organic material decayed in the lakes. However, they found that the largest seeps were outgassing fossil methane from ancient sources, such as natural gas and coal beds. Much of the seeping geologic methane had been trapped underground for tens of thousands of years, meaning that permafrost was thawing to such an extent that it was finally releasing those long-stored gases." 






A second source of methane is the decomposition of organic material. Unlike a valley glacier which is constantly moving down a valley and scraping the rock bare underneath it, a continental glacier just sits on the land until it is so thick that it starts to be squeezed outward.  A lake, a swamp or a thick deposit from a tundra can be capped and if the land is reasonably flat, there will be little if any horizontal movement of the bottom layer of ice relative to the underlying land.  With no contact with the atmosphere, oxygen in these organic rich environments will be quickly used up and anaerobic methanogenesis will start.  Over the hundred or so Milena that the ice cap is extant, all this methane should be accumulated as clatrates at the bottom of the ice sheet. 


Incidentally, this may explain a possible carbon source to help trigger the melt of the glaciers.  Once the ice is thick enough, it flows like taffy.  At the outer edges of the ice sheet, the ice is moving horizontally with respect to the ground.  Once the ice is thick enough, there could be considerable outflow of methane from the bottom of the ice sheet. A Milankovitch nudge might be just enough to tip the balance.


It is interesting to note that Carbon dioxide also produces a clathrate under similar conditions, so any source of Carbon dioxide being released from the earth under the ice would also likely form a clathrate which would be released as a continental glacier melted.  The formula for CO2 clatrate is CO2.6H2O.  Sources that could release Carbon dioxide are basically only volcanic action.  Any disintegrating organic material would quickly shift to producing methane as soon as the residual oxygen had been used up.

Test
It might be possible to detect methane or carbon dioxide when ice coring in Greenland or Antarctica reaches bedrock.  A hole to the bottom of the ice 'transmits' one atmosphere pressure to the bottom of the hole and both methane and Carbon dioxide clathrates break down and give up their gas at atmospheric pressure.  It also might be possible to detect methane or carbon dioxide at the edges of today's ice sheets.

A further source would be permafrost.  At present is it believed that considerable methane clathrate is stored in permafrost.  As odd as it seems, a cover of ice insulates this permafrost from sub zero air and geological heat  then begins to melt the permafrost from below.  It would not be expected to find permafrost under an old ice cap.  The warming of the permafrost would liberate its store of methane which would then accumulate at the bottom of the ice sheet, ready to be released when the ice sheet melted and thus contribute to a run away feed back loop.


Corals
There is a body of opinion amongst scientists that if the tropical oceans of the world warm up by only a few degrees, corals will eject their zooxanthellae,  stop growing and die.  Whether or not this will occur remains to be seen (probably fairly soon).  If so, it could be a further reason for the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 at the start of interglacials.  Just like the suppression of ocean-overturn, the cessation of coral growth is the shut down of a sink rather than the start or increase of a source.  The skeletons of coral are made of Calcium Carbonate;  (Calcium Oxide and Carbon dioxide).  Calcium carbonate is 60.6% Carbon dioxide by weight.  Corals and any other marine organism that makes a skeleton of Calcium carbonate, sequester carbon dioxide from the environment.  So why would tropical waters be warming up as an interglacial started.  

This is related to the shut down of the ocean circulation.  The Gulf stream, which warms Britain and Northern Europe also cools tropical areas.  Without this constant flow of heat northward, tropical waters would be expected to become warmer.  Oddly enough, this could occur just as the seas are getting deeper and the possibility opens up for corals to undergo a huge growth spurt due to the surface of the ocean no longer constraining their growth.  

Test
In the coral record from the end of this latest glacial period, one might see a check in coral growth and possibly a change to species that grow better in slightly deeper water followed by a strong upsurge in growth as soon as the ice has all melted and the Gulf Stream re-established itself.

Note that once the ice has all melted and the growth of corals starts again, the potential uptake of CO2 is immense.  The sea will have risen a  hundred meters or so* and the corals will then grow back up to the surface of the sea.  At present corals extend right up to the low tide level.  If the 125,000 years of the last glacial resulted in the corals being eroded to sea level, all this top layer of 120m of coral has grown since the last ice age finished 11,500 years ago. 

* 120 meters since the end of the last glacial and still rising


Test
In locations where coral material is more than 120m deep, there should be an age discontinuity at about 120m.  This would be visible using the uranium dating method.


In summary, we have Four possible sources of the observed spike in Carbon dioxide at the beginning of an interglacial as continental ice sheets start to melt.  These are: 

a)the upsurge of ice-suppressed volcanism, 

b)shut down of oceanic circulation and hence photosynthesis, 

c) the release of accumulated clathrates under the ice and 

d)the shut down of coral growth.  

Each of these would create a feed back global warming which would further encourage the melting of the ice.  Once all the ice had melted, carbon dioxide sinks would once more remove this gas from the atmosphere and we would gradually head toward another glacial.  

We are now seeing a further act in this saga.  It seems likely that within a decade or two, due to man's frantic rush to put sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere, there will be a virtually ice free Arctic ocean.  The Arctic ocean then becomes a huge solar panel absorbing heat from the sun.  Just on the edge of this ocean on Greenland is the last remnant of the northern hemisphere continental glaciers.  If we have sudden melting of this mass of ice, we may see, in miniature, the repeat of the end of an ice age.  It should be interesting.   

American Debt Chrisis

All over the world, with  impending economic and ecological crises rolling down the turnpike toward us, people are withdrawing from dependence on outside support systems and trying to localize as much as possible.  This is seen in farmers markets, in more and more people putting in vegetable gardens and in groups of people working to revive some of the skills of our grandparents in preparation for what seems inevitable.

All over the world, people are revolting against dictators who have been controlling their lives for generations.  Often these dictators have been supported by western powers who used the bribed dictators of these countries to keep their own people under control#. It is an old system used for Milena by empires and perfected by the British.  The Americans are now the main proponents of the system with China on a rapid learning curve.  If you note which countries are been controlled this way, first are countries with oil resources and then countries with any other resource that the west covets.

#Read John Perkins books Hoodwinked, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man or History of the American Empire.

A new wind is blowing through the world and some form of democracy is in the offing for countries which can throw off their dictators.  Already  South of the border,  leaders are coming to power that are not in the pocket of the USA.  Castro was the first and look how pissed of this made America but more and more are following.  The Arab world is rapidly following suit.  The West must be dreading the result.  It is much easier to threaten and bribe a single dictator who then passes some of the largess to concentric circles of sycopanths around him.  These henchmen realize that their bread and butter depends on the well being of the central dictator and so support him in suppressing their own people.  Democracies, on the other hand, are very unpredictable and result in many more eyes looking at the scams that are underway.  They also change their government on a regular basis and the new guys in power can simply change policy.  Look how the USA itself behaves.  Any agreement made with them is only good as long as the party that made it is in power and sometimes not even then.

Throughout this period of exploitation, the West has got used to an artificially puffed up life style.  If any western country only used the resources within their national boundaries, they never would be able to afford to live the way they do.  Take just oil in America as an example.  Peak oil in America occurred in 1970 Imagine America with access to only a fraction of the oil they use at present.  In fact they would only have a very very small fraction of the oil they use today.  America made a conscious decision to import oil from overseas to preserve her own stocks.  Without overseas supplies, by now she would have sucked her own fields dry.  Europe is nearly as bad and of course did the same thing before America took over.  You could say that America was the winner of the second world war, England the looser.


In addition, as resources have become scarce, and hence more expensive, the West has borrowed copiously to support the life style to which they had become accustom.  Not for most westerners, living within their means.  Usually they  borrowed from the very countries that they buy their oil from resulting in these countries now owning America.  Now they are deep in debt doodoo and the whole edifice is crumbling.

Add to this the intensifying competition for the resources of the world as China, India and a whole host of South American and Asian countries start to develop.  Not only do they not part with their own resources so easily any more but they are competing with the west for the resources of the diminishing number of corrupt dictatorships.

The result of all these converging factors is that more and more, countries, especially ones which have become used to exploiting cheap resources from other countries, are going to have to withdraw within their own borders and find the resources they need at home.  And............  the greater their excesses, the further they have to fall. (guess who)

Arguably, energy is the most vitally needed resource and you would think that the solution to this problem would be relatively straight forward.  This is especially so for countries with huge solar, wind and hydro resources.  The USA should have no problem in replacing fossil fuels with wind, hydro and solar generated electrical energy. If she change over to electric cars and electrified public transport, the major part of America's oil use would be eliminated.  America's main problem is the strength, sense of entitlement and sheer corruption of her vested interests.  The sense of entitlement of individual Americans  rivals that of her bankers.  Remember the bankers.  They are the lovely people who brought us 2008 and then when our money bailed them out,  awarded themselves bonuses only slightly less than in 2007.  The corporatocracy and the banks show precious little loyalty to the country that spawned them and which provided the infrastructure in which they operate; infrastructure derived from the taxes of mom and pop worker.  Have a look at this link.  It details just how uneven the distribution of wealth is in America.

Behind all this and underlying it is a big elephant in the room.  Throughout the recent economic crisis, many intelligent commentators have stated again and again that the only truly worthwhile way to get us out of our problems is to grow the economy.  I'm sorry guys but at some point you have to wake up.  As a first approximation, when  the GDP of a country increases, the use of resources increases in lock step.  In fact, with many of the developing countries, the use of resources, such as water increase faster than the increase in GDP.  I'm sure you are way ahead of me by now.  Almost every country in the world is running out of water (and other resources) and besides, the more we use, the more we deny this water to the very ecological web of life that supports our life on earth.  Eventually, and hopefully before we are forced to,  we have to shift over to a sustainable way of life.  Many people use this word but ignore that the synonym for "sustainable" is "not growing".

Not a lot of hope for us, is there, without a cataclysm first.  Such a pity that our long term self interest doesn't trump our short term self interest.  As a group, we are grasshoppers, not ants. 

Bonuses

An item on National Radio NZ yesterday (22/07/11) stated that the sum of bonuses paid in the UK over the past year was 13.6b.  That is 13,600,000,000 pounds sterling.  This link says that it was 14b, not 13.6, and that this was just to the employees of the banks.  It further says that this sector (the banks), which employees 4% of the people in the UK are getting 40% of the bonuses, which are paid in the UK.  Doing a bit of math (14/0.4) it would suggest that the total bonuses paid in the UK equaled 34billion pounds sterling.  I find it hard to get my head around big numbers like these so I am trying to get a handle on what it means.

Now the population of the UK is just below 62 million and the average wage is 500 pounds per month or 6000 pounds per year.  Unemployment is 2.45 million.  The GDP of Great Britain is $2.17trillion US or in today's money, 1.33 trillion pounds.  That is 1,330,000,000,000 pounds sterling.  The national debt of Great Britain is 0.8 of GDP or 1.06 trillion.  Lets look at these figures in a few different ways just to gain some perspective.  The figures are too large to grasp as they are.

How many of the unemployed could be employed at the average UK wage if we used the bankers bonuses to pay them.

We divide the 14b pounds of bankers bonuses by the average wage of $6000 pounds a year.  Answer - 2.3m.  That is just short of the 2.45m that are reported to be unemployed.

How many of the unemployeed could be employed at the Average UK wage if we used all the bonuses paid in the UK

We divide the 34b by 2.45m unemployeed.  Answer - 13.8m or far more than are unemployeed.

What wage could all 2.45m unemployed be receiving if we used the bankers bonuses.

We divide the 14b by 2.45m.  Answer - 5,714 pounds per year - just under the average wage.

If we used the bonuses of the banks to pay off the National debt, how long would it take,

We divide the national debt of 1.06trillion by the 14billion pounds of annual bonuses,  Answer - 75 years.

How about if we used all the 34b of bonuses to pay off the national debt.

We divide the 1.06trillion by 34billion.  Answer - 31 years.

Now I don't know what you think about bonuses to bankers but here is my take.  Firstly, these so called guardians of our economy; these people who produce nothing of intrinsic value and simply transfer money around the place so others can produce; these people who skim off some of the money every time it passes through their sticky little fingers,  have shown themselves demonstrably and conclusively to be incompetent.

It would be reprehensible but understandable if they had seen the looming economic crisis and had positioned themselves economically to make a killing from it.  Not hard.  You liquefy all your assets (turn them into cash) and then buy them up following the crash.  They didn't.  they didn't even understand the likely results of their actions. They are totally economically incompetent.

Then they are incredibly venal.  The very crisis they caused by pushing more and more credit on the public (toxic mortgages, for instance and ever increasing credit card limits) so that they could rake off a commission from every transaction caused the crash.  We bailed them out.  Money from our taxes was put into the banks so that they wouldn't fail.  We ensured that they would continue to have jobs ( we were not so lucky) and what did they do.  They used our money to award themselves obscene bonuses just as they did before the crash.

We, the public, at least, showed a modicum of good sense.  We stopped buying.  That kept inflation from going wild as various countries practiced quantitative easing (printing money).  We paid down debt (if we still had a job) instead of buying.  While that kept inflation in check, it put the squeeze on our businesses who had to discount heavily in an attempt to get us to part with our cash.  Now we face a further insult.

All that quantitative easing is potential inflation; inflation just waiting to happen. In essence the money supply equals the sum of all goods and services.  If you have more money and still the same pool of goods and services, the more you print, the less each dollar or pound is worth.  That's inflation.   Do you have a savings account.  The numeric amount of money in the account won't change but it's buying power will.  It is a stealthy way of stealing money (buying power) from your bank account without ever touching it.  You are being robbed without any need to point a gun.

I haven't yet got the figures for the US of A but I'll do the same calculation for them. I can't help wondering where these jokers get their amazing, unexamined conviction of their own self entitlement.  They produce nothing, gamble against each other and against us, bring down the economy produced by hard working people and then in the very year that the whole edifice crumbles, award themselves fat bonuses from the bail out we provided. 

Solar Energy Quesions

The cost of solar panels is decreasing.  I have seen advertisements which talk about $1.75US and even $1.50US per nominal watt* (July 2011).  We are getting close to the magic, oft-quoted figure of $1.00US per watt which is said to be the figure at which solar becomes competitive with conventional energy generations.

*Solar panels are rated by the number of watts of power# they will generate when the rays of the sun are shining directly at a right angle to the panel from a clear blue sky.  This is their "nominal watt rating"

#A Watt is a unit of power.  It is the rate at which energy is produced.  A 10 watt panel if it produced energy for an hour will produce 10 Watt hours.  A watt hour (or a kilowatt hour) is a unit of energy. Some people call a kWh a "unit".

I'm trying to get myself educated as to the inns and outs of solar power in preparation for the magic day when panels sell for a dollar per watt.  I'll put down the questions and then put in answers as I get them, either from my own reading or from responses from people who are knowledgeable in the subject.  If you want to put in an answer (or a question), put them in comments and I will put them in the body of the text.  I'm only considering a grid connected system.  The cost of batteries is just too expensive at present. 

In no particular order:

Panel Shading
### With early solar panels, if a few cells were shaded, they acted as resistors and were often burnt out by the operating cells in the panel.  Diodes inserted in the panels solved this problem but the diodes themselves reduces the power output of the panel.  In addition, with present panels, if you have 10% of the cells shaded, you loose much more than 10% of the power.  This whole subject has further implications.  

Suppose panels become sufficiently inexpensive that it is worthwhile to clad your East and West facing roof as well as your North Facing Roof (I live in New Zealand) with panels.  You do this to have power more evenly generated throughout the day.  However the three sets of panels are now no longer co-linear.  Throughout the day, each set is producing energy at a different rate and a different voltage.  What technological solutions are already in place so that you get the full amount of energy which is being produced by all the cells in your various arrays of panels.  There is a further implication for electric cars.  

At present, you can retrofit solar panels to the roof of your Prius.  It is said to produce enough energy for about 10km of driving for each day in the sun.  A nice little bonus.  Before long, it may be possible to clad all the external surfaces of a car with solar cells.  However, on a car, with it's curved surfaces, no two cells will be colinear with each other.  Does the technology exist to  ensure that you are getting all the power that each cell produces into your batteries.

Generation Without Direct Sun
### What percent of the nominal power of a solar panel do you produce when the panel can "see" a clear blue sky but has no direct Sun shining on it

### Do I still generate power on a bright cloudy day (I know this is like asking how long is a piece of string but I am trying to get a feel for how much energy is produced under different conditions).

Optimum Panel Angle
### How much is my power reduced if my panels are not tilted at the seasonal angle*
*The angle of your Solar panels array can be tilted as a unit throughout the year so that at noon, the panels are at right angles to the rays of the sun.  If the panels are fixed at the best yearly average angle for your latitude, they will be producing less power than they otherwise could be if you adjust the seasonal angle throughout the year.

###  I'm a little puzzled by the optimum angle at which your panels should be set.  Clearly, the very best situation in terms of the amount of energy generated would be to have the panels follow the sun both in the East West direction and in their angle above the horizon.  This would ensure that the panels were always normal (at right angles) to the rays of the sun and hence were always generating the maximum possible amount of energy. Incase you are contemplating such a system there are some severe dissadvantages which I won't go into here.  Lets have a look at mid summer's day (Dec 23 in the Southern Hemisphere where I live).



My house is oriented toward true North.  That is to say, I have a roof surface pointing exactly toward each of the cardinal directions (N,S,E,W).  Lets draw an immaginary East West line through my house.  In the middle of summer, the sun rises over the horizon about 20 degrees South of that line.  It only begins to illuminate my North facing roof at around 9:00AM.  Up to that time, I am not getting any direct sun light on the roof.  Before 9:00AM, a panel would only be generating electricity from a clear blue sky.  The same situation occurs in the afternoon.  Somewhere around 4:00PM, the direct sun no longer shines on my panels and the sun sets about 20 degrees south of my East West line.

I wonder how much electricity I would generate, in comparison with panels which are fixed to my roof, if I had my panels fixed horizontally.  I wonder how much I would generate if the whole array changed its angle to the horizon during the day.  It is much easier to change the angle of the panels in one direction rather than in two directions.  The theoretical answer should be obtainable with a little spherical Trig and some slightly more complicated Calculus. 


Panel Cooling
### How important is it to allow a free flow of air below my panels to help cool them.  What is the effect on power production.  What is the effect on the longevity of the panels.

Single or Double Metering
### Is it lawful in my country to simply turn my meter backwards when I am producing more power than I am using or must I have two meters. (I'd like to find what the regulations are in different countries)

Are Meters Reversable
### Are there meters that will not turn backwards if I produce more power than I use or are all meters reverseable.

Protection of Grid Workers
### What sort of device do I need to ensure that if the grid goes off, I am not sending power into the grid (this is necessary so that workers, fixing a fault on the line will not be electrocuted when they think they have turned off the power to the area of the fault but micro generators are still electrifying the grid)

A Few Batteries??
###  If I am grid connected, would it  be economically worthwhile to have a small array of batteries as a buffer.  (note that for a stand alone system, you need enough batteries to store energy to carry you over periods of no sun.  For a really reliable system, this involves a lot of expense).

Peak Hours Geographically
###  Where can I find information on how many peak hours I have in my area

Answer(s)
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/Information-SolarFolder/SunHoursUSMap.html
http://www.oynot.com/solar-insolation-map.html
http://www.solarcraft.net/sun-hours-map.htm
http://www.eventhorizonsolar.com/map1-global.html

Note that all these sites measure something different.  Read the fine print carefully.  it is my understanding that peak solar hours are measured with a horizontal detector.  Clearly, if that is so, if you orient your panels at the average latitudinal angle of your location, you will generate more power than the peak hour figure would indicate.  If you go one step further and adjust the angle of your panels, say, each month to keep them normal (at a right angle) to the sun at that season, you will get more power still and if you go all the way and track the sun throughout the day, more power still.  ps.  In case you are going all the way with daily tracking, there are some definite dissadvantages of doing so so tread carefully.

Cap and Trade in New Zealand

My adopted country is New Zealand.  I feel very lucky to have been allowed to settle here and very proud to be a Kiwi.  New Zealand is a Quixotic little country, a green and pleasant land,  and she punches above her weight in many ways. For instance:

#We were the first to give women the vote.

#We opposed nuclear weapons, nuclear ships in our waters and the use of nuclear power.  For our efforts we were attacked by France (Rainbow Warrior) virtually ostracized by America and took a severe hit on our economy.

#We have put in a voting system called MMP which is about as close as one gets in the world, to true representative government.

#We refused to be drawn into a war of exploitation in Iraq but sent troops when the war was over to help reconstruct the country.

#During two world wars, instead of fortifying our remote little islands and hunkering down, we sent our best and bravest  to help defeat Germany and Japan.  We took huge casualties.

#We have eliminated farm subsidies so that now, farmers farm crops rather than subsidies.  We went cold turkey from a situation of heavy subsidies and it was traumatic.  Now New Zealand competes very well with countries which heavily subsidize their  farmers;  so successfully that some of these countries; the USA for instance, puts tariffs on our agricultural produce despite their heavily subsidies.

#And we have adopted a financial obligation for our carbon emissions but here we are falling down.   We are either first country or right up there with the firsts few to do so.  We have done so despite the fact that on a world scale, our carbon emissions are minuscule.  Even if we reduced them to zero it would have virtually no effect on the emissions of the world.  And we have adopted Cap and Trade to the detriment of our businesses since a carbon obligation will make our exports more expensive.  We have adopted them and included Methane in the mix  despite the fact that it rather rapidly converts to Carbon dioxide.  That is another story.  And we have not insisted on the true value of our tree farming.  In so far as a tree is cut down and built into a long lasting house or piece of furniture, it is actually a net remover of Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  That also is another story and may be fixed soon.  However, I can't help feeling proud that we are making the gesture.  So how are we falling down.

We have just had (May 2011) James Hansen on tour in New Zealand.  For those of you not familiar with Prof Hansen, he is a top climatologist; arguably the top climatologist of the world.  He has pulled together the work of many scientists including his own and demonstrated with a very high level of probability that  a) the climate is changing  b) that it has changed rather suddenly in the past as certain limits have been passed and c) that it is very likely that if we continue on our present path, we are likely to cause a destabilization and a switch to a new climate regime.  Why does this matter.

Well it doesn't in the long term -- the very long term.  The point, though, is that human civilization has developed during the past 11,000 years in a period of relatively stable climate and our civilization is  adapted to it.  We have had some mini glitches in our climate since the end of the glacial and even they have had pretty wide spread effects.  The point is, that because of the relative stability of our climate and hence our sea levels, many of our cities have been built within 10 or so vertical meters of sea level.  Because of the stability and hence predictability of our climate we are  just about able to produce enough food for our huge population with our knowledge of how to farm in the present climate regime.  If we get a rapid climate change we will have New Orleans type floods in all our coastal cities,  our food production will plummet with the change in climate zones and huge numbers of species of animals and plants will go extinct with unforeseen consequences to the support systems that allow us to exist on our planet. 

Looked at on a 10million year time scale this won't matter at all.  It will be equivalent to one of the great extinctions and possibly include humans.  At the very least, we might achieve the Lovelock Number*.  The world will recover, new species will evolve and a remnant population of humans might even be left to breed up again and repeat the whole disaster.  The point is, that we have a reasonably comfortable, interesting existence and even civilized life in the present climate setting and are very much in danger of trashing it and putting ourselves back into a deep dark age.  Just imagine the effect of  the world wheat crop failing for even one year, not to mention  the failure of the rice, corn barley and rye crops failing as well.  Just imagine if the crop failure continued for 10 years or for even for a Milena.  Even worse, imagine if the climate flick flacked (flickering) between the two states for a decade or more as many scientists predict so that it is impossible to predict from year to year what the climate will do.  So why are we failing here in New Zealand.

*James Lovelock has predicted that within a few decades our world population will be down to a billion or so.   (it would only take a single year in which the rice, wheat, corn, barley and rye crops failed to cause epic starvation)

We have adopted Cap and Trade  and the consensis is amongst many comentators that the main effect of  Cap and Trade will be to make the banks rich.

On the other hand there is Jim Hansen's solution called tax and dividend.  Wheras the congressional document in America on Cap and trade runs to some 2000 pages, Jim Hansen's Tax and Dividend can be expressed on one side of a sheet of A4 paper---------------  double spaced.  It is highly likely to be extremely effective.  It has the added advantage, unlike Cap and Trade, of economically protecting Joe Citizen during the transition to Renewable Energy.  What is his system.


As I said, it is called Tax and Dividend and I won't even need one piece of foolscap to describe it.  Two short   paragraphs will be enough.

Paragraph 1
Hansen suggests taxing fossil fuel as it comes out of the ground or through your borders.  The tax will start low and increase gradually every year.  This of course will make everything we use more expensive.

Now here is the good part.

Paragraph 2

Every cent of this fossil fuel  tax, however collected, will be returned equally to every citizen by no-cost electronic transfer.  Jim has suggested an equal portion to every adult and a half portion to each child up to a maximum of two children per family.  I think it might be easier to give an equal portion to every human registered tax payer (people only, not businesses).  The income tax data base exists in every country and it would encourage anyone who is not registered to register.  There it is.    The downstream effects from this policy, however, take a little more paper to describe.

Incidentally, The New Zealand failure is that we brought Prof Hansen here, sponsored him, listened to him and then ignored what he had to say.  Not even the Green Party is proposing Tax and Dividend.    Lets look at the effects of his  system.  They are many.

Someone who is modest in their energy use, who has an insulated home, cycles to work, has energy efficient appliances etc. will actually end up with a net gain despite the increases in the price of everything.

Someone who drives an SUV, uses resistance electricity instead of a heat pump and has old, inefficient devices will be out of pocket.  There will be a great incentive to get efficient and in fact to use this tax money to buy LED light bulbs to replace the existing ones as they burn out, to buy locally,  to replace the family car with an electric lizi when the old one is finished and so forth.

Long before renewable electricity becomes cheaper than fossil fuel generated electricity, investment will flee.  It will be clear that as the tax on fossil fuel rises steadily year by year, fossil fuel will become more and more expensive and investing in fossil fuel, less and less worthwhile. The shift of investment to renewable energy will accelerate our climb up the learning and technological curves.  This will result in less and less costly electricity.  Better still. It will be stably priced electricity.  All renewable energy systems are fuel free. None of them use a resource that is every increasing in scarcity and cost.  Competition will also cut in and achieve the same result.  With many countries and many companies competing for the market to sell renewable energy devices, price will inevitably come down.

The pollution from the burning of fossil fuels will decrease and continue to decrease as renewables replace fossil fuel.  People will be healthier and medical costs will decrease.

With the decrease in the cost of solar panels, many households will find it worthwhile to have their own home system.  Baring a revolution in battery technology, it generally will not be worthwhile to have batteries and instead, the grid will be used as the energy storage system.  This will produce diffusely generated energy and the Internet effect will be achieved.  The Internet was invented by the military to eliminate the vulnerability of their communication systems to be knocked out by a single strike.  Likewise when our energy is generated by wind farms distributed all over our country, from hydro dams at various locations and from the solar panels on the roves of our buildings, the system becomes far more robust in the face of  human or natural disasters.

There may also be a psychological effect.  If you are generating energy on the roof, it emphasizes your connection with natural processes.  There may well be a differential between the cost of energy you buy from the grid and the cost they pay for your electricity.  It will be worth your while to vacuum, bake, wash dishes, wash clothes, charge up your electric car etc. when the sun shines and it is your own electricity you are using.  A certain awareness of natural cycles is encouraged.

And finally, if New Zealand adopts Tax and Dividend, it just might tip Australia over the edge to doing the same.  The Green Party in Australia has the balance of power this year (2011) and they could follow suit.  This just might be enough to induce China to follow suit.  They are desperate not to fall into the fossil fuel trap they way the western world has.  If this happens, the rest of the world has to follow.  I don't understand the details but apparently the agreements between countries are such that if you put a carbon tax on your own coal, for instance, and export it overseas, the receiving country doesn't tax it.  If you don't put on a carbon tax   the receiving country can.  Essentially the receiving country collects your tax for its own use.  New Zealand is too small to induce such a change, Australia with her huge exports of coal, may be large enough.  China is another story.  If she puts this in place the world must follow.  This might just be enough to save our sorry selves from ourselves as the specter of sudden climate change comes down the turnpike at us.