This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Mining the Climate Data

Jim Baird's picture
Owner Thermodynamic Geoengineering

inventor,Method and apparatus for load balancing trapped solar energy Ocean thermal energy conversion counter-current heat transfer system Global warming mitigation method Nuclear Assisted...

  • Member since 2018
  • 361 items added with 424,823 views
  • Dec 24, 2014

We live in the Information Age. Geophysicists mine seismic data to find new oil and better techniques for enhancing production of old fields. Politicians mine data to raise funds, stir passions and fears and learn the likely voting patterns of constituents so they can either encourage or discourage them for getting to the poles. One of the most active sectors of today’s economy is premised on the notion that it can interpret every nuance of our purchasing and web browsing habits for the benefit of marketers, so it is confounding to understand how these same, otherwise technically insightful individuals, can be so collectively blind to the climate record. 

Three easy to read charts correlating atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature over three different time scales are indicative of where we have been, where we are going and what we have to do to save the planet from climate catastrophe.

The first of these charts shows how the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 120 parts per million (ppm) since mankind began burning fossil fuels in earnest at the onset of the industrial revolution 250 years ago.



At that time CO2 concentrations were about 280 ppm, which was already near the maximum of the previous 400,000 years according NOAA’s paleoclimate record from Antarctic ice core data below, which also shows a strong correlation between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperatures.


Temperature change (blue) and carbon dioxide change (red)

This record also shows that the four previous times CO2 levels were near 280 ppm, temperatures were about 2oC warmer than present, which would spell disaster for today’s young people, future generations, and nature according to the report issued a year ago by 18 leading scientists.

The consensus of the IPCC seems to be that 450 ppm by the end of this century will equate to 2oC  but Hansen et al concludes we need to reduce levels to less than 350 ppm to avoid unacceptable climate effects while the paleo record suggests that 280 has repeatedly been enough for the planet to reach 2 degrees higher than we are today.   

Greenhouse concentrations are currently 120 ppm above the previous highs, so we should note with some trepidation that previous decreases of roughly 80 ppm from that level corresponded with temperature declines of about 10oC.

If the CO2/Temperature correlation were to hold for a 120 ppm increase above 280, we would be looking at a 15oC increase at the poles, a 4oC averate increase and dire consequences.   

For a look at what 400 ppm has looked like in the past see: 400 ppm World, Part 1: Large Changes Still to Come. (Hint Ellesmere Island in the Artic was 18oC warmer and was home to an ancestor of the modern camel and sea levels were 25 meters higher.)

As shown in the following chart produced by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the CO2/Temperature correlation appears to have broken down over the past 15 years.


According to Scripps researchers in a study published a year ago, this is attributed to cooling of eastern Pacific Ocean waters associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which is a 20 to 30 year cycle of warming and cooling of surface waters in the North Pacific Ocean for as yet unknown reasons.

More recent studies suggest the Southern Pacific and Atlantic Ocean have also been taking up excess heat with the common denominator being deep water heat uptake and the brevity of the underlying condition.  

The obvious lesson to be taken from these three records is that we have to move trapped heat into the deep ocean, whereas the conventional wisdom is we either have to stop burning fossil fuels or capture and bury the CO2 that results from the burning of the same.

We are already experiencing the effects of climate change and scientists tell us that these will be with us for 1000 years even if we immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That approach, which would correspond with a conversion of all energy systems to wind, solar, nuclear and/or fusion, therefore has less than an ideal outcome even if it could be accomplished in a timely fashion.  

SkepticalScience explains that 1 ppm is the equivalent of 7.81 gigatonnes of CO2 (GtC). To get back to Hansen’s 350 ppm would therefore require the sequestration of 390 GtC and to get back to 280 ppm, which the long term record shows probably would still get us to another two degree increase in temperature, we would have to sequester 937 gigatonnes of CO2.

Vaclav Smil has pointed out the impossibility of implementing CCS in a timeframe that would prevent CO2 levels from rising above 450 ppm, let alone from reducing from current levels but for the sake of argument consider the costs that would have to be incurred. 

Jeremy van Loon of Bloomberg puts the price tag for equipping all existing power plants with CCS technology at $17.6 trillion.  

For starters the electricity sector accounts for only 39 percent of U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions so to sequester all emissions, which would be impossible to capture in the first place, would cost $45 trillion and this only gets us back to locking in global warming for another 1000 years. Currently we are adding about 10 GtC to the atmosphere each year so to capture and sequester the 50 Gtc in excess of 350 ppm, even if it could be done, would cost at least $225 trillion.

I make this to be $4,500/tonne, which is all overhead.  

Smil estimates 7.2 barrels of oil equates to1 tonne of CO2 and a barrel of oil provides 12 gallons of diesel and 19 gallons of gasoline so effective CCS would raise the price of these fuels by $20/gallon.

Jesse Jenkins tells us American households, on which the rest of the world is depending to take the lead in the climate battle, appear willing to pay roughly $2-8 per ton to combat climate change. CCS is therefore a nonstarter. The amount of carbon we could sequester with the amount of money we are prepared to spend would make virtually zero difference to the climate and thus the data indicates we are left with only one option; sequestration of surface ocean heat.

A heat pipe is a device that  removes damaging heat to a heat sink. The most damaging heat associated with climate change is that which is accumulating at the surface of the tropical ocean. Heat pipes can move this to the safety of the deep ocean and in that process produce as much energy as we currently derive from fossils fuels and revenue from the sale of the same.

In effect we can neutralize the effect of the accumulation of 250 years worth of CO2 in the process of producing all the energy we need and the revenue required to pay for the fix. We also can stop burning fossil fuels and sequester carbon in the process of electrolyzing sea water to produce supergreen hydrogen.

The MIT masters paper “Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion” of Shylesh Muralidharan points to a cost-saving of this kind of ocean thermal energy conversion plant over conventional designs of up to 45% and a capital cost for a 100 MW plant of $2650/kW. The following table from that paper also points to the fact that even conventional designs have the highest capacity factor of all energy technologies and are more than competitive on a levelized capital cost basis with most and on par with nuclear and advanced coal with CCS, which do nothing to remedy the ocean heat problem yet are offered frequently as the answers to the climate problem.


Where the climate has gone and how it got there is in the record, as is the evidence of what has to be done and it is easy enough to calculate the affordable cost.

What we cannot afford is the status quo or unnecessary diversions up technological blind alleys.

The bonanza that can be derived from mining the climate record is the most significant and socially beneficial legacy we could possibly leave our children.

Jim Baird's picture
Thank Jim for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 24, 2014

Jim, do you know how Muralidharan is arriving at his levelized cost for larger OTEC plants? It was my understanding the largest OTEC project ever constructed was 250KW and it was a non-commercial pilot plant.

I know you find this tech promising but its history, which goes back over a century, is not encouraging. In 1979 President Carter authorized $260 million for OTEC research with the goal of generating 10GW by 1999; the results were almost as disappointing as his plans for solar, which unfortunately also captured the popular imagination.

Looking back over the OTEC’s chronology I’m constantly reminded of the fragility of high-tech installations in the midst of the unforgiving ocean. There’s no small amount of irony in the fact that the most energy-productive regions of the world are most likely to reduce a multi-$billion installation to seafloor debris. Moreover, it seems development would require an even longer timeframe than nuclear. In terms of coming up with a vehicle for addressing global warming – and doing it soon – what is your optimism based on?

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 24, 2014

Jim, I agree the physics reveals a lot of potential. Whether we can effectively make use of it is the challenge.

I appreciate your updates on this topic. A successful, megawatt-scale project capable of contributing energy to our domestic supply would be extremely encouraging.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 25, 2014

 Shylesh Muralidharan points to a cost-saving of this kind of ocean thermal energy conversion plant over conventional designs of up to 45% and a capital cost for a 100 MW plant of $2650/kW.”

A proposal for 100 MW OTEC at $2650/kW versus $1600/kW for a GWe of Indian nuclear actually online

“Kudankulam 1&2: Russia’s Atomstroyexport is supplying the country’s first large nuclear power plant, comprising two VVER-1000 (V-412) reactors, under a Russian-financed US$ 3 billion contract.  Each is 917 MWe net. Unit 1 generated 2.8 TWh in its first year. “

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 25, 2014

Jim – 

Why not deal with the fact on the ground of 2014 $1600/kw nuclear in India, or China, rather than quoting opinion from UCS about long ago or not India, not China?

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Dec 25, 2014

Your plan is great for removing heat, however, I believe the best way to remove excess CO2 would be in greening the deserts which requires advanced nuclear powered infrastructure and desalination. The crops could be used for biofuels – to help offset the intial costs. But the main purpose is for (like) a million square miles of new excess CO2 absorbing soil.

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Dec 25, 2014

Thanks, that’s a good idea to use the heat already in the oceans for desalination. I often doubt that deserts would be “allowed” to be greened but think that such large expanses of land would be enough to sequester the excess CO2. Also, would be great for economic growth necessary for the nearby countries.

Mark Heslep's picture
Mark Heslep on Dec 26, 2014

 “I am not sure how this is relevant unless you want to import Chinesse labor to build nuclear plants”

From the stand point of global climate change, a major topic of your article,  what the like of China and India do for power in the next twenty years is of major significance, perhaps of the only signficance.   If China stays on trend, in five years it will have doubled declining US CO2 emissions.  A decade after that China will have doubled *cumulative* US CO2 emissions, i.e. all ever produced. 

As to the cost of future US nuclear, yes there is a labor cost difference with China, but I contend most of the cost drivers lie elsewhere or can be avoided.  Afterall, Chinese steel sells at a discount of ~$200/ton to US $700/ton steel, i.e. 30% less not twice or three times less as does new Chinese/Indian nuclear.  Thus the hurdles placed by the NRC must be a large part of the cost difference.     NRC licence application preparation and fees alone can run in the hundreds of millons of dollars.  Cost saving innovations such a Small Modular are placed on review queues decades long.  

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Dec 27, 2014

The intrinsic costs for mass produced closed cycle nuclear reactors would be less per watt than any LWR because the LWR is simply much larger in mass due to fundamental design/engineered safety requirements. It is possible, if the costs of excess regulators were removed, to mass produce a closed cycle and burn the spent fuel from LWRs for many decades for less than the costs of (otherwise) extracting and dealing with literally cubic miles of coal!

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »