Blogs

Climate Change Blog 12: The Arctic – Loss of Sea Ice and Its Global Implications; Changes In The Weather; Impacts on the Great Barrier Reef; Impacts In and Response By (the Red State of) Alaska; Some Good News – Rise of the Renewables

By Carl Howard posted 05-24-2018 03:35 PM

  

The clearest proof that climate change is occurring is observed at the poles. In the Arctic Ocean, some ice stays frozen year-round, lasting for many years before melting. But this winter, the area experienced a record low for ice older than five years. This, along with a near-record low for sea ice over all, supports predictions that by midcentury summers in the Arctic Ocean will be entirely ice-free.

As darker, heat-absorbing water replaces reflective ice, it hastens warming adding to a “positive feedback loop.” Older ice tends to be thicker than newer ice and thus more resilient to warming. But as the old ice disappears the newer ice left behind is more vulnerable to rising temperatures. The more ice melts the more water absorbs and warms which hastens melting, and so on.

Such conditions are especially bad for animals like narwhals, the so-called unicorns of the sea, that use sea ice to avoid predators like killer whales. As the sea ice disappears, killer whales spend more time in narwhal waters, eating the narwhals and driving them from the richest feeding grounds.

With each passing decade, the ice grows a bit less in winter, and melts a bit more in summer. The record for the least amount of sea ice gained in the winter was set last year. The downward trend in winter ice coverage is clear. The past four years have been the four lowest on record. Repeated use of the word “record” is not a good thing.

The disappearing sea ice is a key indicator of a warming Arctic. The consequences of a warming Arctic are being felt globally.

Changes In The Weather

This winter (2018), the Northeastern US faced four nor'easters in as many weeks, and Western Europe encountered subzero temperatures that were far lower than at the North Pole.

These weather patterns are influenced by the jet stream, the river of wind that encircles the Northern Hemisphere. Temperature differences between the Arctic and the lower latitudes help create the jet stream. Because the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the Earth, that temperature difference is getting smaller. The result is a weakening jet stream and shifting behavior sending cold air south from the Arctic and pumping warm air north. The weakening jet stream also tends to lock weather patterns in place. Scientists say that changes in ocean currents in the tropical Pacific are the source of the recent weather events in the mid-latitudes. But the weight of evidence reveals a significant Arctic influence.

The circulation of water currents in the oceans is crucial to the planet’s weather systems and the continuation of conditions essential to life on earth as we’ve known it during human civilization. That is now changing. The ocean’s circulation has not been this sluggish in 1,000s of years. And that is very bad news.

The Atlantic Ocean circulation that carries warmth into the Northern Hemisphere’s high latitudes is slowing down because of climate change, suggesting one of the most feared consequences is here.

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) has declined in strength by 15% since the mid-20th century to a new record low, a decrease of 3 million cubic meters of water per second, the equivalent of nearly 15 Amazon rivers.

The AMOC brings warm water from the equator up toward the Atlantic’s northern reaches and cold water back down through the deep ocean. The current is partly why Western Europe enjoys temperate weather, and meteorologists are linking changes in North Atlantic Ocean temperatures to recent summer heat waves.

The circulation is also critical for fisheries off the U.S. Atlantic coast, a key part of New England’s economy that has seen changes in recent years, with the cod fishery collapsing as lobster populations have boomed off the Maine coast.

Some of the AMOC’s disruption may be driven by the melting ice sheet of Greenland, another consequence of climate change that is altering the region’s water composition and interrupts the natural processes.

Climate models have long made such predictions and confirmation is building. One study suggests the slowdown probably began for natural reasons around the time of the Industrial Revolution in 1850, rather than being spurred by human-caused climate change, which fully kicked in later. A second study finds that the circulation has remained weak, or even weakened further, through the present era of anthropogenic warming.

The research finds that the odd alignment, which has produced regions of record cold and record warmth right next to one another, has been developing since the 1950s and closely matches what a very high resolution climate model predicted.

If the slowdown trend continues, it is expected to drive strong sea-level rise against the Eastern Seaboard. Previous research has shown that from 2009 to 2010 sea level in the region suddenly shot up five inches thanks in part to a brief slowdown of the circulation. This occurs because the northward flow of the Gulf Stream pushes water east so that the ocean piles up against the coast of Europe. But as the current weakens some of the water flows back toward the US East Coast instead.

As for the future, the circulation likely will weaken further as climate change advances. It may not be slow and steady. There is great fear that there may be a “tipping point” where the circulation comes to an abrupt halt.

This is one of the most infamous scenarios for abrupt climate change, as it is known. Studies from the planet’s history suggest that such a sudden change in the North Atlantic has occurred many times in Earth’s past, perhaps as recently as 13,000 years ago. But it’s not clear how close the tipping point might be.

Some scientists predict that Greenland will start melting even faster, so the long-term prospect for that ocean circulation system is that it will weaken further with immense repercussions which likely will affect humanity negatively. To put it mildly.

Impacts on the Great Barrier Reef

The oceans are a major sink, absorbing much of the CO2 from the air. Thus the impacts of climate change are readily apparent in the oceans including, among many other impacts, sea level rise, rising acidity, altered currents, altered weather patterns, and, as the waters warm, coral bleaching. Recent studies have concluded that damage to the Great Barrier Reef from global warming is irreversible.

Scientists said nearly one-third of the reef’s coral were killed when ocean temperatures spiked in 2016, a result of global warming. The damage to the reef, one of the world’s largest living structures, has also radically altered the mix of its coral species and is occurring faster than predicted. Corals are extremely sensitive to heat and an increase of two or three degrees Fahrenheit above normal can kill them.

The Great Barrier Reef has bleached four times since 1998. Record high temperatures in 2016 were followed by another bleaching event last year. The impact on the health of marine life dependent on the reef, and the loss of tourist dollars is immense and growing.

Impacts In and Response By (the Red State of) Alaska

The impacts of climate change are being felt in other northern regions such as Alaska. Sea level rise, erosion from increased wave activities, and the loss of protective sea ice may force 31 towns and cities to relocate at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Alaska is a major oil and gas producer and a “red state” but conditions there are compelling local leaders to craft plans to address climate change. Ideas under discussion include cuts in state emissions by 2025 and a tax on companies that emit carbon dioxide.

The once solid permafrost that sits beneath many roads, buildings and pipelines is starting to thaw, destabilizing the infrastructure above.

In addressing climate change, Alaska will have to grapple with its own deep contradictions. Roughly 85% of the state’s budget is funded by revenues from the production of oil which is primarily exported to the rest of the US. Local politicians have largely been unwilling to curtail the supply of fossil fuels. Both Governor Walker and Lieutenant Governor Mallott supported the recent decision by Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration, a move opposed by environmentalists.

“The state will continue to be an energy producer for as long as there is a market for fossil fuels,” the men wrote in a recent op-ed for the Juneau Empire. But, they added, “We should not use our role as an energy producer to justify inaction or complacency in our response to the complex challenge of climate change.”

To that end, the state’s climate task force released a draft in April that included a proposal for Alaska to get 50% of its electricity from renewable sources like solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal by 2025, up from 33% in 2016. The draft also proposed cutting statewide greenhouse gas emissions one-third below 2005 levels by 2025, tackling sectors like transportation and “natural resource development,” which includes oil drilling operations.

Alaska, which ranks as the nation’s 40th-largest emitter overall but is fourth-largest on a per-capita basis, has already cut its emissions by 25% since 2005, driven by a drop in emissions from both aviation and industry. The state’s main climate impact, however, is through the oil that it exports to the rest of the country, where it is burned in cars and trucks.

 “We need to have a revenue stream from nonrenewable energy that will allow us to invest in renewables,” Lieutenant Governor Mallott said.

As one possible approach, the draft proposal says that the state could consider a “carbon fee and dividend program” that would tax carbon dioxide emitters and then reinvest the revenues in local energy efficiency and clean energy programs. The lieutenant governor also suggested that Alaska’s natural gas could be used to help reduce emissions in coal-reliant countries like China. (While natural gas is about half as carbon-intensive as coal, it produces more emissions than renewables or nuclear power.)

Any carbon tax proposal within the state will be opposed by Alaska’s oil and gas industry. There is broader consensus that the state will need to take more immediate action to prepare for the impacts of higher temperatures. The Arctic is already warming faster than the rest of the planet. Wildfires are growing larger during the Alaskan summer, menacing homes and roads. Native communities that rely on walrus hunting are seeing catches decline as sea ice disappears. And, in May, the rural village of Newtok received a $22 million federal grant to help relocate residents threatened by erosion and flooding.

The state’s draft proposal urges more scientific research on threats like ocean acidification, which could threaten state fisheries, as well as new strategies to ensure food security in indigenous communities. By taking the lead on such efforts, the draft notes, Alaska could potentially export its adaptation know-how to the rest of the world.

Some Good News – Rise of the Renewables

Environmental concerns continue to drive power companies away from coal and toward natural gas which is currently the nation’s No. 1 power source. But technology and economics are rapidly leading in yet a newer direction. Some utility companies have scrapped plans for new natural-gas plants in favor of wind and solar sources that have become cheaper and easier to install. Existing gas plants are being shut because their economics are no longer attractive. And regulators are increasingly challenging the plans of companies envisioning new natural-gas plants.

A wind farm can literally be put on a train and brought online within a year, a time-scale no proposed gas plant can match. The Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates the state’s investor-owned utilities, recently refused to endorse plans by three power companies proposing natural-gas facilities. Commissioners directed them to make greater use of energy storage and plants that produce zero emissions.

Some feel the push to get beyond natural gas may be too much, too soon. Officials at Arizona Public Service, the largest utility in the state, said they needed to include new natural-gas development as part of an overall mix, partly because of the state’s round-the-clock air-conditioning demands.

Nationwide, other utility executives, power producers and federal regulators have argued that a healthy power grid requires consistent power even in the absence of  sun and wind. The more solar and wind power that is added to the electric grid, they say, the greater the need for reliable backup sources like natural gas.

Gas proponents argue that even recent advances in storage do not justify an overreliance on alternative energy, however inexpensive.

Natural gas isn’t likely to be unseated as the country’s primary source of electricity generation anytime soon. In fact, utility companies plan to add more natural-gas plants than any other source, including all alternative energy sources like solar, wind and hydropower, combined.

But the calculus is rapidly shifting as the price of wind and solar power continues to fall. According to the Department of Energy, power generated by natural gas declined 7.7% in 2017.

And the latest report by Lazard, the financial advisory and management firm, found that the cost of power from utility-scale solar farms was now on a par with natural-gas generation — and that wind farms were less expensive still.

Lazard calculated the unsubsidized cost of wind power at 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, while natural gas and solar energy were a little more than 4 cents. The typical American household pays 12.5 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity, according to the United States Energy Information Administration.

Moreover, the market equation in the West is driven largely by California, the sixth-largest economy in the world, which has mandated that 50% of its power be generated from renewable sources by 2030. With a regional energy market run by the state’s electricity grid overseer, the California Independent System Operator, fossil-fuel plants have had increasing difficulty selling their power into a market with low-cost solar and wind power.

At the same time, state legislatures and regulators are increasingly demanding that utilities rethink how they manage their systems to reduce carbon emissions.

Some power producers resist the mandates, even scaling back their operations in certain markets because it is too difficult to compete without losing money.

NRG Energy, for example, announced this month that it would close three natural-gas plants in California because of the regulatory push for clean energy.

After NRG’s announcement, Calpine, a power company based in Houston, said it would suspend plans to build a natural-gas plant in California.

But a big Oregon utility, Portland General Electric, has embraced clean-energy mandates to beat its dependence on fossil fuels. Portland General recently signed an agreement to buy surplus hydropower from the Bonneville Power Administration — the surplus arises largely from California’s turn to other renewable sources — helping the utility avoid construction of natural-gas plants to replace a coal facility.

Portland General’s view offered a hopeful message to environmentalists, who oppose the use of coal and are fighting a similar battle with natural gas.

Utilities found that coal was not just a dirty form of energy but more expensive so they replaced it with natural gas and now they’re experiencing the same process and moving toward renewables. There’s a broad trend across the energy sector, mostly in the West, where coal and natural gas can’t compete. Such a rapid change has caught many in the industry by surprise and it could lead to a shorter future for natural gas which contributes to climate change.

Meanwhile, In DC – Solar Tariffs

SunPower is the nation’s No. 2 commercial solar-power company, employing thousands of workers directly and indirectly. But it solar panels are manufactured abroad and with the Trump tariffs costing it as much as $2 million a week SunPower is fighting for an exemption.

One of its rivals, SolarWorld Americas, produces panels domestically. Buffeted by foreign competition, it was behind the original push for the tariffs.

These two American companies are merging.

It’s all part of the disruption, distortion and uncertainty from an escalating US trade offensive aimed primarily at China. In about three months, the tariffs are fundamentally reshaping the solar industry and its prospects.

A Chinese entity announced plans to open a factory in Florida perhaps this Fall. With its SolarWorld acquisition, SunPower moved to prevent further loss to its business by locating a bigger share of its production in the US. Both companies are being hit with tariffs on high-efficiency panels they produce in Malaysia.

Those efforts only blunt the negative effects of the industry fallout. While producing more panels in the US will create a few hundred jobs, the tariffs could cost tens of thousands of jobs, largely effecting installation. Dozens of solar companies are now petitioning to be exempted from the tariffs, and a bipartisan group in Congress has introduced a bill to overturn.

The tariffs have slowed growth in the solar industry which means jobs are not being created. The tariffs could cost as many as 23,000 American jobs this year. In addition, the 30% tariffs are going to make it more expensive for cities across the country to pursue their goal of promoting solar power as a way to curb carbon pollution.

The solar industry expects to continue adding installations, but growth is estimated to be about 11% lower than projections before the tariffs.

The office of the United States trade representative, which is handling the tariffs, is reviewing the requests from SunPower and other companies for exemptions. No time frame for a decision has been set.

To be excluded, the companies must show that they have a unique technology or offering. SunPower, based in San Jose, Calif., said its products served a need unmet by existing American manufacturers, and were made overseas for proximity to its suppliers, largely in Asia, making the solar panels cheaper.

The effect of the tariffs on the cost of imported solar panels makes it more difficult to compete with other sources of power like wind, or even makes fossil-fuel plants look attractive again.

Regarding jobs, SunPower is taking over an operation with 280 employees but has not determined how many jobs it might add.

JinkoSolar, a Shanghai company, announced this year that it would start manufacturing in Jacksonville, Fla., and create about 200 jobs. It already has a deal with Florida-based NextEra Energy to supply the parent company of Florida’s largest utility with seven million panels over four years — one of the largest orders to date.

JinkoSolar said it still needed exclusion from the tariffs to bring any significant scale to its American operations. While it will assemble panels in the US, the solar cells will continue to be produced in Asia and subject to tariffs. To expand, and add jobs, the company will need an exemption.

Even as those projects bring prospective jobs, the Solar Energy Industries Association pointed to the potential job losses from the suspension or termination of solar projects because of higher costs. It said domestic operations alone could not meet the previous level of demand.

Solar energy enjoyed a banner year in 2016, when there was a rush to get projects going before a federal tax credit on solar projects was to expire. In that year, it became the nation’s leading source of new electricity generation.

But after that flurry, solar yielded its No. 1 spot even though Congress extended the 30% tax credit through 2019. Now the tariffs have added another bump in the road for solar power.

Before the tariffs, the industry was expected to have the capacity to power 13.7 million homes nationwide by 2022. That estimate has been revised downward by more than 10%.

Congress might repeal the tariffs via a bill now before lawmakers. Representative Jacky Rosen, a Nevada Democrat, introduced the bill out of concern over the loss of jobs in her state. Two South Carolina Republicans, Representatives Mark Sanford and Ralph Norman, backed the legislation, citing not only jobs but also the added cost the tariffs imposed on business. The bipartisan nature of the effort gives the industry hope that it might find support.

Solar power, which now generates almost 2% of the nation’s electricity, has become popular among Democrats and Republicans alike, as people favor increased control over their energy use, reduced pollution as well as job creation.

1 comment
17 views

Permalink

Comments

05-25-2018 06:45 PM

The great unknowns about AMOC disruption are a good reminder of the limitations in our capacity to predict and adapt to climate impacts.  Thank you as always for the insights Carl.