Archive | October, 2015

Tags: , , , ,

We Can Put a Roof on Climate Change

Posted on 30 October 2015 by Jerry

We learn a valuable lesson from Mediterranean cities; roofs are white or at least light colored. They reflect light and keep heat from the interior of houses and buildings. Some jurisdictions in the U.S. (states and cities) have suggested contractors use solar panels or required them to put a ‘green’ roof with planted vegetation or paint a roof white, on the top of office buildings and multi-tenant dwellings. The laws and regulations in most locations exempt single-family homeowners. This frames our opportunity.

Scientists have studies that show that dark surfaces, especially tar roofs, create ‘heat islands’ and will significantly warm the surrounding cities.   Unfortunately, living in a large city with lots of row houses I see roof after roof that have black tar coverings that absorb as much light and heat as the sun will put out. These houses put out their retained heat all day.

For this reason cities are hotter than their surrounding rural areas. The temperature change continues into the night. The retained heat is emitted at night raising the city’s nighttime temperature as well. This is something each of us can change.

There are two measures of a surface. One is the absorption where light and warmth is allowed in and retained under the surface that raises the house’s temperature. For example, if it is a sunny day and you walk barefoot on asphalt, because it is black and absorbs heat, you will burn your feet.

Another measure is the amount of light that is reflected back into the sky from a white or lighter surface, its albedo. No light with its accompanying heat is absorbed. Instead the light is sent back into the atmosphere. This keeps everything, including the roof and the underlying structure, cooler to the touch. This article is about reflecting the light (and its heat) back into the atmosphere.

A California state government database includes two charts that show how high the temperature gets on a roof in direct sunlight in a variety of conditions. These charts show temperatures roofs can reach with a variety of covers. For instance, it shows a measured temperature of a roof that is single ply covered by EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer (M) class rubber) at 173°F. A BUR (built up roof) topped with aggregate rocks measured 159°F. A BUR topped with a capsheet was measured at 158°F in full sunlight. However, a roof with a “cool” rated paint on a single ply roof came in significantly cooler at 121°F and a “cool” coating over a BUR roof was measured at an even cooler 108°F.

All roofing paint manufacturers set up a rating scale for their roof coverings to comply with, among others, the California Title 24 rating for emissivity and reflectivity in roofing materials. This gives a rating to their roof paints and coverings that states how they will reflect light and reduce heat.

Both scales are expressed as a percentage between 0 and 1. The higher the percentage number in reflectivity the more light and heat it reflects and keeps from penetrating the material. So paint with a perfect rating of 1 (or 100%) reflects all of the light that hits it. The same is true for thermal emittance. A material with a high heat emittance rating will give up its absorbed heat more readily. A perfect rating of 1 gives up all its retained heat very quickly.

This is a simplistic description of actions and benefits that does not represent all of the contrasting opinions that painting one’s roof represents. There are contrary positions that cite a variety of limitations. For instance, in snow areas white roofs defeat keeping a home heated, many would argue that snow on the roof is just as damaging. Recognize there is controversy. I would suggest you talk to your roofing painting company or Google the appropriate sources for their advice. I would argue that a white roof is beneficial in almost all surroundings.

We should each paint our roofs with the highest reflectivity and emittance ratings we can find. This will reduce our collective contribution to climate change and global warming. At the very least it will keep our homes cooler in the hotter temperatures and not create controversy if we live in the hotter regions of the country.

This is finally something, a small thing, most of us can do. We need to move ahead and take a personal stand against climate change. We need to, for example, conserve water, drive a hybrid car, turn off lights, conserve energy, and paint our roofs white to reflect the sun’s rays back into space. Of course there are many other things we can champion to our elected representatives. You may not agree with one or two of the steps we need to take but we each need to act. Only our collective action will save our planet and keep a healthy world to pass on to our children.

Use the attached links to obtain more information or look at the source documents used for this article.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Chernobyl Still Threatens; Has Animals & Tourists

Posted on 23 October 2015 by Jerry

Protected space around the once power plant at Chernobyl is a very risky place. Climate change is raising temperatures and reducing rainfall everywhere. Brush and trees have taken over 70% of everything in the exclusion zone that is an area about four times the size of New York City. The area is prone to fires. The smoke that would be produced is especially toxic and can release contaminants that include radioactive isotopes of cesium, strontium and plutonium into the air.

This poses a risk certainly to Chernobyl but also to all of Europe. Wildfires have broken out in 2002, 2008 and 2010. They cumulatively redistributed an estimated 8% of the cesium-137 deposited by the original explosion. No one knows how damaging new fires would be but redistribution of the original cesium, strontium and plutonium might lead to crop contamination throughout Europe.

This possibility, that there might be crop contamination in Europe, is in part a result of the severity of the original contamination at Chernobyl. While this accident was one of only two events earning the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) rating of 7 it released 10 times the radiation of the other event that earned a 7 rating that was the meltdown at Fukushima, Japan. This 7 rating indicates “countermeasures to protect the public.”

While still not completely funded, the new Chernobyl protective cover is scheduled to be finished by November 2017. As you may remember a previous article on this blog (see Chernobyl 2012: the Disaster That Keeps Reminding) gives a complete description of the radiation damage suffered by the tons of concrete and iron used in the original covering of the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl.   The convex structure being built over the original ‘sarcophagus’ hopefully will allow us to dismantle the original reactor and remove all radioactive material from the power plant itself.

There is a conspiracy theory documentary about Chernobyl developed by Chad Garcia shown at the Sundance Film Festival entitled The Russian Woodpecker.  It points to the recent Russian actions in Ukraine and labels them an outgrowth of continued Russian meddling in the region. More importantly it offers an alternate description of the original meltdown at Chernobyl. This film points to other nuclear accidents like the 3rd most damaging contamination at Kyshtym (identified as a level 6 disaster by the International Nuclear Event Scale) also in the Soviet Union and draws an unflattering comparison to Chernobyl.

A recent international study of animal life in the Chernobyl exclusion zone headed by Tatiana Deryabina of the Polessye State Radioecological Reserve (PSRER) showed that wildlife in the zone has rebounded since the accident. Based on this study, there was no evidence of long-term radiation damage to the large mammal populations. The numbers of elk, wild boar and wolves grew. The wolf population is more than seven times larger than those in nearby uncontaminated nature reserves. The conclusion of these efforts was that the reason wildlife blossomed was more a result the absence of humans than anything else.

Co-author Jim Smith, a Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Portsmouth in the USA said, “This doesn’t mean radiation is good for wildlife, just that the effects of human habitation, including hunting, farming, and forestry, are a lot worse.” A recent article in The Guardian from early October 2015, stated, “But sadly, this study clearly shows that putting a big fence around an area to keep people out is beneficial to wildlife, even if the negative effects of radiation contamination on wildlife – increased mutation rates, cancers and other abnormalities – may be masked by this advantage.”

This series of articles implies that no people are allowed in the exclusion zone because of the dangers and yet there are several tour firms that care for the tourists who want to tour a once forbidden place or stay in one of the few hotels inside the exclusion zone.

Visitors are brought into the zone by tour busses from Kiev. Once in the exclusion zone they have to sign a disclaimer that warns them not to touch anything or sit on the ground. Body scanners are used just before tourists leave on the tour busses. If an alarm sounds, guards sweep the person for radioactive dust before they are allowed to leave.

It is just under thirty years since the explosions and nuclear contamination of Chernobyl. And yet, the surrounding town looks just as it did when it was evacuated days after the meltdown. The city of Pripyat looks the way it did before the fall of the iron curtain. Its Ferris wheel is rusted and traces of life in the former USSR are strewn everywhere.

As the site ages the radioactivity may lessen a little but will stay radioactive for decades. It is important we not forget why the area is off limits and what happened here lest we repeat it in the future or have another event that spreads radioactivity over a wide area.

Use the following links to obtain additional information or access the original documents used to write this article. cience/grrlscientist/2015/oct/05/what-happened-to-wildlife-when-chernobyl-drove-humans-out-it-thrived


Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , ,

Is There Cap and Trade in Our Future?

Posted on 18 October 2015 by Jerry

Countries are doing it. States are doing it. And groups of both are doing it. It only stands to reason that we (the U.S.) will be doing it some day, especially if the Republicans win. So what is a cap and trade program as it pertains to climate change?

There is nothing mysterious here, Cap and Trade is straightforward. An institution, a state or country, decides how much pollution they should be putting into the atmosphere and by what time in the past they exceeded their limit or at what level they will put a “cap” on their emissions. The objective normally is to return to some past level and better it by cutting emissions even further.

The institution normally gives out permits to various businesses. Those that put out emissions that stay just under their annual permitted amount see no change. Those that achieve targeted reductions can sell their excess permits to other businesses that need more time. In this way, companies can make money on the permits they can sell and other companies can buy themselves more time to achieve their required level. This is the business of selling and buying the permits.

Typically the cap is divided amongst various industries with each having a “cap” for their kind of business with all caps totaling the amount of carbon emissions the institution will allow to be generated during the year. The caps in each industry shrink over time cutting the industry’s overall emissions over a number of years.   In this way there is a belief that a cap and trade system gives all players another layer of motivation to achieve desired outcomes.

This sounds easy right, but it isn’t. The problem is that all pieces of the puzzle can be moved or changed to advantage various parties. So far California, the European Union and a host of other players have implemented different plans with a variety of outcomes. Others have announced plans they will institute in the future, like China.

Most people that have looked at cap and trade systems and other alternatives prefer a more straightforward tax on emissions. Never-the-less cap and trade systems are still favored by many businesses, politicians and by the finance community. They see them as something that can be “gamed” to an advantage by sharp people who can manipulate the political entities and regulators who set up and administer these programs.

Politicians and power companies like cap and trade systems because they mask that customer costs for power will go up dramatically. Their greatest fear is that the public will understand that the politician’s and power company’s actions are raising the consumer’s costs. The cap and trade mechanism hides that power companies will just pass on additional costs to its ratepayers as higher prices. This is a much sneakier way of raising costs for energy than just implementing an energy tax. No one wants to be the cause of higher prices.

Cap and trade has a checkered past. The California and European systems represent the best and worst of cap and trade plans. The European system is known as the Emission Trading System (ETS) and is the world’s largest such system.

There are more than 25 countries in the European Union and each country gave out too many permits to their industries. The politicians wanted to make their industries more competitive. Unfortunately they all felt that way and given they were afraid of their constituencies knowing they were the cause of higher prices, they all gamed the cap and trade system.

Critics point out that for much of the ETS history the prices generated have been so low that utilities have been dis-incented and made no progress on reducing their emissions. This is because they found it less expensive to run coal-fired plants than to switch to less polluting natural gas.

The California system is more successful because it is administered by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). This takes it out of the hands of politicians and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats that will make it work. While it remains much more complex and still allows the politicians to hide from rising prices, it is much more successful and has elements that are being copied around the world.

We must be realistic. Whether it is the result of a direct tax or a cap and trade system, energy prices to consumers will go up as power companies pass increased costs on to the consumer. Smart politicians will act now and put the effects of their actions out in the future so they will not be associated with charges during their political tenure. We, and especially our children, will all pay for climate change and coping with it.

But if we know we are going to pay for it and that sooner is cheaper than later, we will support higher charges now rather than even higher prices later. This is where knowledge and willingness collide to produce progress. We must act. Very smart people once asked, “If not now, when and if not us, whom?”

Use the following links to access more information or see the original documents used as the basis of this article.


Comments (1)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here
October 2015
« Sep   Nov »