Radioactive waste from an LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) decays down to background radiation in 300 years instead of a million years for U-235 based reactors. Initially LFTRs produce as much radioactivity as an U-235 based nuclear reactor, since fission converts mass to heat, but the decay products have a much shorter half-life. See the figure below.
Where is the storage for spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste now? Look at the map, it is scary.
And these are just the U.S. installations!
Many years ago I studied Engineering at Chalmers’ University in Sweden and I thought I would become a nuclear engineer. Sweden had at that time a peaceful heavy water based nuclear power program together with Canada and India. The advantage with heavy water as moderator is that it can use natural, un-enriched Uranium. One of the end products is of course Plutonium 239, the preferred material to make nuclear bombs, but it could also use Thorium, and the end product is then mostly Plutonium 238, used in space exploration, and we were dreaming big. One of the advantages of Thorium as fuel is that it produces about 0,01% of trans-Uranium waste compared to Uranium as fuel. About that time the U.S. proposed we should abandon the heavy water program and switch to light water enriched Uranium based nuclear power. They would sell the enriched Uranium, and reprocess the spent fuel at cost. They also had the ideal final resting place for the radioactive waste products in Nevada. This was an offer the Swedish government could not refuse, at the height of the cold war. This was in the 1960’s! India on the other hand did refuse, and they eventually got the nuclear bomb. Since that meant Sweden was never going to use Thorium as nuclear fuel, and I could not figure out how to get rid of all the radioactive waste products, I switched my attention back to control engineering.
.What did President Trump mean with innovative approaches?
Is this where Thorium comes in!? Thorium solves many problems with nuclear energy. Meanwhile the Biden administration and Congress keep hoarding nuclear waste in local storages.
Thorium nuclear power is the only realistic solution to power space colonies. To form space colonies, power has to be provided to sustain the colony. This means that Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) have to be fully developed and operational here on earth before serious space colony development can even begin. It need to get started in earnest NOW!
Kirk Sorensen has provided an intriguing teaser on the case for Thorium nuclear energy.
A Thorium based nuclear power generator produces Pu-238 as one of the final TRansUranium products, which is in short supply and much in demand for space exploration nuclear power.
NASA relies on pu-238 to power long-lasting spacecraft batteries that transform heat into electricity. With foreign and domestic supplies dwindling, NASA officials are worried the shortage will prevent the agency from sending spacecraft to the outer planets and other destinations where sunlight is scarce. Thorium reactors produce PU-238 as a “free” byproduct. In 2009 Congress denied a request to produce more Pu-238 by traditional means, instead relying on Russia to sell us the plutonium. (Remember the Russian reset?) Russia made their last delivery in 2010. PU-238 production has since been restarted by converting Ne-237 to Pu-238 at a cost of over 8 million dollars per kilogram. The Ceres-Dawn spacecraft used over 22 Kg of Pu-238 as electricity generator.
To get the best efficiency of generating Pu-238 out of a molten salt Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, the excess U-233 and TRansUranium products have to be extracted continuously while the reactor is running, and this technology is not yet implemented, but is necessary to implement before we can also have Thorium power on the moon, and Thorium Power is the only viable solution if we are ever going to have a moon colony, so we should rapidly develop the technology privately and with the cooperation of the Space Force and NASA.
Uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof, in any physical or chemical form, or ores that contain, by weight, one-twentieth of one percent (0.05 percent) or more of (1) uranium, (2) thorium, or (3) any combination thereof. Source material does not include special nuclear material. For additional detail, see Source Material.
Thorium 232 has a half life of 14 billion years, about the same as the generally accepted age of the universe until the dell telescope discovered much more than was known
Uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years and Uranium 235 has a half life of 700 million years.
In addition Uranium has as its first transition Thorium generation on its path down to the final stable state, Lead. This means that Uranium is at least four times as radioactive as Thorium.
It is interesting to observe that in the decay path of both Uranium and Thorium they pass through Radon and emit two alpha particles on the way.
The definition for Source material should therefore be changed to:
Uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof, in any physical or chemical form, or ores that contain, by weight, one-twentieth of one percent (0.05 percent) or more of (1) uranium, 0.2 percent of (2) thorium, or (3) any proportional combination thereof.
Why is this important? The U.S. used to be world leader in rare earth metals production. Then when the regulation on Source Material was instituted, mining rare earth metals with a small amount of Thorium became unprofitable and China took over, and developed a near monopoly on the market, in effect making rare earth metals single sourced. Rare earth metals, as well as Thorium is of great strategic value.
Here is an example:
This is the Mount Weld Rare Earth Mine in Western Australia. It is owned by Lynas Corporation. The mined ore, after concentration is shipped to Malaysia for final refining. The concentrated ore contains 30% rare earth metals ready for separation, but the ore also contains 0.16% Thorium. For the moment, only the most sought after rare earth metals are refined, the rest are left on the slag heap, which includes Thorium. This makes it nuclear waste according to a multitude of protestors, after all it is source material. To complicate matters further, China is looking to grab the mine, so they stir up as much trouble as possible
This is insanity. In 2011 the Oak Ridge Laboratories had a stockpile of 1400 kg U 233. They have been busy downblending it into depleted uranium to render it useless, and there is now only about 450 kg left. Unless this insanity is stopped asap Thorium nuclear power will be set back immensely, since U233 is used as the startplug for the cleanest Thorium nuclear power production
The bill is introduced. It should be immediately passed in the Senate, and be passed in the house without amendments. Any delay is critical. It is that important. We gave the technology to the Chinese so they can build up their naval fleet with molten salt Thorium nuclear power. Meanwhile we still have some u-233 left, worth billions as a National Security asset. At the very least, we must stop downblending immediately, even before the bill is passed.
A bill to provide for the preservation and storage of uranium-233 to foster development of thorium molten-salt reactors, and for other purposes. Tracking Information
Register now for our free OneVote public service or GAITS Pro trial account and you can begin tracking this and other legislation, all driven by the real-time data of the LegiScan API. Providing tools allowing you to research pending legislation, stay informed with email alerts, content feeds, and share dynamic reports. Use our new PolitiCorps to join with friends and collegaues to monitor & discuss bills through the process.
To provide for the preservation and storage of uranium-233 to foster development of thorium molten-salt reactors, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 18 (legislative day, May 17), 2022
Mr. Tuberville (for himself and Mr. Marshall) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
A BILL
To provide for the preservation and storage of uranium-233 to foster development of thorium molten-salt reactors, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Thorium Energy Security Act of 2022”.
SEC. 2. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Thorium molten-salt reactor technology was originally developed in the United States, primarily at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the State of Tennessee under the Molten-Salt Reactor Program.
(2) Before the cancellation of that program in 1976, the technology developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory was moving steadily toward efficient utilization of the natural thorium energy resource, which exists in substantial amounts in many parts of the United States, and requires no isotopic enrichment.
(3) The People’s Republic of China is known to be pursuing the development of molten-salt reactor technology based on a thorium fuel cycle.
(4) Thorium itself is not fissile, but fertile, and requires fissile material to begin a nuclear chain reaction. This largely accounts for its exclusion for nuclear weapons developments.
(5) Uranium-233, derived from neutron absorption by natural thorium, is the ideal candidate for the fissile material to start a thorium reactor, and is the only fissile material candidate that can minimize the production of long-lived transuranic elements like plutonium, which have proven a great challenge to the management of existing spent nuclear fuel.
(6) Geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel from conventional nuclear reactors continues to pose severe political and technical challenges, and costs United States taxpayers more than $500,000,000 annually in court-mandated payments to electrical utilities operating nuclear reactors.
(7) The United States possesses the largest known inventory of separated uranium-233 in the world, aggregated at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
(8) Oak Ridge National Laboratory building 3019 was designated in 1962 as the national repository for uranium-233 storage, and its inventory eventually grew to about 450 kilograms of separated uranium-233, along with approximately 1,000 kilograms of mixed fissile uranium from the Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Program (commonly referred to as “CEUSP”), divided into approximately 1,100 containers.
(9) The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board issued Recommendation 97–1 (relating to safe storage of uranium-233) in 1997 because of the possibility of corrosion or other degradation around the storage of uranium-233 in a building that was built in 1943.
(10) In response, the Department of Energy published Decision Memorandum No. 2 in 2001 concluding that no Department of Energy programs needed uranium-233 and directed that a contract be placed for disposition of the uranium-233 inventory and decommissioning of its storage facility.
(11) The Department of Energy awarded a contract for the irreversible downblending of uranium-233 with uranium-238 and its geologic disposal in Nevada, which downblending would create a waste form that would pose radiological hazards for hundreds of thousands of years, rather than to consider uranium-233 as a useful national asset.
(12) All 1,000 kilograms of CEUSP uranium-233-based material have been dispositioned (but not downblended) but those containers had little useful uranium-233 in them. The majority of separated and valuable uranium-233 remains uncontaminated by uranium-238 and suitable for thorium fuel cycle research and development. That remaining inventory constitutes the largest supply of uranium-233 known to exist in the world today.
(13) The United States has significant domestic reserves of thorium in accessible high-grade deposits, which can provide thousands of years of clean energy if used efficiently in a liquid-fluoride reactor initially started with uranium-233.
(14) Recently (as of the date of the enactment of this Act), the Department of Energy has chosen to fund a series of advanced reactors that are all dependent on initial inventories and regular resupplies of high-assay, low-enriched uranium.
(15) There is no domestic source of high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel, and there are no available estimates as to how long the development of a domestic supply of that fuel would take or how expensive such development would be.
(16) The only viable source of high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel is through continuous import from sources in the Russian Federation.
(17) The political situation with the Russian Federation as of the date of the enactment of this Act is sufficiently uncertain that it would be unwise for United States-funded advanced reactor development to rely on high-assay, low-enriched uranium since the Russian Federation would be the primary source and can be expected to undercut any future United States production, resulting in a dependency on high-assay, low-enriched uranium from the Russian Federation.
(18) The United States has abandoned the development of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain and is seeking a consenting community to allow interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, but valid concerns persist that an interim storage facility will become a permanent storage facility.
(19) Without a closed fuel cycle, high-assay, low-enriched uranium-fueled reactors inevitably will produce long-lived wastes that presently have no disposition pathway.
(20) The United States possesses enough uranium-233 to support further research and development as well as fuel the startup of several thorium reactors. Thorium reactors do not require additional fuel or high-assay, low-enriched uranium from the Russian Federation.
(21) Continuing the irreversible destruction of uranium-233 precludes privately funded development of the thorium fuel cycle, which would have long term national and economic security implications.
SEC. 3. Sense of Congress.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) it is in the best economic and national security interests of the United States to resume development of thorium molten-salt reactors that can minimize long-lived waste production, in consideration of—
(A) the pursuit by the People’s Republic of China of thorium molten-salt reactors and associated cooperative research agreements with United States national laboratories; and
(B) the present impasse around the geological disposal of nuclear waste;
(2) that the development of thorium molten-salt reactors is consistent with section 1261 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232; 132 Stat. 2060), which declared long-term strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China as “a principal priority for the United States”; and
(3) to resume such development, it is necessary to relocate as much of the uranium-233 remaining at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as possible to new secure storage.
SEC. 4. Definitions.
In this Act:
(1) CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES.—The term “congressional defense committees” has the meaning given that term in section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code.
(2) DOWNBLEND.—The term “downblend” means the process of adding a chemically identical isotope to an inventory of fissile material in order to degrade its nuclear value.
(3) FISSILE MATERIAL.—The term “fissile material” refers to uranium-233, uranium-235, plutonium-239, or plutonium-241.
(4) HIGH-ASSAY, LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM.—The term “high-assay, low-enriched uranium” (commonly referred to as “HALEU”) means a mixture of uranium isotopes very nearly but not equaling or exceeding 20 percent of the isotope uranium-235.
(5) TRANSURANIC ELEMENT.—The term “transuranic element” means an element with an atomic number greater than the atomic number of uranium (92), such as neptunium, plutonium, americium, or curium.
SEC. 5. Preservation of uranium-233 to foster development of thorium molten-salt reactors.
The Secretary of Energy shall preserve uranium-233 inventories that have not been contaminated with uranium-238, with the goal of fostering development of thorium molten-salt reactors by United States industry.
SEC. 6. Storage of uranium-233.
(a) Report on long-Term storage of uranium-233.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the heads of other relevant agencies, shall submit to Congress a report identifying a suitable location for, or a location that can be modified for, secure long-term storage of uranium-233.
(b) Report on interim storage of uranium-233.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to Congress a report identifying a suitable location for secure interim storage of uranium-233.
(c) Report on construction of uranium-233 storage facility at Redstone Arsenal.—Not later than 240 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to Congress a report on the costs of constructing a permanent, secure storage facility for uranium-233 at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, that is also suitable for chemical processing of uranium-233 pursuant to a public-private partnership with thorium reactor developers.
(d) Funding.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the U233 Disposition Program for fiscal year 2022 or 2023 shall be made available for the transfer of the inventory of uranium-233 to the interim or permanent storage facilities identified under this section.
SEC. 7. Interagency cooperation on preservation and transfer of uranium-233.
The Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the Army (including the head of the Army Reactor Office), the Secretary of Transportation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and other relevant agencies shall—
(1) work together to preserve uranium-233 inventories and expedite transfers of uranium-233 to interim and permanent storage facilities; and
(2) in expediting such transfers, seek the assistance of appropriate industrial entities.
SEC. 8. Report on use of thorium reactors by People’s Republic of China.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Administrator for Nuclear Security, shall submit to Congress a report that—
(1) evaluates the progress the People’s Republic of China has made in the development of thorium-based reactors;
(2) describes the extent to which that progress was based on United States technology;
(3) details the actions the Department of Energy took in transferring uranium-233 technology to the People’s Republic of China; and
(4) assesses the likelihood that the People’s Republic of China may employ thorium reactors in its future navy plans.
SEC. 9. Report on medical market for isotopes of uranium-233.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, after consultation with institutions of higher education and private industry conducting medical research and the public, shall submit to Congress a report that estimates the medical market value, during the 10-year period after the date of the enactment of this Act, of actinium, bismuth, and other grandchildren isotopes of uranium-233 that can be harvested without downblending and destroying the uranium-233 source material.
SEC. 10. Report on costs to United States nuclear enterprise.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, after consultation with relevant industry groups and nuclear regulatory agencies, shall submit to Congress a report that estimates, for the 10-year period after the date of the enactment of this Act, the costs to the United States nuclear enterprise with respect to—
(1) disposition of uranium-233;
(2) payments to nuclear facilities to store nuclear waste; and
(3) restarting the manufacturing the United States of high-assay, low-enriched uranium.
If you live in the higher latitudes, rain is a nuisance, and as they say in England: Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it. In areas of drought, rain is a blessing. The quip ‘poem’ refers to the Bible (of course) and can be found in Matthew 5:43-45. Jesus says in the sermon on the mount:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Modern English Version).
It all goes back to the beginning: The Bible says in Genesis 1:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.
3 God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, …..
So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
Day 3,4,5 and 6 God created Sun, Moon and stars, flora and fauna all after its kind, and at the end of each day God saw that it was good. But God didn’t say it was good after day two!
At the end of day six 26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
After God had created man in His own image, one kind, two equivalent sexes, male and female, the ecosystem that was started in day 2 was complete, including man and woman; God could finally say: It was very good. God gave us the stewardship of earth, and it is our responsibility not to destroy God’s creation.
There is now great anxiety that we will exceed the all important 1.5 degree Celsius temperature increase since pre-industrial times soon, since we are about to have another el niño. A direct quote in Jan 2019 from scaremonger congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez states: ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,‘ Her ‘solution’ is to follow the climate alarmists and do away with all fossil fuel in the next 8 years or sooner. As if that would solve anything.
There is a better solution. CO2 is our strongest greenhouse gas, next after water vapor, which is between 5 and 10 times stronger. In fact water vapor is a condensing gas and exists in the atmosphere as unsaturated, oversaturated, as water drops and as ice crystals. The critical thing about precipitation as rain or snow is that it is increasing in areas that already get enough, and is decreasing in areas of insufficient rain or snow. Since 1901, global annual precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.04 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.20 inches per decade. The eastern parts of the United States have experienced greater increases in precipitation, while the American southwest has experienced a decrease. For example, the Colorado river basin has experienced an annual precipitation decline of 0.6 inches per decade, see fig.
Looking at all of the contiguous 48 states, the precipitation figure looks like this:
In the East it is all about water responsibilities, you must build a catch basin to catch the water that falls on roads and roofs and other paved surfaces, and release it slowly to lessen floods. In the West it is the other way around, it is all about water rights. If you don’t own the water rights on your property you are not even allowed to water the plants outside with the water that falls on the roof of your own house, even though thatt would benefit the aquifer. In fact, one of the most effective way to destroy the environment is to deplete the aquifers. The situation for the aquifers in the world is already dire. Nearly all big cities in the 10-40 latitudes zone that are not fed by major rivers are already depleting their aquifers at an alarming rate. Mexico City e.g. have exhausted their aquifers and are looking for more water supplies. In addition the lakes are disappearing. Salt Lake is a third of what it was in 1970,The Aral Sea is but a memory, rivers are being dammed so much that even the Euphrates river was running dry last fall, the list goes on. This must be solved.
This is a proposal. As in the east, let the water rights belong to the property and cannot be sold separately. This way the water can be stored where it will do most good, at the source. With this comes water responsibility. The landowner is responsible for maintaining the aquifer, and keep it replenished at all times. In times of drought, the aquifers can be temporarily drawn down if there is no water available to purchase at market value. This requires a water exchange market, complete with futures. (This is much more important than a Carbon exchange market). When the drought is over the aquifers must be refilled over time. The West is mostly federal land, except for Indian reservations, see map:
The Indian reservations will be given back the water rights they had before it was taken from them, which was the water that rained on their land. In addition they will be given back the right to use the water from the rivers up to the point of reason, that is what was used before settlers came and took the water rights. They will get the river water free, that will be their reparations, everyone else will have to pay market price for river water. (In the east, the rivers will have excess water, so the price will be zero. and the price for cleaning the water will be paid by the consumer). In the American Southwest, water is the most valuable resource, so water should be priced in an open market.
But how does all of this affect climate change?
The American Southwest is becoming desertified. That means it is slowly made a desert. The aquifers are being depleted and rain is diminishing. This leads to less clouds and even less rain. The worst example is the disappearance of the Aral Sea. Central government (of CSSR) thought it was a good idea to grow cotton and irrigate the land. After a few years of great harvests the rivers dried up, the lake almost disappeared, the clouds disappeared and the rains stopped. This was done in the 70’s and a million people had to be resettled to where there still was water.
The solution is to change the land use to produce more clouds and more rain and snow. To collect the water in lakes, dams and rivers leads to more evaporation, but not more clouds and rain. Only well restored aquifers will solve the problem, together with replanting indigenous trees and other vegetation. For example Pine trees emit ideal aerosols for cloud generation when water vapor becomes oversaturated thanks to evapotranspiration from the same trees. The aquifers must be sufficiently refilled to sustain trees. The trees makes the soil cooler, so unwanted evaporation will be less. The same forests must be well maintained to avoid large wildfires.
It is expensive, but much cheaper than trying to solve climate change by mining up the whole world trying to find enough Lithium, Cobalt and rare earth metals for all the electric cars, trucks and batteries to store the energy needed when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. A hint: Use Thorium to replace coal for electricity production, It is already mined when mining rare earth metals. There are many reasons to produce Thorium Nuclear Power. Here are 30 of them
By far, the strongest greenhouse gas is water vapor, not because it is very strong of itself, but it absorbs nearly all outgoing energy in the infrared spectrum except in the so called atmospheric window, where it only partially absorbs. Yet water vapor is missing from the IPCC calculations. Instead is put in a forcing multiplier to account for the water vapor
IPCC has consistently treated the effect of greenhouse gasses as additive, but it is impossible to absorb more than 100% of all emitted energy for a given wavelength. This leads to an overestimation of absorption when 2 or more gases are present. For example, if CO2 absorbs 90% of available energy at 13 μm and water vapor another 50%, the sum is 90% + (1 -0.9} * 0.5 = 95%, not 140%. To see more how the calculations are made, see here.
We have valid satellite data from 1979, and they give very good global averages. so as a test I took a quick look at the temperature rise from 1980 to 2022 and compared what the rise would be, if all greenhouse and other factors would add up to, and to my surprise the result came within 4% of real data, see here.
Between 2022 and 2050 CO2 concentration is expected to increase from 415 ppm to 460 ppm and Methane from 1.9 ppm to 2.23 ppm. these are the most important greenhouse gases after water vapor. The calculations are here.
Extended to 2100 IPCC has given 4 scenarios for future temperature development. RCP 8.5 assumes that all future energy growth is provided by fossil fuel, and at least most nuclear energy is phased out. the 8.5 stands for W/m2 for CO2 increase as per IPCC calculation. See further here.
RPC 6 and RPC 4.5 are intermediate stages , while RPC 2.6 achieves net CO2 decline by 2100, but still rising temperature. Here is a figure for the different scenarios.
Calculations:
Scenario 1: RCP 8.5, CO2 1370 ppm, CH4 4 ppm, N2O+20%, HFC +20%, air pollutants -50%, population 12 billion, GDP 170 Trillion$ (2000)
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 2050 until 2100:
Effect from water vapor increase: 2.22 C or 10.54 W/m2;
Effect from rising CO2: 0.40C or 1.89 W/m2;
Effect from rising Methane: 0.09C or 0.43 W/m2,
Effect from rising N2O: 0.005C or 0.024 W/m2
Effect from rising Ozone: 0.0005C or 0.002 W/m2
Effect from rising HFCs : 0.006 C or 0.027 W/m2
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2050 to 2100: 2.72 C or 12.9 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 2050 to 2100:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.02C or – 0.10 W/m2
Temperature increase from changing solar spot activity + 0.007 C or 0.033 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature decrease of – 0.03 C or – 0.12 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.004C or 0.020 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.001C or 0.005 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 2050 to 2100: 0.060 C or 0.308 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 2050 TO 2100 FROM ALL CAUSES: 2.78 C or 13.2 W/m2
Scenario 2: RCP 6.5, CO2 850 ppm, CH4 1.9 ppm, N2O-10%, HFC +20%, air pollutants -50%, population 9.5 billion, GDP 160 T$
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 2050 until 2100:
Effect from water vapor increase: 1.28C or 5.95 W/m2;
Effect from rising CO2: 0.20 C or 0.93 W/m2;
Effect from falling Methane: – 0.02C or 0.08 W/m2,
Effect from rising N2O: 0.001C or 0.005 W/m2
Effect from rising Ozone: 0.0005C or 0.002 W/m2
Effect from rising HFCs : 0.006 C or 0.027 W/m2
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2050 to 2100: 1.4665 C or 6.83 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 2050 to 2100:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.02C or 0.10 W/m2
Temperature increase from changing solar spot activity + 0.007 C or 0.033 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Less pollution aerosols cause a temperature increase of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.002C or 0.010 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.001C or 0.005 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 2050 to 2100: 0.138 C or 0.658 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 2050 TO 2100 FROM ALL CAUSES: 1.6 C or 7.5 W/m2
Scenario 3: RCP 4, CO2 650 ppm, CH4 2.0 ppm, N2O-10%, HFC 0%, air pollutants -50%, population 8.7 billion, GDP 280 T$
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 2050 until 2100:
Effect from water vapor increase: 0.88 C or 4.19 W/m2;
Effect from rising CO2: 0.08 C or 0.40 W/m2;
Effect from stable Methane: 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2,
Effect from falling N2O: 0.004C or 0.02 W/m2
Effect from stable Ozone: 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2
Effect from stable HFCs : 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2050 to 2100: 0.964C or 4.61 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 2050 to 2100:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.02C or 0.10 W/m2
Temperature increase from changing solar spot activity + 0.007 C or 0.033 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature increase of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.002C or 0.010 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.001C or 0.005 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 2050 to 2100: 0.135 C or 0.658 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 2050 TO 2100 FROM ALL CAUSES: 1.1 C or 5.3 W/m2
Scenario 4: RCP 2.6, CO2 490 ppm, CH4 1.5 ppm, N2O-15%, HFC -10%, air pollutants -75%, population 9 billion, GDP 320 T$
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 2050 until 2100:
Effect from water vapor increase: 0.55 C or 2.55W/m2;
Effect from rising CO2: 0.02C or 0.07 W/m2;
Effect from declining Methane: – 0.01C or 0.06 W/m2,
Effect from stable N2O: 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2
Effect from stable Ozone: 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2
Effect from stable HFCs : 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2050 to 2100: 0.56 C or 2.56 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 2050 to 2100:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.02C or 0.10 W/m2
Temperature increase from changing solar spot activity + 0.007 C or 0.033 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.02 C or 0.10 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature increase of 0.08 C or 0.36 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.002C or 0.010 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.001C or 0.005 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 2050 to 2100: 0.138 C or 0.64 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 2050 TO 2100 FROM ALL CAUSES: 0.70 C or 3.2 W/m2
The temperature data from 1980 to 2022 is the control group, and is based on real data.It was then the basis for doing the 2022 to 2050 calculation assuming no mitigation efforts, the most likely result if none of the Paris accord is implemented. The climate target is to stay under + 1.5 C, and this model, that worked better than 95% accurate between 1980 and 2022, comes up with a temperature rise of 1.28C, well below the 1.5C maximum rise since the 1800s
By far, the strongest greenhouse gas is water vapor, not because it is very strong of itself, but it absorbs nearly all outgoing energy in the infrared spectrum except in the so called atmospheric window, where it only partially absorbs. Yet water vapor is missing from the IPCC calculations. instead they put in a forcing multiplier to account for the addition of water.
IPCC has consistently treated the effect of greenhouse gasses as additive, but it is impossible to absorb more than 100% of all emitted energy for a given wavelength. This leads to an overestimation of absorption when 2 or more gasses are present. For example, if CO2 absorbs 90% of available energy at 13 μm and water vapor another 50%, the sum is 90% + (1 -0.9} * 0.5 = 95%, not 140%.
Between 2022 and 2050 CO2 concentration is expected to increase from 415 ppm to 460 ppm and Methane from 1.9 ppm to 2.23 ppm. these are the most important greenhouse gasses except water vapor.
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 2022 until 2050:
Effect from water vapor increase: 0.13 C or 0.62 W/m2;
Effect from rising CO2: 0.025C or 0.12 W/m2;
Effect from rising Methane: 0.02C or 0.08 W/m2,
Effect from rising N2O: 0.004C or 0.02 W/m2
Effect from rising Ozone: 0.0011C or 0.005 W/m2
Effect from rising HFCs : 0.0060 C or 0.027 W/m2
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2022 to 2050: 0.1861C or 0.8720 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 2022 to 2050:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.011 C or 0.05 W/m2
Temperature decrease from changing solar spot activity – 0.007 C or 0.021 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature decrease of – 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.0035C or 0.017 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.0008C or 0.004 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 2022 to 2050: 0.0363 C or 0.182 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 2022 TO 2050 FROM ALL CAUSES: 0.2224 C or 1.054 W/m2
Summary of all causes for climate change from now until 2050:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.000005C
Effect from the potential Eddy Grand Solar minimum: 0 to – 1C. Yes,that’s cooler
Effect from the Milankovitch cycles: – 0.0135C
Effect from reversing the magnetic poles: undetermined.
Direct effect from rising CO2: 0.025C
Effect from increasing CO2 increasing water vapor : 0.03 C
All other greenhouse gasses combined 0.032 C
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover 0.27C
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.063C
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification 0.0015C
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2023 to 2050: 0.384 C rise to 0,616 C decrease if the Dodd grand solar minimum occurs
The temperature data from 1980 to 2022 is the control group, and is based on real data.It was then the basis for doing the 2022 to 2050 calculation assuming no mitigation efforts, the most likely result if none of the Paris accord is implemented. The climate target is to stay under + 1.5 C, and this model, that worked better than 95% accurate between 1980 and 2022, comes up with a temperature rise of 1.28C, well below the 1.5C maximum rise since the late 1800s
This admittedly simple climate model takes into account the expected temperature influence for eac component, but it also takes into account that it is impossible to absorb more energy than is available for each component. When saturation occurs, that’s it. For calculations, see here and here
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 1980 until 2022:
Effect from water vapor increase: 0.37 C or 1.75 W/m2; 80.9% of total
Effect from rising CO2: 0.04C or 0.19 W/m2; 8.78% of total
Effect from rising Methane: 0.036 C or 0.17 W/m2, 7.86% of total
Effect from rising N2O: 0.0065 C or 0.031 W/m2 1.4% of total
Effect from rising Ozone: 0.0034C or 0.016 W/m2 0.7% of total
Effect from rising HFCs : 0.0015 C or 0.007 W/m2 0.3% of total
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 1980 to 2022: 0.4544C or 2.164 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 1980 to 2022:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.021 C or 0.1 W/m2
Temperature decrease from changing solar spot activity – 0.021 C or 0.1 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.10 C or 0.48 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.1 C or 0.48 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature decrease of – 0.1 C or 0.48 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.0063C or 0.030 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.0015C or 0.007 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 1980 to 2022: 0.0628 C or 0.303 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 1980 TO 2022 FROM ALL CAUSES: 0.5172 C or 2.467 W/m2
This is well within the uncertainty band, being at least plus minus 10%, for such a crude calculation, but at least it is better than all climate models (except one) Here is the picture compared with other climate models:
In a previous blog (see here) I investigated the importance of greenhouse gasses and their influence from 1980 to 2022, a time period from which we have good satellite data, and found that the two greenhouse gases mentioned most, CO2 and methane together contributed to less than 20% of the total temperature increase of 0.5 degree Celsius. The greenhouse gases total contributed 0.4544C or 2.164 W/m2, or well within the margin of error. However there are many more interesting causes for climate change other tnas greenhouse gases, as they occurred in the last 42 years.
My quest is by no means complete, and there are known events yet to happen that are not included, but here are the component:
1. The sun is getting warmer and will explode, but before that there will be a thermal runaway on earth.
Believe it or not, this is how Dr. James Lovelock started trying out to find when the earth’s self regulating ability would come to an end. This eventually lead to the GAIA hypothesis. It turns out that the sun gets brighter at a rate of just over 1% every 100 million years—Earth would suffer this “runaway greenhouse” in 600 million to 700 million years. In the past 42 years the warming trend would amount to a temperature increase of 0.0000003C or 0.0000014 W/m2
2. The sun has 11 year sunspot cycles with varying activity
The sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years or so. and the sunspot intensity varies with time. 1980 was a year with maximum solar activity and 2022 was a year with less than 1/3 of the 1980 sunspot activity. The energy output from the sun at maximum sunspot activity is 1360 W/m2, but the sun only shines on half the earth at any time, and at less than 90 angles, so the net energy is 340 W/m2. The difference between solar maximum and solar minimum is about 0.07%, so the net energy decrease from the sun in 2022 from 1980 is 340 * 0.07% * 1/3 = 0.08W/m2, or 0.02C
3. The effect of the Milankovitch cycles.
We are near the end of the interglacial period, and from now on we will slowly enter a new ice age at a rate of – 1C per 2000 years.This means we were cooling down another 0.021C or 0.1 W/m2 from 1980 to 2022
4. The effect from decreasing cloud cover.
White = 100% cloud cover, Dark blue = o% cloud cover
This is a world map showing the average cloud cover in August 2009. It shows the cloud free areas of the earth in blue. Another way to look at it is to see how much total water vapor there is in the atmosphere:
Nowhere on earth can it rain out more than two inches without more humidity being transported in from another place. Over the ocean humidity gets replenished by evaporation, over land only areas that has vegetation or swamps or lakes will replenish humidity by evaporation. Keep these charts in mind for later. For now concentrate on the decreasing average cloud cover. It has only been measured for the last 40 years, but here are the results:
There are many different clouds, low, mid-level and high clouds, and they have changed differently over the same time span:
Of these clouds, the low level clouds are reflecting the most, so the 2.4% loss in average cloud cover is an assumption on the low side on the loss of reflection.
In 1984 the average cloud cover was 63.7%, in 2019, 35 years later it was 61.1%, a loss of 2.6%. over 35 years or 0.075% /year. This amounts to a loss of 3.1% from 1980 until 2022now until 2050 The total reflection from clouds and atmospheric scattering is 77 W/m2, of which 60 is from cloud reflection. A 3.1% loss of area of reflection leads to a decreasing of incoming energy of 60 * 0.031 = 1.8 W/m2 or 0.38 degree Celsius increase
Since clouds diminished, reflection and radiation from the earths surface increased by the 3.1%, which comes to 31% of 10% o f the earth’s radiation of 340 W/m2 = 1.05 W2 or 0.22 C decrease.
Total effect of clouds diminishing between 1980 and 2022 is a temperature increase of 0.16C or 0.75 W/m2.
There is a caveat to this calculations. It has so far taken only into account cloud averages, but it matters greatly if clouds appear at day or night, what time of day and what time of the year. Here is a picture from the equatorial Pacific:
The day starts out with no clouds, about 8:30 A.M. clouds start to appear, and the temperature drops while the sun is still rising. This means clouds have a negative feedback effect minimizing the temperature effect from the sun-cloud cycle. Much more could be said about that, but as an assumption the changing cloud effect reduced the temperature rise from diminishing clouds. My estimate is that the diminishing cloud effect was only two thirds of what would be expected without the negative feedback, or from 1980 to 2022 of a temperature increase of 0.11C or 0.50 W/m2.
5. The effects from air and water pollution not related to cloud formation. a. The warming of the Northern Arctic region.
North America has great rivers, none greater than the mighty Mississippi. It used to be a meandering river with frequent floods that resulted in depositing its silt over large areas and thus fertilizing the land. The American Indians living by the river moved to its new location after the water receded, and they could use the newly fertilized land. After the Louisiana purchase river traffic grew rapidly, but shifting sandbars and the excessively winding river became a problem, so the Mississippi river was converted to be the main transportation artery of the middle USA, the river banks were reinforced and the course of the river straightened. This meant that more of the silt was transported out into the Mexican Gulf, some of the silt that used to fertilize the soil instead fertilized the Mexican gulf. In addition, the Mississippi river used to be very polluted, but is now clean enough that it can be used for drinking water after treatment all the way down to Louisiana. There remains elevated concentration of nitrogen compounds so the Mexican Gulf suffers from excessive algae blooms and even red tide from time to time. This leads to more cloud formation and more rain in the United States east of the 98th meridian. This also occurs in Northern Europe, especially in the North Sea; the rivers flowing into the North Sea are rich in nutrients. The Baltic Sea was near oxygen death, but after the Baltic countries and Poland joined the EU, their rivers got partially cleaned up. In the far East the Yellow Sea and the South China sea are suffering major pollution. All these regions produce more clouds, and through prevailing winds some end up in the Arctic, where they snow out, except in the Summer when they rain out except on Greenland where it snows 12 months of the year. This leads to increasing winter temperatures of about 5.5 C above the 80th latitude, 2.5 C in spring and fall and a decrease of about 0.5 C in the summer (it takes a long time to melt that extra snow). This affects about 4% of the earth’s surface, so the total temperature increase from over-fertilizing the rivers is 0.04 * 2.5 = 0.1 C. No such effect occurs in the Antarctic. At the South Pole in the winter the air is clean, there is almost no water vapor and the winter temperature at the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station between April and September 2021, a frigid minus-78 degrees (minus-61 Celsius), was the coldest on record, dating back to 1957, and the trend is 1 C colder per century. In the summer the trend is increasing temperatures.To illustrate the current yearly temperature trend in the Arctic, see this current polar temperature chart:
Even more illustrative is the development of ice on Greenland. In 2012 it looked like all of Greenland was going to melt in less than 1000 years, and the polar ice cap would be gone altogether in late summer of 2020. The ice over Greenland is now growing ever so slightly again:
b. The effect of various air pollution.
Yes, there is rising air pollution in the world. Some result in clouds, some don’t. Here is the cloud over China:
Heavy smog has shrouded much of eastern China, and air quality levels have been dropped to extremely dangerous levels. The heavy smog is caused by industrial pollution, coal and agricultural burning, and has been trapped by the mountains to the west and wind patterns. The thick haze of smog is clearly visible as the murky gray color in this true color satellite image. NASA/NOAA
The major effect from air pollution is that it generates aerosols that act as condensation points for cloud formation if the air is oversaturated with moisture. In the last 42 years the air has gotten cleaner in the industrial west, not so in China, South Asia and Africa. The net result was a 3.1 % drop in cloud cover and the resulting temperature rise is already accounted for. There are no good worldwide analyses of ancient cloud cover, but air pollution was rising rapidly until the clean air act, enacted in 1963 was beginning to show results in the 70’s. However, ancient method of heating with coal, wood, peat and dried cowdung was far more polluting and harmful to your lungs. If U.S is eliminating all remaining coal plants the CO2 will still be rising since China is planning to build another 1070 coal burning power plants by 2030. The cloud of aerosol pollution from Pakistan to Korea did cause a temperature decrease of 0.4 W/m2 or 0.1 C.
c. The effect of greening of most of the earth.
There is one great benefit of increased CO2, the greening of the earth.
Thanks to this greening, about 15% more leaves and grass since 1982, done with only the fertilizer of CO2, the earth can now keep another 2 billion people from starvation, not to mention what good it does for plants and wildlife.
The greening of the earth will cause a temperature to increase, thanks to the lowering of the albedo of green leaves and grass rather than desert sand. In addition, with rising CO2 levels the leaves need less water to perform the photosynthesis, so the net result from lowering the albedo by 15% of 0.05 over 17% of the world leads to a warming of the earth. The average albedo on land is 30%, and 17% of the earth lowers the albedo by 15% of 0.05 this lowers the total albedo of the earth by 0.13%.
The total reflection of sunlight from the earth is 22.9 W/m2, so a lowering of the albedo of that of 0.13% leads to a temperature increase of 0.030 W/m2, or 0.0063 degree Celsius.
d. The areas that are becoming more like a desert.
Most of the earth displays an increase of leaf area, but there are areas in red that are becoming less green. The areas are: The American Southwest, The Pampas area of South America, a 100 mile band in Southern Sahara, part of East Africa, Madagascar, South East Africa, Western Australia, Part of the Volga region, Kazakhstan east of Lake Aral and various parts of China, and the Mekong river. These areas have this in common, the aquifers ate being depleted, the rivers are diminishing and some of them no longer reach the ocean, lakes are almost disappearing, but people still move to those areas “for the good climate”.
The areas so affected are about 900,000 sq miles of the American Southwest and about 3 million square miles total to suffer from becoming more like a desert. The common theme of all these areas is depletion of the aquifers, rivers diminishing, lakes drying up and soil erosion.
The only part of the world US can control directly is The American Southwest. It can expect more frequent and longer droughts, since there is no amplification of clouds from the relatively cool and clean Pacific ocean, and the long term temperature trend is cooling. The Colorado River no longer feeds the Gulf of California with nourishment. The Colorado river used to all the water allocation for all the participating states, but around 2000 the water use had caught up with supply, and since then it has become much worse with demand far outstripping supply.
In addition the Great Salt Lake is now less than a third of the size it was in the 1970’s. A second level water shortage has been issued and for example Arizona will get a million Acre-feet lass per year from the river. The aquifers will be further depleted leading to less rainfall and the few remaining springs will dry out. If nothing is done, the American southwest will become desertified.
Ironically, deserts have a higher albedo than green soil, so letting the American Southwest become a desert would have a cooling effect by the increasing albedo, but the effect from the disappearing clouds would have a far greater heating effect, so letting the American Southwest become a desert is not a solution to the problem.
However, the area subject to desertification is about 0.6% of the world’s land area and rising the albedo by 0.05 leads to a cooling down. The average albedo of the earth is 30%, and before desertification the albedo was 25%, this rises the albedo of the earth by 0.03%. The total reflection of sunlight from the earth is 22.9 W/m2, so 0.03% of that is 0.007 W/m2, 0.0015 degree Celsius.
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 1980 to 2022:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.021 C or 0.1 W/m2
Temperature decrease from changing solar spot activity – 0.021 C or 0.1 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.10 C or 0.48 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.1 C or 0.48 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature decrease of – 0.1 C or 0.48 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.0063C or 0.030 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.0015C or 0.007 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 1980 to 2022: 0.0628 C or 0.363 W/m2
What will be the temperature in 2050 if all pledges by the Paris accord were fulfilled?
The sum of all Paris accord pledges means a 15% reduction in the RISE of C02 between now and 2030, leading to a reduction in temperature rise from rising CO2 of 0.006 C. The aspitational goal of reducing the signing countries.portion of anthropological Methane output by 50% will reduce the rise from methane by 0.0003 C In addition it will reduce the amount of temperature rise from the greening of the world by 0.0009 C. the total temperature rise will be 0.0072 C less by 2030 than if no action is taken.
Len Bilén's blog, a blog about faith, politics and the environment. 
