Nuclear Reform is Necessary

Blogger: Nuclear Reform is Necessary

Key Words: small modular reactors, SMR, U.S. Navy, Yucca Mountain, Military, NRC. DOE, IAEA, USN, Obama, left Democrats, Yucca Mountain, Congress, human races, temperature, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program,     

Rev 31 Jan 2012
Rev 03 Feb 2012  
Rev 04 Feb 2012
Rev 05 Feb 2012
Rev 08 Feb 2012
Rev 21 Mar 2012  
==========================

There is revival of interest in small modular reactors (SMRs) for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat. This interest in small and medium nuclear power reactors is driven both by a desire to reduce capital costs and to provide power away from large grid systems. The technologies involved are very diverse and SMRs have been operating for decades. The U.S. Navy has been using SMRs on navy vessels for 60 years.

The problem with the U.S. civilian nuclear energy program is that Congress (Republicans and Democrats) for the last 40-years have been suppressing U.S. nuclear development to promote U.S. economic expansion of hydrocarbon coal, oil, and natural gas industry. Political nuclear suppression to benefit politicians economically has become so bad that the criminal element within the left Democrat political movement starting in 2005 promoted economically and environmentally unsound “alternative, renewable, green energy” as a replacement for nuclear energy. Shutting down the completed Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository was an act by the left Democrat Congress and President Obama to signal nuclear investors that politicians no longer consider the U.S. nuclear industry as politically correct. Nuclear energy is out while alternative renewable green energy, coal, oil, natural gas are to now to be the “energy diversification” driving energy force of the U.S. economy.

With what little time that humans have remaining, if Congress has its way, America will forever live off of global warming carbon producing coal, oil, natural gas, and the politically correct “green energy.” However, the global carbon budget is too soon reaching a 2017 CE saturation point that determines the fate of humanity -- there is no turning back once the global carbon budget infrastructure saturation point is exceeded. There is no more than five years to stop the chain of human infrastructure events.  

Important: Science vs Politics - Researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter (W/m2) atmospheric energy differential implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million (ppm) to restore Earth's energy budget to equilibrium. They say the most recent measurements put carbon dioxide levels at 392 ppm and those global warming concentrations are expected to keep rising, resulting in continuous increase of global warming temperature exceeding Earth’s capacity to sustain any of the lives of 9 billion people. There is NO safe carbon dioxide level above 350 ppm. Science has presented definitive evidence that global warming is occurring since preindustrial times 1750 CE. As a result of intransigent self serving U.S. political machinery, there is no turning back the clock. The infrastructure of the global carbon budget shall exceed the carbon emissions limit, beyond which the cost of global warming recovery becomes exceedingly expensive. Science tells us then the human races end 2050-2099 CE; but self serving politicians continue to serve their own money and power needs to be elected now.         

The problem is, Congress’ shut down of U.S. commercial nuclear energy over the last 30-years-plus has condemned Earth’s human races to global warming temperature increase destruction 2050-2099 CE. It is unlikely President Obama nor left Democrats will do anything to effectively alter global warming course of events. Earth’s human race survival depends upon both phasing out the U.S. left Democrat political machinery and rapidly expanding global nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is the only energy that provides both current technology and energy capacity necessary to possibly help save the human races. Nuclear energy must be fully implemented NOW.   

NRC

The only politically efficient way to start to correct U.S. long-term nuclear energy deficiencies is to fire and reorganize the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members. Most likely any attempt to reorganize the NRC membership will be blocked, ignored, or delayed by President Obama, congressional left Democrats, and Obama’s paid following.   

For four decades Republicans and Democrats have foiled efforts to shift America from its hydrocarbon economy. Since the 1990s, Left Democrats and European-U.S. neo communists have sidetracked the UN charter to address the issues of global warming. World leaders have foiled commercial nuclear energy efforts to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions.  

Nether the less, with six decades of experience, the U.S. Navy (USN) existing small and medium sized nuclear reactors (SMRs) technology can become available with some modification on the commercial nuclear market, within a year. The USN nuclear energy program has been long established and well run. There are also operating commercial SMRs that are of interest.  

Under President Ronald Reagan, Executive Order 12344 of Feb. 1, 1982, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is an integrated program carried out by two organizational units, one in the now politically oriented Department of Energy (DOE) and the other organization is in the experienced Department of the Navy (Chief of Naval Operation).   

The U.S. nuclear commercial energy sector is a global asset too valuable to be run by mostly unreliable politicians who arrange to have no accountability for there actions. Untoward politicians now control the NRC. The NRC member situation is untenable. No longer can human races survival depend upon the whims of politically appointed NRC’s lawyers and politicians.  

If human global greenhouse gases are to peak by 2020 CE and than continue to be reduced, NRC members are to be fired now and be replaced with three senior military nuclear representatives and one representative appointed by the President.  

U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program

The U.S. has a vast and successful professional nuclear development program, it is the best and most experienced in the world. The U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program comprises the military and civilian personnel who design, build, operate, maintain, and manage the nuclear-powered ships and the many facilities that support the U.S. nuclear-powered naval fleet. The Program has cradle-to-grave responsibility for all naval nuclear propulsion matters.

The U.S. Military, in particular the U.S. Navy has all of the necessary experience to direct the U.S. nuclear Renaissance that is necessary as part of a long-term human races salvation plan.

President Ronald Reagan, Executive Order 12344 of Feb. 1, 1982:
 

Executive Order 12344--Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program

By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, with recognition of the crucial importance to national security of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, and for the purpose of preserving the basic structure, policies, and practices developed for this Program in the past and assuring that the Program will continue to function with excellence, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Sec. 7. Within the Department of the Navy, the Secretary of the Navy shall assign to the director responsibility to supervise all technical aspects of the Navy's nuclear propulsion work, including:

   (a) research, development, design, procurement, specification, construction, inspection, installation, certification, testing, overhaul, refueling, operating practices and procedures, maintenance, supply support, and ultimate disposition, of naval nuclear propulsion plants, including components thereof, and any special maintenance and service facilities related thereto; and

   (b) training programs, including Nuclear Power Schools of the Navy, and assistance and concurrence in the selection, training, qualification, and assignment of personnel reporting to the director and of Government personnel who supervise, operate, or maintain naval nuclear propulsion plants.

Sec. 8. Within the Department of the Navy, the Secretary of the Navy shall assign to the director responsibility within the Navy for:

   (a) the safety of reactors and associated naval nuclear propulsion plants, and control of radiation and radioactivity associated with naval nuclear propulsion activities, including prescribing and enforcing standards and regulations for these areas as they affect the environment and the safety and health of workers, operators, and the general public.

   (b) administration of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, including oversight of program support in areas such as security, nuclear safeguards and transportation, public information, procurement, logistics, and fiscal management.

To reduce human greenhouse gases, the only tool that is quickly available is to quickly expand nuclear energy, building new nuclear reactors, and replace old hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) energy units.

To accomplish a U.S. nuclear Renaissance, the restructuring of the Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) membership is necessary. Currently, NRC members are no more than appointed politicians and lawyers whose paid job is to continue the more than 30-years of political blocking U.S. nuclear energy advancement. NRC current members have neither professional nuclear experience nor do they have the personal capability to lead an American nuclear energy recovery effort. Current NRC membership is to be replaced now.

An NRC makeup of three senior military nuclear representatives and one representative appointed by the President is the only regulation authority that might help the U.S. to provide enough clean energy in a timely manor.     

Global Warming  

How is the U.S. going to produce enough clean nuclear energy soon enough, which will save the human races from total destruction 2050-2099 CE?

Over the past three to four decades left Democrats have ridden hard to stardom with their forceful and manipulative denunciation of domestic and global nuclear energy. In the 1990s special political interest took over UN responses to global warming. Than in 2005 CE the left Democrats activated political “grassroots” support of alternatives to energy. In December 2009, at Denmark UN COP-15 meeting, President Obama promoted a transfer of wealth scheme that has derailed global responses to global warming. European-U.S. neo communist shutdown of Germany nuclear energy and in the place of nuclear energy promoted dependence upon alternatives to energy. Nations’ remain dependant upon expanding economies of hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas). Much of the U.S. government global warming and energy reporting is erroneous, with omissions, or information withheld. Political computer hackers with inside Cyber War skills roam the internet and suppress left Democrat opposition.  Resulting is human races demise 2050-2099 CE.

The only tool that is quickly available to reduce U.S. and global human greenhouse emissions is to quickly expand nuclear energy, building new nuclear reactors, and replace old hydrocarbon energy units. However, the 2005 “renewable energy drive” was further enabled by withholding permitting for U.S. expansion of U.S. and global nuclear energy; which allowed left Democrats’ European-U.S. neo communists to promote 2011 ₡ 96 billion euros (US$ 122.63 billion) special interest corruption carbon-cap-and-trade renewable energy funding. US$ 90 billions of ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009) renewable energy special interests corruption funding.

Reform of government is necessary to correct 30-years of U.S. Senate left Democrat political regulation of the Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC). The political Department of Energy (DOE) and political Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are also now under President Obama’s strict political control.    

With the exception of expanding nuclear power, all other U.S. national energy proposals and policies are NOT viable. U.S. energy policies simply do not reflect real clean energy needs and real energy growth demands. Life-cycle process of all human energy sources (except nuclear energy and hydroelectric) emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. Clean inexpensive nuclear energy CAN provide new jobs if political nuclear construction and operating costs are reduced for new nuclear energy expansion and the nuclear replacement of existing dirty hydrocarbon energy sources. INEXPENSIVE CLEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY DOES STIMULATE THE GENERAL ECONOMY AND THEREFORE DOES PRODUCE JOBS. Added benefits of nuclear energy are it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and reduces global warming temperature increase. Unlike renewable green energy, coal, oil, and natural gas, nuclear energy can become inexpensive as a tangible long-term economic stimulus. Inexpensive nuclear energy provides improved economies and increase employment while helping human races survival. There must be a large replacement of hydrocarbon energy, to be replaced by new nuclear energy.   

As a result of their systemic deficiencies, alternative renewable green power sources require massive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and requirements that utilities and public buy inefficient power. While not reducing fossil fuel use, poorly run European “cap and trade” programs will effectively ration our primary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy sources, resulting in energy demands exceeding supplies. Alternative energy policies result in direct and indirect increased cost to the world economy, while producing very little energy and no net reduction of greenhouse gases. Congress and individual U.S. states make long-term energy rules that unnecessarily increase costs to the industry.    

To have any reasonable 70% chance of avoiding greater dangerous climate change, global emissions will need to peak carbon emissions by 2015-2020 CE.  Nuclear energy, reprocessing of uranium, and the nuclear fuel cycle will be of utmost importance in the task of stabilizing Earth’s temperature increase. Left Democrats’ control of U.S. energy have made the U.S. global warming reductions tasks much more difficult. President Obama is suppressing U.S. paths to nuclear energy advancement and has given away essential nuclear technology to China.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

The revised NRC membership of three military and one presidential appointment first task is to produce NRC approval of a number of Small Modular Reactors (SMR). However, in the long-term, SMRs may do little to increase nuclear Energy Consumption by Major Sources from U.S. current ~8% level. SMRs have several viable foreign market applications.  

To make a difference in human global warming greenhouse gas emissions, there must be new and retrofit large nuclear reactors installed prior to 2017 CE. A very large number of nuclear reactors must be constructed (in less than five years). Since there is no official global warming planning, there is no estimate as to how to prevent Earth’s carbon budget lock-in resulting from human hydrocarbon emissions.  

Necessary planned successful responses to global warming temperature increase are essential, many, and varied and involve lives of more than 9 billion people.  No national leader has established a viable national or multinational response plan to counter global warming temperature increase. No nation maintains a viable organization to respond to countering global warming temperature increase.    

With global hydrocarbon infrastructure lock-in occurring around 2017 CE, and it takes about 3-4 years to build a large nuclear facility, the future of SMR nuclear energy will expand as new and retrofit clean energy sources.

The need for SMRs energy source has evolved from overall cost saving measures to more focused concerns on environmental impact and security issues, such as susceptibility of national grids and the reliance on foreign sources of liquid fuels.  

Most likely for now, U.S. approved SMRs are necessary as clean heat to extract oil from Alberta's oil sands, which are proposed to supply oil to the Canada-U.S.-China Keystone XL project. However, due the existing oil-sand construction time-line, most likely the heat oil-extraction process requires SMRs retrofit of planned oil/natural gas fired oil extraction units. Alberta's oil sands are part of the global problem of “global carbon budget infrastructure lock-in.” Much of the existing global hydrocarbon infrastructure needs to be retrofitted with clean nuclear energy to meet necessary reductions of carbon dioxide levels (to below 350 ppm) to reduce greenhouse gas levels necessary to sustain human lives past 2050-2099 CE.       

As nuclear power generation has been established since the 1950s, the size of nuclear reactor units has grown from 60 MWe to more than 1600 MWe, with corresponding economies of large-scale operations. At the same time there have been many hundreds of smaller power reactors built both for naval use (up to 190 MW thermal), yielding enormous long-term expertise in the engineering of SMRs. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines 'small' reactor as under 300 MWe, and up to 700 MWe as 'medium' – including many operational units from 20th century. Together they are referred to as small and medium reactors (SMRs) by IAEA.

Today, due partly to the high capital cost of large power reactors generating electricity via the steam cycle and partly to the need to service small electricity grids under about 4 GWe, there is a move to develop smaller units. These may be built independently or as modules in a larger complex, with capacity added incrementally as required. Economies of scale is not found in SMRs size but by the number and timeliness of units produced. There are also moves to develop small units for remote sites and special applications.

One of the “hottest” topics being discussed in the U.S. nuclear industry is the viability of deploying small modular reactors (SMR), those under 300 MW, into the nuclear land fleet to help address environmental concerns while keeping up with the demand for power. Isolated communities require new energy sources for economic development. They need to increase generation efficiency, reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, and find cleaner sources of electricity. This includes islands in the South Pacific, Caribbean, Mediterranean and remote communities in Alaska, Canada, South America, and Europe. In 2009, the global number of people completely without access to electricity was 1.4 billion or 20% of the world’s population. In 2010, there were 170 island communities with populations over 100,000 who could use SMRs.     

World primary energy (coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear) consumption projected in 2050 CE is to exceed 826 Quads. In 2001 CE primary energy consumed was 404 Quads. The U.S. current electricity demand is projected to increase by 28 percent by 2035. And annual carbon dioxide emissions for electrical generation are projected to INCREASE by 275 million metric tonnes, according to the U.S. DOE.     

Small Modular Reactors Are Hot

Power Engineering Magazine

02/01/2011

By Brian Wheeler, Associate Editor

   The DOE has a goal to decrease 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and it expects that the goal can be met with the help of small modular reactors. [Note: DOE too many energy statements are not helpful and difficult to apply to practical assessments. SMRs are speciality reactors; it is unlikely they will by themselves significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. --DGE]

   The concept is to install the small modular reactors to areas and applications under served by hydrocarbon plants, or sites that may not be able to support a large nuclear units. “But it is not a competition between large and small reactors,” said Paul Genoa, director of policy development at trade group the Nuclear Energy Institute.

   The idea of the SMRs is not new in the U.S. The U.S. Navy has been using small reactors on vessels for over 50 years. Using this design in the commercial energy industry, though, is new.

   Currently, the U.S. does not have any commercial SMRs producing power, but vendors such as Hyperion Power Generation and Babcock and Wilcox and others are moving forward towards NRC member’s design certification. Although, the NRC members’ expect the first deployment of an SMRs in the U.S. may not come until the 2018 to 2020 time frame.

   [NOTE: There must be more than two dozen SMRs active designs around the world. The U.S. Navy has been producing SMRs since the USS NAUTILUS was launched on January 21, 1954. China has CAP 100 that is a 100 to 150 MWe SMR being promoted by China National Nuclear Corporation, which aims to begin construction of a two-module demonstration plant by 2015. The International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) (made by an international team of companies, laboratories, and universities and coordinated by Westinghouse) is an advanced, light-water cooled reactor expected to be deployment-ready in 2015 - 2017. IRIS has capability to satisfy the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (previously IFNEC was GNEP) requirements for smaller-scale grid-appropriate reactors in the near term, and provides a viable bridge to long-term Generation IV reactors. Westinghouse’s SMR is an 225 MWe class integral pressurised water reactor with passive safety systems and reactor internals including fuel assemblies based closely on those in the AP1000 reactor. In the 1970s General Atomics developed an reactor having prismatic fuel blocks based on those in the 842 thermal power produced MWth, which ran 1976-89 in the USA. General Atomics licensing review by the NRC was under way until the projects were cancelled in the late 1970s. etc. There is much functioning SMR technology. Medium and Small (25 MWe up) reactors with development well advanced in 2012 CE, some SMRs models are: KLT-40S, VK-300, CAREM, IRIS, Westinghouse SMR, mPower, SMART, NuScale, CAP-100/ACP100, HTR-PM, PBMR, GT-MHR, SVBR-100, Hyperion HPM, Prism, FUJI. For more than three decades politicians have used the NRC membership as an instrument for holding up expansion of U.S. and global nuclear energy capacity. --DGE]  

   The [Obama] plan is to build SMRs later in 2018 to 2020, start generating power and bring more SMRs online to form a larger nuclear plant, as needed. The SMRs are expected to be ready, as the DOE calls it, to “plug and play” when the reactor arrives on-site. Sounds simple? There are still NRC obstacles that need to be defeated before the arrival of a commercial SMRs. NRC reviews and licensing are the number one challenges at this point.  

   [NOTE: President Obama’s SMRs plan within the DOE promote special interests and bypass existing long established NRC Staff nuclear reviews and licencing procedures. The left Democrat’s political machinery has special interest in retaining control of U.S energy. Nether the less, USN/DOE have several existing operational SMRs. Hyperion Power Generation (U.S.A.) now has mini nuclear fission reactors (called Hyperion Power Module) that provide electricity and hot water to remote locations, nearly all outside the United States. The reactor has been designed to deliver 70 MWth of heat (25 MWe of electricity) for a 10-year lifetime, without refueling. Hyperion Power Module (HPM), an advanced technology mini reactor. Based on intellectual property developed by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory and leveraging forty years of technological advancement, the HPM was designed to fill a previously unmet need for a physically small and transportable power source that is safe, clean, sustainable, and cost-efficient. Hyperion Power Generation reactor appears “shovel ready” to be now applied to reduce greenhouse gases within the oil sand field oil extraction process of the Canadian, Alberta. --DGE]   

   [Please NOTE: President Obama has established another level of political bureaucracy within the NRC members. His new Advanced Reactor Program agency is going to issue separate licensing review of SMRs. President Obama’s licensing of SMRs outside of existing established NRC Staff review process is ill advised, very unwise, poorly conceived, and subject to untoward politics that skirt historical and congressional legislated requirements. NRC political members’ continue to subject the national nuclear industry to very political special interest influences. Since 2005, huge amounts of political corruption within the U.S. is risen with promotion of alternatives to energy. Now a very large amount of unhealthily political corruption is on the rise with DOE’s and NRC members’ management of U.S. nuclear energy programs.        

   Because of the highly complex nature of nuclear technology, any changes to existing nuclear review and licensing is to be made by the experienced and qualified three military and a Presidential appointee of the newly revised NRC membership. President Obama’s nuclear politics is a global disaster happening. --DGE]   

   The funds for the research and development of new SMRs could pose a problem as well. However, Obama administration has requested $38.9 million for the 2011 fiscal year budget for the development and of SMRs. The DOE supports public and private partnerships to advance mature SMR designs and supports “research and development activities to advance the understanding and demonstration of innovative reactor technologies and concepts.”

   Among other goals, DOE plans to “solicit and select industry partners for cost-sharing the U.S. NRC review of design certification document for up to two of the most promising light water SMR concept(s) for near-term licensing and deployment” and “develop recommendations, in collaboration with NRC and industry, for changes in NRC policy, regulations or guidance to license and enable SMRs for deployment in the U.S.”

   And as the general interest in energy continues to grow, so does the interest in SMRs, said Philip Moor, vice president of consulting and management firm High Bridge Associates.

   If approved, the funding towards the development of small reactors in the U.S. may play a part of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) current estimate of between 49 to 97 SMRs built by 2030.

   Utilities may have more interest in SMRs once the NRC gains more     expertise and the uncertainty of deploying these reactors in the U.S. can be addressed. And if the regulator approves any of the designs for licensing, the U.S. may see a stronger nuclear renaissance take place. As we have seen, some operators have scaled back or completely pulled out on plans to build new large reactors due to the cost [and NRC members’ constraints and licencing constraints]. The ability to construct these SMR reactors in factories could lead to lower costs and shorter construction times. Of course, the upfront capital to develop and engineer the facility is going to be needed for new SMRs. But after that, the reactors can be built in the controlled environment in repetition to lower cost, which could in return lead to more clean energy on the grid.

   [NOTE: The statement “And if the regulator approves any of the designs for licensing...” indicates how much NRC members have control over the U.S. nuclear industry and how long approvals take and who receives final NRC member approvals. NRC members are part of the left Democrat congressional political machinery. NRC members are appointed politicians and lawyers lacking professional desire for public nuclear service to proper nuclear regulatory practices. President Obama, who is a European-U.S. neo communist, and the left Democrat political machinery have through “regulations” covertly nationalized the U.S. nuclear industry to keep the U.S. dependent upon national hydrocarbon energy of coal, oil, and natural gas. President Obama and congressional political machinery control energy corruption, no matter what will happens to human races. Please God, save us from Legions of politicians. --DGE]   

Fin

It Takes Work to Change Global Warming Direction

International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA's) estimate is that between 49 to 97 SMRs can be built by 2030, too late to make any global warming difference. The global infrastructure carbon budget cut off point is 2017 CE. It is going to take a rapid deployment of nuclear energy to make a difference with global warming. Who are going to be leaders to save human races? How will they save us from destruction? How can there be build in time enough clean energy nuclear capacity?  

USN has available, tested, AND operated 60 years of nuclear reactor technology research, development, design, procurement, specification, construction, inspection, installation, certification, testing, overhaul, refueling, operating practices and procedures, maintenance, supply support, and ultimate disposition, of nuclear propulsion (including components), and maintenance of nuclear plants and service facilities.

Construction of USS NAUTILUS was made possible by the successful development of a nuclear propulsion plant by a group of scientists and engineers at the Naval Reactors Branch of the Atomic Energy Commission, under the leadership of Captain Hyman G. Rickover. In July of 1951, Congress authorized construction of the world's first nuclear powered submarine. The USS NAUTILUS keel was laid by President Harry S. Truman at the Electric Boat Shipyard in Groton, Connecticut on June 14, 1952. After nearly 18 months of construction, USS NAUTILUS was launched on January 21, 1954.

Admiral Hyman G. Rickove quote:

   "An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.”

   "On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.”

   "The tools of the academic designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone sees it. The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. ......."

President Obama’s small modular reactor (SMR) plan is unnecessarily increasing the cost of nuclear energy, wastes time, and promotes political-machinery corruption. President Obama is reinventing a SMR nuclear reactor wheel that was developed by the US Navy and U.S. national lavatories more than 60-years ago. President Obama’s DOE, and NRC are regulated by political motivations, not technical. Politicians are not operating in the best U.S. interests. President Obama is refusing to implement available nuclear technology to reduce global warming temperature increase (which is very bad news for human races). It is President Obama’s self serving control of government resources and the U.S. political machinery that confirms U.S. economic destruction, and the too soon destruction of all human races.      

The global carbon infrastructure is exceed the carbon budget around 2017 CE saturation point. Unless there is a quick and effective political response to increased combined atmospheric levels of human and natural carbon dioxide and methane, there results a global warming temperature increase that terminates human life 2050-2099 CE.

The new NRC makeup of three senior military nuclear representatives and one President appointed representative will provide much needed professional U.S. nuclear direction. Nuclear energy is the only energy source that might produce enough clean energy to prevent human races destruction.

Without restructuring of the Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) membership and expansion of global nuclear energy, the one hundred and sixty thousand year journey of the human races ends 2050-2099 CE.    

Arctic Methane Gassing From East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS)

The phrases “climate change” and “global warming” have become taboo with world leaders, President Obama, and national/international news media. Resulting is termination of human races 2050-2099 CE. All now under the age of 30 will be terminated from global warming temperature increase.  

Note that the worst case temperature forcing scenario is the most likely Modern Global Warming scenario. In the early 1990s CE, the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change considered “business as usual” as the global warming forcing standard model. In the latter 1990s CE, U.S. and other world leaders masked serious global warming problems by designing UN “climate change” case studies to reflect global warming greenhouse gas increases at less than “business as usual” standard levels. World leader intent was/is to continue “business as usual” expanding of national hydrocarbon economies of COAL, OIL, and NATURAL GAS. Starting in 2005 CE, European-U.S. politicians’ “alternative renewable green energy” became a public and political special interest “clean energy ploy” while world leaders continued to expand hydrocarbon economies and phase out clean nuclear energy.  

Since before 2000 CE, politicians and world leaders minimized and manipulated concerns over greenhouse gases. Methane gas reporting in particular was politically minimized. U.S. energy and gas emissions reporting was falsified. International global warming reporting and energy use remains also falsified.

Now Arctic Region carbon and methane is under closer scrutiny by some in the academic profession (but not by the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change or the U.S.). There have been more than two decades of political global warming response delays. The UNFCCC political meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, December 2009 CE, set global warming responses back additional decade.  There is NO U.S. or UN planning or solutions to global warming temperature increase. Without reliable global knowledge, planning, and solutions, all human races terminate 2050-2050 CE.  

Primarily due to human and natural greenhouse gas atmospheric density increases, since 1750 CE, there is a resulting global warming temperature increase. The shallow waters of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) and land temperatures responded with temperature increase and more carbon and methane release; a destructive positive regenerative gas release-temperature increase feed back loop is established. More than 60,000 years of Earth greenhouse gas and temperature stabilization is now destabilized.

There are very limited ESAS methane hydrate studies. Note that Polar Region Northwest Passage and Baffin Bay also contain vast shallow methane hydrate (aka, clathrate) deposits that remain unexplored. Venting of Polar Region methane is a huge under identified threat to human races existence. There are no world leader responses to this significant threat.                 

“Arctic Methane Of The East Siberian Shelf: A Primer Plus an Interview with Dr. Natalia Shakhova”

By Climate Guest Blogger on Jan 19, 2012

Reports of extensive areas of methane — a powerful greenhouse gas — bubbling up through the shallow waters of Russia’s East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) have generated more questions than answers. In this double post, Skeptical Science examines the data available to date and then discusses the findings of 2011 with the Dr. Natalia Shakhova from the research team.

by John Mason, cross-posted from Skeptical Science

Summary

The research team have located new and large (~0.6mi wide) plumes of outgassing methane, in areas not previously investigated, so this is not necessarily a recent development: at least, there are no previous data from these areas to compare the large plumes with.

That the area has seen warming over a prolonged time since the natural and human global warming transgression and that there has been an additional, sharp recent warming event is well-documented. The increased outgassing caused by the additional recent warming is an important question that requires urgent investigation, a point indeed made in Shakhova et al 2010 paper in Science see -PDF- last paragraph.

Further work will better identify current methane emissions to the atmosphere, currently estimated to be 8 Tg (1 Tg=1 million tonnes) per year. Clearly, because new methane emission sources have been identified, the figure is greater than 8Tg but how much greater remains to be further evaluated and reported.

A large (multi-gigaton) abrupt methane release event is considered possible, but when is not known. It is important to remember that hydrocarbons, including methane, migrate upwards through the Earth’s crust from their source-rocks due to their low density. Basic oil geology tells us that recoverable oil and gas deposits occur where such upward methane migration has been blocked by an impermeable barrier (an oil- or gas-trap) such as a salt-dome or anticline including thick impermeable strata such as a clay-bed. In such places, the methane accumulation can build up to the point where the oil/gas is in an highly pressurised state – hence the “blowouts” that have been recorded over the years in some oilfields. In Arctic Region and ocean conditions methane gas temperature and pressure are considerations.

What Shakhova is suggesting is that if buried gas methane hydrates destabilise, what could result is accumulations of pressurised methane capped off by land/sea permafrost, which because it is degrading might lose its effectiveness as a gas-trap.

Background

To understand the goings-on up at the ESAS in context, we need to go back to the time of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), some 20,000 years ago. Although the climate was cold, much of Siberia remained not glaciated for the simple reason that the climate was also extremely dry: the main area of glaciation [subject to glacial action] was in the Verkhoyansk Range in the east, which rises to nearly 2500 m. The low-lying plains of central Siberia saw the development of permafrost – defined as soil that remains at below freezing point [below -1°C or as low as -12°C] for two or more years. The prolonged cold of the last glacial period saw permafrost develop to great depths – over 1000 m in places.  Extensive areas of this old permafrost, albeit thinner than at the last glacial maximum, exist at the present day. On land, permafrost occurs several metres below surface, and is overlain by the so-called active layer, soil which seasonally thawed and Siberian flora grows.

During the last glacial maximum, global sea levels fell by over a hundred metres with snow and ice deposit increase. The result is that the shallow seas of the ESAS became dry cold land, which allowed permafrost to develop. Climate warming in the Holocene geological epoch (approximately 12,000 years before present day) melted the big ice sheets in North America and NW Europe, leading to sea level rise and flooding of the ESAS, which once again became an extensive shelf sea, averaging some 45 metres in depth. The incoming seawater melt-pulse raised the temperature of the seawater-seabed interface dramatically so that it is considerably (>10 C) warmer today than the annual average temperature over the adjacent land permafrost areas. This warming led to a certain amount of seabed permafrost degradation but until recently the remaining subsea permafrost layer was thought to be relatively stable, acting as a cap or lid to the methane that was expected to be present in and beneath it.

Permafrost degradation and methane release on land are things that most people will be familiar with: footage of people igniting methane on frozen Siberian lakes has been broadcast many times. This is primarily biogenic methane – formed via microbial decay of organic matter such as plant-debris. As land permafrost degrades due to the warming climate, the organic matter, trapped in the frozen ground for thousands of years, is freed and bacterial decay rapidly sets in, releasing methane and carbons to the atmosphere.

At greater depths in the sedimentary column, methane may exist in a second form, trapped in clathrate molecules. A clathrate is a naturally-occurring chemical substance which consists of one type of molecule forming a cage-like crystalline lattice  – the host – which traps a second type of molecule – the guest. In the case under discussion here, the host is water and the guest is methane, hence the commonly-used term ‘methane hydrate’. Methane hydrate looks just like ice: it is a white, crystalline solid but is only stable at low temperatures and/or high pressures: otherwise it decomposes, liberating its methane content.

This sensitivity to temperature and pressure means that outside of very deep water environments, methane hydrate typically occurs at considerable depths in the sedimentary column (ref. 1): values of ~200 m beneath surface are commonly cited as being within the Gas Hydrate Stability Zone (GHSZ). Any deeper than that and temperatures tend to be too high due to the geothermal gradient; any shallower and temperatures are again too high – except, perhaps, where the hydrates are locked-in and kept at low temperatures by extensive, bonded permafrost. Within the GHSZ, methane hydrate occurs as pore-filling cements in coarse-grained sediment such as sand; conversely, in finer-grained sediment such as mud it forms pure masses of irregular shape. Typical concentrations in sandy sediment are a few percent of pore-volume. Estimates of the total amount present globally vary: although some very high values have been suggested, more commonly-cited figures are 10,000 Gt carbon or less. This is still a substantial figure when compared to e.g. estimates of carbon in global coal reserves.

Methane hydrate has been exploited on a limited scale as a fossil fuel. In western Siberia, the Soviets extracted methane trapped beneath a large dome of permafrost; at least a third of the resource, exploited over 13 years, was thought to exist as hydrate which was artificially destabilised by pumping hot water and solvents into the wells in order to collect the gas. U.S and other nations also have interest in mining methane hydrate.

Recent observations on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf

That the sea in this area of the Arctic has warmed up significantly should come as no surprise to anybody who has been following the unfolding reductions in sea-ice and other developments in that region. A 2011 paper (ref. 2), citing hydrographic data collected since 1920, reported a dramatic warming of the bottom water layer over the ESAS coastal zone (<10 m depth), since the mid-1980s, of 2.1°C. The warming was attributed to atmospheric changes involving enhanced summer rapid inward circulation of air masses about a low-pressure center, reduction in ice extent, the consequent lengthening of the summer open-water season and – consequential to that – solar heating of the water column.

Until relatively recently, the subsea permafrost of the ESAS saw little or no attention compared to the onshore permafrost: it was simply assumed that it was unlikely to be a source area for methane because it was all frozen solid. That assumption was turned on its head in 2003 when the first of a series of ESAS field expeditions by scientists from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks took place and resulted in an ominous discovery: surface and especially bottom waters were super-saturated with methane, implying that methane outgassing from the sea-bed was occurring. Further fieldwork went on to discover plumes of methane gas bubbling up to the surface. In deeper waters, methane does not make it all the way up to the atmosphere – it all dissolves in seawater – but over the shallower waters of the ESAS this is not the case. Air sampling surveys over the ESAS revealed great variability in methane levels: against the global background level of 1.85ppm, they were elevated by typically 5-10%, with local spikes over gas-productive areas. The researchers calculated the annual total methane flux from the ESAS to the atmosphere to be 7.98Tg C-CH4, which in plain English is 10.64 million tonnes of methane per year, a figure similar to what, up until now, was thought to be the methane emissions of the entire world’s oceans (ref. 3). This figure needs to be seen in the context of other sources, however: domesticate animals emit about 80 million tonnes CH4 a year, for example.

More worryingly though, the same team made estimates of the methane present as free gas and methane hydrate beneath or within the ~1.5 million sq km of the submarine permafrost of the ESAS. The total came to >1000 Gt. The area of this permafrost affected by active fault zones and by open taliks – zones of permafrost that have melted – was stated to be 1-2% and 5-10% of the total area respectively. As such zones are exactly those through which buried methane can escape from under the permafrost, they went on to suggest that methane hydrate was at risk of destabilisation leading to “abrupt release at any time” (ref. 4).

That is a colossal figure, when put against annual anthropogenic methane emissions which in 2010 were approximately 275 million tonnes (or 0.275 Gt). Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – by a factor of 25 (global warming potential (GWP) as stated in the IPCC AR4) – so that a 50 Gt methane release would be like releasing 40 years’ worth of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (at 2009 emission levels) all at once. However, there are some issues with cranking atmospheric methane levels up in this drastic way.

[NOTE: Carbon has a global warming potential (GWP) of one. Methane GWP within a 20-year period rises to 72 GWP and over a period of 500 years, it falls to just 7.6 GWP. Compared to carbon, a tonne of methane emissions creates a strong burst of warming over a much shorter period. --DGE]

The first problem is that in none of the glacial-interglacial transitions of the past 400,000 years has a sudden large methane-spike been recorded, which indicates periods of temperature cycle-stability. Ice-core data instead reveal transitions from 0.4ppm (glacials) to 0.8ppm (interglacials) and back. Such records would tend to suggest that no such releases occurred during this period of geological time despite drastic fluctuations in climate. The second problem is finding a physical mechanism by which such an abrupt methane release of large magnitude could actually happen.

Any increased Arctic methane flux, tapping into vast stores of steadily destabilising methane hydrate, has the potential to keep going over a considerable time-period as a response to warmer (and rising) sea temperatures. We certainly do not need any more global warming gas-temperature feedbacks that bring additional natural sources of powerful greenhouse gases to the table, yet that is exactly what we risk up in the Siberian Arctic. The big questions that we now need to answers is for how long has this methane outgassing been going on, does it appear to be intensifying and how might a colossal and rapid outburst occur. These are among the points we will be raising with the people on the ground and the answers from our interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova, part two of this post, will soon be appearing, here on Skeptical Science. In the meantime, David Archer, who has worked extensively with gas hydrates, looks at some release scenarios over at Realclimate.

This piece is part one of a two-part series published at Skeptical Science.

Below is part two of the two-part Skeptical Science series.

Since 2000 CE, Dr. Natalia Shakhova has been working on joint projects with the Arctic Regional Center and Vitus Bering Laboratory. Dr. Shakhova has authored several papers regarding Russia’s East Siberian Arctic Shelf.  

Part 2: An Interview With Dr. Natalia Shakhova

In December 2011, following a fresh flurry of sometimes conflicting media reports about methane outgassing on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS), we decided to go and talk to the people doing the work on the ground. We are pleased to report that Dr Natalia Shakhova (NS below) of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks agreed to be interviewed by the author, on behalf of Skeptical Science (SkS), via email. Here are the responses, verbatim, to our questions.

SkS: You have stated that methane hydrate in Siberia can occur at depths as shallow as 20 m. Have any such remarkably shallow methane hydrate deposits on the ESAS been directly observed/sampled and if so, how could methane hydrate have formed at such depths?

NS: Yes, such shallow hydrates were sampled in Siberia. They form as a result of the so-called “self-preservation phenomenon” and they are termed “metastable”. This phenomenon has been intensively studied by Russian geologists starting in the late 1980s. [NOTE: Self-preservation phenomenon of gas hydrates means that gas hydrates may exist in metastable state for prolonged time. Gas hydrates self-preservation phenomenon can be defined as a very slow decomposition of gas hydrates when the external pressure drops below a three-phase equilibrium pressure of the gas-ice-hydrate system at sub-zero (Celsius) temperature (below 270-271 K) as a result of thin ice film emergence on gas hydrate surface. This effect was initially discovered and described in detail over 1986-1992, by researchers from Canada (Ottawa National R&D Center) and Russia (by the joint team formed by VNIIGAZ and Moscow State University, identified as the ‘Moscow Gas Hydrate Group’). --DGE]

SkS: Your 2011 field season is reported to have located kilometre-diameter plumes of outgassing methane. Are these located in areas visited in previous seasons?

NS: These were new sites from that part of the ESAS that was investigated very sparsely before. In our previous investigations we mainly focused on the shallower part of the ESAS, which comprises about 70% of the total area and provides a very short conduit for methane to escape to the atmosphere. Besides, because we worked mostly on small vessels, we were not allowed to navigate far enough from the coasts to reach the mid-outer shelf where water is relatively deep on the scale of the shallow ESAS (>50 m depth). That is why deeper waters were under-represented and were considered a minor contributor to annual emissions. Last summer’s findings made us reconsider our previous constraint on the annual emission budget; they highlight the need to further assess underestimated components of annual fluxes from the ESAS.

Searching for methane in such an extensive area is truly like searching for a needle in a haystack. The ESAS is more than 2 million square kilometers in extent.  Even if we study ~10,000 km2 every year (100×100 km, which is a lot!), it will take >200 years to investigate the entire ESAS! Even then, the probability of finding a hot spot 1 km in diameter within the study area will still be only 0.01%.

SkS: Have you done any analyses/isotopic studies of the fugitive gas to see if anything can be learned about its provenance (i.e., biogenic, thermogenic, destabilized hydrate or a combination of these)?

NS: Yes, we conducted an isotopic analysis to obtain the isotopic signature of the methane dissolved in the water column. The isotopic signature indicates a mixture of methane of different origins. We are currently making an effort to investigate particular sources.

SkS: Do the observed methane outgassing sites tend to correlate with features seen on acoustic imaging of the sea bed (e.g. taliks, pockmarks, fractures) or on deep seismic data (e.g. fault-zones, anticlines and other structures)?

NS: We believe that methane outgassing sites primarily correlate with features like those you list above.  Our data, although they are still limited, clearly exhibit such a correlation. Unfortunately, there are some limitations in usage of both hydro-acoustic and deep seismic methods imposed by the shallowness of the water column and the ubiquity of shallow gas fronts in the sediments.  In addition, our ability to obtain extensive records was constrained by our limited funds; to date we only have ~3000 nautical miles of such recordings.

SkS: A critical question at this point is whether the outgassing is a recent development as a consequence of the dramatic Arctic warming of the past thirty years, or an ongoing, long-term response to the Holocene inundation of the ESAS [Note: Holocene Epoch started approximately 12,000 years before present day, i.e., around 10,000 BC. Modern Global Warming Era of human carbon dioxide release started 1750 CE. --DGE]. What are your thoughts on this and, on a similar line of enquiry, would it be possible to determine the age of the organic matter the methane was originally derived from?

NS: An entire second paragraph of our paper published in Science (Shakhova et al., 2010) is devoted to addressing this question! We were the ones who hypothesized – and devoted our entire study to testing this hypothesis – that methane release from the Arctic shelf is determined by the change in thermal regime of permafrost that was inundated thousands of years ago. I do not understand why this question should arise over and over again or, moreover, be considered critical. As we deal with the long-lasting permafrost warming caused by the warming effect of the overlying seawater, is there any logic in negating the contribution of the recent warming, which caused additional warming of that overlaying seawater?  I believe that there is absolutely no point in trying to determine who is responsible, Mother Nature or human beings. Whoever is responsible, the consequences will be the same.

As for determining the age of the organic matter the methane was derived from, it is very hard to distinguish between modern and ancient sources. The mean age of organic matter preserved even in the surface sediments in the ESAS is 6-8 thousand years, and when you go deeper, you find older organic matter. “Talik” is a term used to describe an unfrozen layer of ground within a still-frozen permafrost body.  As taliks develop within the sub-sea permafrost, organic matter of different ages could provide the substrate for methanogenesis [the process of creating methane gas during metabolism]. This means that modern methane could be produced from organic matter of different ages, and this is also true of pre-formed methane.

SkS: The recent reports of substantial releases of methane on the ESAS prompt us to ask how these observed emissions could detectably change global atmospheric methane concentrations and in what time frame?

NS: To date, we have only taken the very first steps down the long path of learning enough to answer this question. We officially reported only 8 Tg of methane was being released from the ESAS per year. This reported amount is <2% of the total annual global methane release and would not detectably change global atmospheric methane concentrations. However, we did not incorporate a few emission components – probably the most important ones – because of some uncertainties still remaining concerning their constraints. Newly obtained data, without question, indicate that annual methane emissions from the ESAS have been underestimated. To say how significant the underestimated components are, and to identify the mechanisms responsible for such substantial releases, we need to carefully analyze obtained data and, very likely, conduct further investigations on a broader scale. To be able to answer your question, which is a core question of our study as well, we need to establish at least a few observatory sites to trace dynamic atmospheric concentrations of methane; we need to develop a monitoring net to detect changes occurring in known plume areas; we also need to continue all-season observations in this region to study temporal and spatial variability in methane releases and the factors that determine this variability. We undoubtedly need to learn much more than we currently know. We call for the involvement of serious funding organizations to give this study the level of support that is consistent with the importance of this topic.

SkS: With respect to future events, the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2008 stated that we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. This represents a colossal quantity of gas. How quickly could such a release occur and what would be the most likely mechanism?

NS: I believe that the non-gradual (massive, abrupt) emission mode exists for a variety of reasons. First, wherever in the World Ocean such methane outgassing releases from decaying hydrates occur, they appear to be torch-like with emission rates that change by orders of magnitude within just a few minutes. Note that there was no additional seal such as permafrost to restrict emissions for hundreds of thousands of years anywhere in the World Ocean. Imagine what quantity of methane has been stored beneath sub-sea permafrost if even now, when the permeability of permafrost is still limited, the amount of methane annually escaping from the ESAS is equal to that escaping from the entire World Ocean. Another important factor is that conversion of hydrates to free gas leads to a significant increase in the gas pressure. This highly-pressurized gas exerts a geological power that creates its own gas migration pathways (so-called “chimneys” within sediments). It is even more important to understand that the nature of the permafrost transition from frozen to unfrozen is such that this physical process is not always gradual: the phase transition itself appears to be a relatively short, abrupt transformation, like opening a valve. Remember that the gas “pipeline” is highly pressurized. There could be several different triggers for massive releases: a seismic or tectonic event, endogenous seismicity caused by sediments subsiding pursuant to hydrate decay, or sediment sliding on the shelf break; the shelf slope is very steep, and the sedimentation rates are among the highest in the ESAS. As for the amount that could possibly be released, this estimate represents only a small fraction of the total amount of methane believed to be stored in the ESAS (3.5% of 1400 Gt). Because these emissions occur from extremely shallow water, methane could reach the atmosphere with almost no alteration; the time scale of such releases would largely depend on the spatial distribution and capacity of the gas migration pathways.

SkS: A previous methane release of such a magnitude, occurring abruptly, would logically manifest as a spike in the global methane concentration record, yet the ice-core methane record has no such spikes during previous interglacials. Is there any evidence for massive methane release events having occurred further back – e.g. at any point during the Cenozoic?

[NOTE: Cenozoic Era is the most recent of the three Phanerozoic geological eras.  Cenozoic Era covers from 65.5 million years ago to the present. Cenozoic Era includes K-T Mass Extinction at 65.5 Ma. The answer to SkS question about the methane record at 65.5 Ma is best answered by a specialist in paleoclimatology. --DGE]

NS: You would better address such a question to a specialist in paleoclimatology. To my knowledge, there are a few episodes in the Earth’s history attributed to abrupt methane releases. Interpretation of ice-core methane records may not be relevant, because these records are too short to reach back to the entire Cenozoic.

SkS: Skeptical Science would like to thank Dr Shakhova for her contributions.

Notes

The “self preservation phenomenon” mentioned by Dr Shakhova in her reply to the first question is well-known in Russian and other northern petrochemical industry circles, where much discussion may be found. It is temperature-dependent i.e. it requires fairly low temperatures to work. For more information, see Self-preservation of methane gas hydrates (PDF) for a briefing.

Summary

The research team have located new and large plumes of outgassing methane, in areas not previously investigated, so methane plumes is not necessarily a recent development when compared to other plumes within Cenozoic Era.

A large (multi-gigaton) abrupt methane release event is considered possible, but when is not known. It is important to remember that hydrocarbons, including methane, migrate upwards through the Earth’s crust from their source-rocks due to their low density. Basic oil geology tells us that recoverable oil and natural gas (methane) deposits occur where such upward migration has been blocked by an impermeable barrier (an oil- or gas-trap) such as a salt-dome or anticline including thick impermeable strata such as a clay-bed. In such places, pressure accumulation can build up to the point where the oil/gas is in highly pressurised state – hence the “blowouts” that have been recorded in some oilfields.

What Shakhova is suggesting is that buried gas hydrates accumulations of pressurised methane capped off by permafrost could be destabilized suddenly, with resulting release vast amounts of hydrate methane gas. I suggest a scenario where a strong increase in hydrate methane outgassing occurs not in one great quick “burp” at one locality, but there are multiple methane release pathways up through the defrosted sediment containing methane hydrate, over a wide area, over a geological brief period.

This post was originally published at Skeptical Science.

Fin

In 1750 CE, greenhouse interglacial concentrations levels for historic carbon dioxide peak levels were ~280 ppm and methane peak levels of ~700 ppb. The rapid rate of Modern of Global Warming carbon dioxide and methane greenhouse gases induced temperature increase is astonishing.   

The first step to problem resolution is recognition of the problem. World leaders have yet to recognize global warming as a problem. There is certainty that unless there is a rapid political change in resolving global warming temperature increase, all human races terminate this century.