08/04/2018

How A Fossil Fuel Geoscientist Joined The Fight Against Climate Change

ABC Science


Imagine walking away from a promising and well-paying career as a geoscientist in the fossil fuel industry to join the fight against climate change.
That's what Dimitri Lafleur did.
He started working for Shell in his home country of the Netherlands before he ended up in Australia in 2008 to help the company search for gas on the North West Shelf.
"My job was to map out the structure of the gas fields and work out how to get the most gas out of them," says Dimitri.
But soon after he arrived in Perth, Dimitri found himself at a briefing on climate change science, and things would never be the same.
Looking at graphs of increasing carbon dioxide levels, he could not see how climate change could be solved with continued use of fossil fuels.
"That was the real trigger for me to think this was not the way to continue," says Dimitri
He became acutely aware of the need for humans to take action.

Dimitri started agitating for the company to shift more of its core business towards renewables. But change wasn't going to happen fast enough for him.
"You start to wonder, 'What am I doing here?'"
So, after years of geophysics and geology study, including a master's degree in earth sciences, and 11 years in the oil and gas industry, Dimitri took the plunge and resigned.

Using your skills to a different end
Dimitri soon enrolled in a PhD at the University of Melbourne's Climate and Energy College, which cultivates interdisciplinary work by experts in energy and climate to find solutions to climate change.
He started off with the idea of studying renewable energy but then the thought of giving up years of scientific expertise in geoscience stuck in his craw.
"I wasn't prepared to let go all this knowledge I had," he says. "I just couldn't do it."
So that's when he decided to study the environmental impacts of "unconventional gas".

This includes shale gas, although Dimitri's main focus has been on coal seam gas (CSG).
While natural gas emits less CO2 than coal for the same amount of energy obtained, there is a question over whether this advantage could be affected by stray methane emissions leaking into the atmosphere during the CSG extraction process.
Dimitri wanted to investigate — and soon found himself a player in an ongoing controversy.

Natural versus man-made methane leaks
In recent years, for example, arguments have flared over a methane gas leak in Queensland's Condamine River, in the Surat Basin, which is one of Australia's largest coal seam gas regions.
In 2016, the Greens released a dramatic YouTube video, in which they set methane bubbling into the river on fire, blaming CSG mining for the build up of gas.

Others, including the CSIRO, have argued the methane bubbles are likely due to a natural "seep".
Dimitri argues, however, that there is a lack of data and CSG mining could have a bigger contribution to methane emissions than many think.
Only by measuring emissions before, during and after CSG wells are sunk will it be possible to work out whether its extraction is increasing methane emissions by making natural methane leaks worse, or creating new leaks, he says.
But Dimitri's PhD research found that published scientific measurements of these stray methane emissions was relatively scarce — given the extent of CSG development in Australia.
These findings were published online in two reports prepared by the Melbourne Energy Institute.
At a conference in Sydney earlier this year, Dimitri reported some preliminary experimental findings from his PhD study of methane emissions in another area of the CSG fields near Condamine.
In this work, he combined his previous experience as a geoscientist with knowledge from the fields of atmospheric and soil science to demonstrate a method of studying methane leaks from the ground.

Looking to the future
Dimitri says he'd like to follow up, over time, to see if there is any change in emissions as CSG operations continue.
He argues that any research project like this will need good access to industry geological data, have a broad enough scope to answer the question at hand, and to be done in a way that engenders public trust.
"It's important that it is transparent and done in an independently verifiable way."
CSIRO currently has a project with industry that, among other things, is measuring methane seepage in the Surat Basin.
"This is critical as the information can then be used to compare against future methane emissions as CSG production in the Surat Basin increases, providing a guide as to what portion of methane belongs to the CSG industry," states a fact sheet on the project website.
Dimitri is watching the research with interest.

... and looking back
As Dimitri prepares to submit his PhD, he looks back on the six years since he made the tough decision to leave his job with Shell.

Dimitri says Shell was otherwise a very good company in terms of job satisfaction and opportunities. Among other things, it was hard to leave behind the financial security.
"You get a nice salary, there's no denying that," he says.
"It made me very aware of how difficult it would be for people to quit who had big mortgages or had become accustomed to the quality of life.
"There were plenty of times I wondered if this was the right decision.
"But in the end, the idea that I have a more an active role in contributing to solutions for climate change makes me a much happier person ... I feel really good."
Dimitri is also passionate about the "moral responsibility" of fossil fuel producers to help pay for climate change mitigation and adaptation, even if it is not in their backyard.
"There is a lot of wealth creation with these fossil fuels," he says.
"It can help pay for mitigation and adaptation in countries that don't have those funds available."

The Nationals Should Support Carbon Farming, Not Coal

The Conversation - 

National Party MP George Christensen has invited other Nationals to join the recently formed pro-coal “Monash Forum”. But is coal in the best interests of their rural constituents, particularly farmers? 
The carbon farming initiative gives pig farmers the opportunity to earn carbon credits for reducing methane emissions from manure. The proposed change to this government policy may stall, or even end, this market. Alan Skerman/AAP
Farmers stand to lose from any weakening of the government’s climate change policies. That is why farmers and their political representatives should be concerned about a current review of the government’s greenhouse gas reduction policy.
What is at stake here is the strange-sounding idea of carbon farming. To explain this idea takes several steps, so bear with me.
The policy under review is a legacy of the Abbott era. As prime minister, Tony Abbott abolished the carbon tax and replaced it with an Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). The ERF was to be used to pay businesses to reduce their carbon emissions, or to capture and sequester (store) carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.
As it turns out, most of the funding has gone to rural enterprises that have developed various farming projects that qualify for funding – hence the term, carbon farming.
For example, these projects include:
  • regenerating native forest on previously cleared land
  • changed farming practices to allow for crop stubble retention
  • capturing and destroying the methane from effluent waste at piggeries.
How does carbon farming work?
To make it all work, the government first created the system of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs). This system commodifies the outputs of carbon farming, so these can be traded.
In this system, a carbon farmer must show either a reduction in emissions, or carbon sequestration (or ideally both), according to clearly specified criteria. The government will then issue (free of charge) one credit for every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) – or CO₂ equivalent – abated in this way. Farmers can then sell these credits, thus receiving a direct financial return for their efforts.
The primary buyer of ACCUs at the moment is the government, via its Emissions Reduction Fund. Farmers (individually or as collectives) who want to embark on carbon farming projects are asked to nominate a price they would need to make it profitable for them to go ahead with the project. Through a reverse auction, the fund selects the lowest-price proposals.
In this way, the government gets the greatest carbon abatement for the least money. Successful bidders embark on their projects knowing that they have a guaranteed price for their carbon abatement outcomes. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. It is simply the price at which the buyer and sellers of carbon credits find it mutually advantageous to do business.
The average price paid at the last auction round was A$12 per tonne of CO₂ abated. This is the current carbon price in this particular market.

The Safeguard Mechanism
A second potential set of buyers of carbon credits was created by the Safeguard Mechanism, introduced by the Abbott government. This caps emissions from big industrial emitters in order to to ensure that abatement achieved by the ERF is not offset or cancelled out.
The cap is set at whatever the maximum emission rate from the emitter has been. So it is not designed to reduce emissions from these big emitters, but simply to hold them to current levels.
The scheme covers just over 150 facilities, which are responsible for about half of Australia’s emissions. Emitters that go over their limit can remain in compliance by buying enough carbon credits to compensate for their “excess” emissions and surrendering these to government.
This policy is now beginning to bite. The government has just announced that in the first period for which the policy has been in effect, some 16 large emitters were in excess and had to buy 448,000 carbon credits to remain in compliance. Among the biggest buyers were:
  • Anglo Coal’s Capcoal mining operations
  • Glencore’s Tahmoor Coal
  • Rio Tinto’s Alcan Gove aluminium operations
  • BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Coal/BM Alliance.
These companies bought their credits from carbon farmers who abated more carbon then they had calculated, and so had a surplus left over for sale.
But what is most interesting is the price that excess emitters were willing to pay for the surplus credits. Most of the sales were in the region of $14-15 per tonne (T), but the price rose to $17-18/T as the deadline approached.
This means that the price spiked at 50% higher than the most recent ERF auction price of $12/T.
Commentators describe this as a secondary market, and the price in this market is exciting news for carbon farmers. According to Australian Carbon Market Institute CEO Peter Castellas, “Australia now has a functioning carbon market.” Carbon farmers – who make up an increasing proportion of the Nationals’ constituency – will do well if this market expands.
One way to develop the market would be to slowly lower the caps on big emitters so they must either buy more carbon credits or find ways to reduce their own emissions.
From this point of view, there is good reason to progressively and predictably reduce the emissions allowed under the Safeguard Mechanism.

The current review
Here’s where we get to the current review. As already noted, the Safeguard Mechanism does not seek to reduce emissions from big emitters. In fact, it allows for an increase in emissions to accommodate business growth. Nevertheless, big emitters are still unhappy.
The government’s review is a response to business concerns. An initial consultation paper has proposed making it easier to raise the cap on a company’s emissions as its activity grows.
If the rules are altered in this way, the demand for carbon credits may stall, and even decline, bringing to an end to this promising new source of revenue for farmers.
That is why members of parliament with rural constituencies should take note. Rural MPs should not sit by and allow the government to respond to the interests of the coal industry and other lobby groups.
Carbon farming depends on reducing the caps under the Safeguard Mechanism, not raising them. This would also be a step in the direction of achieving the emissions reduction target to which Australia agreed at the Paris meetings in 2015.

Links

07/04/2018

How Elon Musk's Big Tesla Battery Is Changing Australia's Power Landscape

ABC News - Nick Harmsen


Tesla's big battery is launched in South Australia (ABC News)

 Key points
  • AEMO says the Hornsdale Power Reserve is capable of charging at a rate of 80 megawatts and discharging at 100 megawatts
  • It has a storage capacity of 129 megawatt hours
  • That means it could operate for about 75 minutes at full capacity
The world's biggest lithium-ion battery — built by tech billionaire Elon Musk's company Tesla last year — has survived its first summer in South Australia's mid-north.
And according to a new report by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), it's outperforming coal and gas generators on some key measures
Here's a look at how it's performed and its potential impact on the future of power in Australia.

The big battery could stop another statewide blackout
In September 2016, South Australia was plunged into darkness when storms tore through transmission lines.
The faults in the transmission system prompted several wind farms to unexpectedly power down.
With that sudden loss of generation, South Australia immediately began drawing more power across the interconnector to Victoria, which overloaded and switched off.
Transmission towers that were downed in strong winds near Melrose in South Australia in 2016. (ABC News: Tom Fedorowytsch)
The 100 MW output of the Tesla battery might appear small compared to South Australia's peak energy demand of about 3000 MW, but its ability to quickly inject electricity within a fraction of a second is a large factor in its success.
AEMO is now working on a new protection scheme, and Tesla's big battery will play a part.
It aims to detect high flows on the interconnector and trigger the battery to start discharging its full output as quickly as possible, while shedding power to homes and businesses if required.
And future batteries could also be a part of the scheme in the future.

The battery is capable of responding more quickly to problems than coal, gas or hydro
According to AEMO the speed, precision and agility of the battery is unprecedented in dealing with both major power system disturbances and day-to-day frequency variations.
And on December 18 it got the chance to prove it, when a coal generator in New South Wales tripped.
The battery was able to respond to the sudden loss of 689 megawatts of generation within a fraction of a second.
A gas or steam turbine might have taken minutes to respond and adjust.
The substation near Jamestown in July this year, before construction began on the giant battery. (ABC News: Nick Harmsen)
The Hornsdale Power Reserve is registered to provide what is known in the power markets as Frequency Control Ancillary Services (FCAS).
FCAS requires providers to keep a little bit of power in reserve — which the market operator can use to help correct the supply/demand balance in response to minor changes in load or generation.
Some FCAS services are reserved for use in a major event — like a major power station fire, a transmission line tripping or a big industrial load switching off.
Until Tesla's big battery switched on, FCAS services in Australia had only ever been provided by traditional coal, gas, diesel and hydro generators.

It has saved electricity customers cold hard cash
According to the report, early evidence shows the battery is helping cut some of the costs borne by South Australian electricity users.
With a high penetration of wind farms — which until recently haven't offered FCAS — the state has sourced much of it back up power from generators on the eastern seaboard.
However, when the interconnector to Victoria is under maintenance AEMO is required to source some frequency control within the state.
Before the Tesla battery, there were only four gas-fired power stations offering those services.
Elon Musk's Tesla giant battery contributes to the backup power market. (AAP: Ben Macmahon)
The problem is, they're not always available and can be very expensive, a cost which eventually flows through to South Australian energy consumers.
To put it in context, on a single day in October 2016, the Australian Energy Regulator found the cost of regulation services within SA exceeded $4.5 million, while buying these services has cost the state more than $50 million since 2015.
But with the battery now offering FCAS services at lower prices, the South Australian market has not seen similar price spikes over Summer.

It has been a money maker
According to analysis from consulting firm Energy Synapse, the Hornsdale Power Reserve has made an estimated $1.4 million so far by buying power when prices are low and selling when they're high.
The overwhelming majority of this money – 95 per cent - was made on five very hot days in January and February, when prices were at their most volatile.
Interestingly, the Energy Synapse analysis estimates that the battery actually lost money in the energy market on 57 days.
But that doesn't include the money made from FCAS.
It's also not entirely clear how Neon's money-making arbitrage strategy works, given it also owns the neighbouring Hornsdale Wind Farm, which is contracted to provide energy and shares a grid connection point.
Energy Synapse's founder Marija Petkovic says the battery's operators will need to be careful to avoid needlessly cycling it for little financial gain.
"This is an important consideration because the lifetime of a battery is strongly related to how many times it is cycled," she wrote.

But, more financial incentives for battery owners should be introduced
The AEMO found the battery provided high-quality back up power and could respond more quickly to a major problem than traditional coal, gas or hydro generators.
But it said market didn't adequately recognise or reward the agility of batteries.
It's flagged the possibility of new, faster moving frequency control markets, like those offered overseas, to make sure Australia maximises the benefit of new batteries.

Links

Mark Carney Warns Of Climate Change Threat To Financial System

The Guardian - 

Bank of England governor says firms must acknowledge risks to avoid ‘catastrophic impact’
Mark Carney said there were growing opportunities for firms to finance the transition to a low carbon economy. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA
The governor of the Bank of England has warned of the “catastrophic impact” climate change could have for the financial system unless firms do more to disclose their vulnerabilities.
Telling banks and insurers they would need to provide more information about the risks they might face from climate change, Mark Carney said failure to do so would have damaging effects for financial stability.
He said the finance industry could be forced into making rapid adjustments if they did not gradually expose where their climate change risks might lie, which he said could trigger steep losses.
The governor warned of a “climate Minsky moment”, referring to the work of the economist Hyman Minsky, whose analysis was used to show how banks overreached themselves before the 2008 financial crisis.
“Given the uncertainties around climate, not everyone will agree on the timing or scale of the adjustments required … [but] the right information allows sceptics and evangelists alike to back their convictions with their capital,” Carney said.
Speaking at a summit of central bank governors in Amsterdam, Carney said there were growing opportunities for firms to finance the transition to a low carbon economy. He said new technology investments and long-term infrastructure projects would need to be financed at roughly quadruple the current rate.
His intervention comes as Threadneedle Street ramps up its assessment of how well insurers are identifying, measuring and mitigating weather-related risks this year. Insurers were exposed to steep losses by extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Harvey, in the US last year.

Links

Solar PV And Wind Are On Track To Replace All Coal, Oil And Gas Within Two Decades

The Conversation -  | 

Solar photovoltaics are now the world’s leading source of new electricity generation. US Air Force
Solar photovoltaic and wind power are rapidly getting cheaper and more abundant – so much so that they are on track to entirely supplant fossil fuels worldwide within two decades, with the time frame depending mostly on politics. The protestation from some politicians that we need to build new coal stations sounds rather quaint.
The reality is that the rising tide of solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind energy offers our only realistic chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.
No other greenhouse solution comes close, and it is very hard to envision any timely response to climate change that does not involve PV and wind doing most of the heavy lifting.
About 80% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are due to the use of coal, oil and gas, which is typical for industrialised countries. The land sector accounts for most of the rest.
Australian greenhouse gas emissions in 2016. ABS, Author provided
Sadly, attempts to capture and store the carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have come to naught due to technical difficulties and high cost. Thus, to curtail global warming we need to replace fossil fuel use entirely, with energy sources that meet these criteria:
  • very large and preferably ubiquitous resource base
  • low or zero greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts
  • abundant or unlimited raw materials
  • minimal security concerns in respect of warfare, terrorism and accidents
  • low cost
  • already available in mass production.
Solar PV meets all of these criteria, while wind energy also meets many of them, although wind is not as globally ubiquitous as sunshine. We will have sunshine and wind for billions of years to come. It is very hard to imagine humanity going to war over sunlight.
Most of the world’s population lives at low latitudes (less than 35°), where sunlight is abundant and varies little between seasons. Wind energy is also widely available, particularly at higher latitudes.
PV and wind have minimal environmental impacts and water requirements. The raw materials for PV – silicon, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, aluminium, glass, steel and small amounts of other materials – are effectively in unlimited supply.
Wind energy is an important complement to PV because it often produces at different times and places, allowing a smoother combined energy output. In terms of worldwide annual electricity production wind is still ahead of PV but is growing more slowly. The wind energy resource is much smaller than the solar resource, and so PV will likely dominate in the end.
Complete replacement of all fossil fuels requires solar and wind collectors covering much less than 1% of the world’s land surface area. A large proportion of the collectors are installed on rooftops and in remote and arid regions, thus minimising competition with food production and ecosystems.
The more widely PV and wind generation are distributed across the world, the less the risk of wide-scale disruption from natural disasters, war and terrorism.
Other clean energy technologies can realistically play only a minor supporting role. The solar thermal industry is hundreds of times smaller than the fast-growing PV industry (because of higher costs). Hydro power, geothermal, wave and tidal energy are only significant prospects in particular regions.
Biomass energy is inefficient and its requirement for soil, water and fertiliser put it in conflict with food production and ecosystems. Nuclear is too expensive, and its construction rates are too slow to catch PV and wind.

A renewable grid
PV and wind are often described as “intermittent” energy sources. But stabilising the grid is relatively straightforward, with the help of storage and high-voltage interconnectors to smooth out local weather effects.
By far the leading storage technologies are pumped hydro and batteries, with a combined market share of 97%.
The cost of PV and wind power has been declining rapidly for many decades and is now in the range A$55-70 per megawatt-hour in Australia. This is cheaper than electricity from new-build coal and gas units. There are many reports of PV electricity being produced from very large-scale plants for A$30-50 per MWh.
Solar PV and wind have been growing exponentially for decades and have now reached economic lift-off. In 2018, PV and wind will comprise 60% of net new electricity generation capacity worldwide. Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro and other renewable capacity comprise the rest. Globally, US$161 billion will be invested in solar generation alone this year, compared with US$103 billion in new coal and gas combined.
The path to dominance by PV and wind. In 2018, PV and wind are likely to comprise 60% of net new electricity generation capacity worldwide. Andrew Blakers/Matthew Stocks, Author provided
PV and wind are growing at such a rate that the overall installed generation capacity of PV and wind has reached half that of coal, and will pass coal in the mid-2020s, judging by their respective trends.
In Australia, PV and wind comprise most new generation capacity. About 4.5 gigawatts of PV and wind is expected to be installed in 2018 compared with peak demand of 35GW in the National Electricity Market. At this rate, Australia would reach 70% renewable electricity by 2030.
Together, PV and wind currently produce about 7% of the world’s electricity. Worldwide over the past five years, PV capacity has grown by 28% per year, and wind by 13% per year. Remarkably, because of the slow or nonexistent growth rates of coal and gas, current trends put the world on track to reach 100% renewable electricity by 2032.
Current world electricity generation trends, extrapolated to 2032. Andrew Blakers/Matthew Stocks, Author provided
 Deep cuts (80% reduction) in greenhouse gas emissions require that fossil fuels are pushed out of all sectors of the economy. The path to achieve this is by electrification of all energy services.
Straightforward and cost-effective initial steps are: to hit 100% renewable electricity; to convert most land transport to electric vehicles; and to use renewable electricity to push gas out of low-temperature water and space heating. These trends are already well established, and the outlook for the oil and gas industries is correspondingly poor.
The best available prices for PV already match the current wholesale price of gas in Australia (A$9 per gigajoule, equivalent to A$32 per MWh for heat).
High-temperature heat, industrial processes, aviation and shipping fuel and fugitive emissions can be displaced by renewable electricity and electrically produced synthetic fuels, plastics and other hydrocarbons. There may be a modest additional cost depending on the future price trajectory of PV and wind.
Electrifying the whole energy sector of our economy of course means that electricity production needs to increase massively – roughly tripling over the next 20 years. Continued rapid growth of PV (and wind) will minimise dangerous climate change with minimal economic disruption. Many policy instruments are available to hasten their deployment. Governments should get behind PV and wind as the last best chance to deliver the necessary solution to global warming.

Links

06/04/2018

The Guardian View On Antarctica: The Worrying Retreat Of The Ice

The Guardian - Editorial

The only thing more frightening than an advancing glacier may be one that is shrinking and raising sea levels round the world
Glacier in Half Moon Bay, Antarctica. ‘As a species we have shown enough cleverness to disrupt the world’s climate, but may not have enough to remedy the damage that we’ve done.’ Photograph: Alexandre Meneghini/Reuters
Both the north pole and the south pole are situated in the middle of huge ice deserts which are melting around the edges under the influence of human activity. The difference that matters between them is that the ice of the Arctic floats: if it melted nothing much would happen to aggregate sea levels. The ice of Antarctica, like that of Greenland, rests on land. If it all were to melt, as it has done in the far distant past, sea levels could rise by as much as 60 metres. That is most unlikely to happen. What is possible, though, is that the smaller portion of the continent, west Antarctica, which is divided from the rest by a mountain range, could lose much of its ice. Even that would be catastrophic. A significant retreat in west Antarctica, as seems to be already under way, could raise sea levels by between one and three metres by the end of this century. Children now alive will see that happen across their lifetimes. That is what is meant by the urgency of global warming.
This week saw the publication of fresh research showing that the glaciers of west Antarctica are retreating faster than they were at the end of the last ice age, when water levels also rose significantly. The ice sheet is not one homogeneous mass, but a collection of glaciers all moving slowly but inexorably towards the sea. Their retreat is happening underwater, and invisibly, as the ocean erodes the foot of the glacier, known as the “ground line”, where its contact with the sea floor ends. Beyond that point, long tongues of ice stick out into the ocean, providing the coastline that we can see and map. But the capacity of the ice sheet to lock up water depends on the position of the ground line. As that retreats, invisibly, the sea level rises and the whole of the ice sheet grows less stable, something which makes further sea rise still more likely.
Previous surveys have concentrated on a few of the glaciers that are an obvious danger but the research released this week analysed satellite data covering the whole of the coastline of west Antarctica to reach its worrying conclusions. The problem is worsened by the shape of the seabed on which the glaciers now rest. It does not slope towards the deep ocean, but inwards, forming a bowl of which the far side is the mountain range that divides the continent. That means that the process of erosion will be working downhill as it moves inwards, with faster and less predictable results.
The present danger was discovered by measuring the thickness of the ice sheet from space and deducing from this the shape of the glacier beneath. This is much easier than knowing what to do. The contrast between the exquisite technological sophistication employed in the diagnosis of the problem and the lack of international coordination or political sophistication when it comes to solving it, illustrates the crisis of technological civilisation. As a species we have shown enough cleverness to disrupt the world’s climate, but may not have enough to remedy the damage that we’ve done. Things are of course made very much worse by the presence in the White House of an aggressively ignorant and anti-science administration.
Predicting the future of these changes isn’t an exact science, which is one of the things which makes them so frightening, but neither is it entirely guesswork. Ignorance about the size of the threatened rise in sea levels is no excuse for inaction. We know it’s coming. We know it will be disruptive. We don’t know if it will be catastrophic. But the possibility must spur us into drastic action on fossil fuels. Keep them in the ground.

Links

Are We Ready For The Deadly Heat Waves Of The Future?

Science News - Aimee Cunningham

When days and nights get too hot, city dwellers are the first to run into trouble
HEAT ISLANDS
Heat claims more lives than floods, hurricanes and other weather-related disasters. How will cities cope as temperatures rise? Ultraforma/iStockphoto
Some victims were found at home. An 84-year-old woman who’d spent over half her life in the same Sacramento, Calif., apartment died near her front door, gripping her keys. A World War II veteran succumbed in his bedroom. Many died outside, including a hiker who perished on the Pacific Crest Trail, his water bottles empty.
The killer? Heat. Hundreds of others lost their lives when a stifling air mass settled on California in July 2006. And this repeat offender’s rap sheet stretches on. In Chicago, a multiday scorcher in July 1995 killed nearly 700. Elderly, black residents and people in homes without air conditioning were hardest hit. Europe’s 2003 heat wave left more than 70,000 dead, almost 20,000 of them in France. Many elderly Parisians baked to death in upper-floor apartments while younger residents who might have checked in on their neighbors were on August vacation. In 2010, Russia lost at least 10,000 residents to heat. India, in 2015, reported more than 2,500 heat-related deaths.
Year in and year out, heat claims lives. Since 1986, the first year the National Weather Service reported data on heat-related deaths, more people in the United States have died from heat (3,979) than from any other weather-related disaster — more than floods (2,599), tornadoes (2,116) or hurricanes (1,391). Heat’s victim counts would be even higher, but unless the deceased are found with a fatal body temperature or in a hot room, the fact that heat might have been the cause is often left off of the death certificate, says Jonathan Patz, director of the Global Health Institute at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
As greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, heat’s toll is expected to rise. Temperatures will probably keep smashing records as carbon dioxide, methane and other gases continue warming the planet. Heat waves (unusually hot weather lasting two or more days) will probably be longer, hotter and more frequent in the future.
Beyond deaths, researchers are beginning to document other losses: Heat appears to rob us of sleep, of smarts and of healthy births. “Heat has the ability to affect so many people,” says Rupa Basu, an epidemiologist with the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in Oakland. “Everybody’s vulnerable.”
Many people see heat as more of an annoyance than a threat, but climate change, extreme heat and human health are entwined. “There might not be a huge burden of disease from heat-related illness right now in your community,” says Jeremy Hess, an emergency medicine physician and public health researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle. “But give it another 20 years, and it might be a more significant issue.”



Nowhere but up
The number of days each year above 95° Fahrenheit (35° Celsius) is expected to rise across the United States, and average summer temperatures will reach new heights if greenhouse gas emissions remain high. The maps below compare late 20th century temperatures to projections for the mid–21st century.



Adaptation has limits
The human body can’t tolerate excessive heat. The biological and chemical processes that keep us alive are best carried out at a core temperature of 36° to 37° Celsius (96.8° to 98.6° Fahrenheit), with slight variation from person to person. Beyond that, “the body’s primary response to heat is to try and get rid of it,” says Jonathan Samet, dean of the Colorado School of Public Health in Aurora. Blood vessels in the skin dilate and heart rate goes up to push blood flow to the skin, where the blood can release heat to cool down. Meanwhile, sweating kicks in to cool the skin.
With repeated exposure to high temperatures, the body can become more efficient at shedding excess heat. That’s why a person can move from cold Minneapolis to steamy Miami and get used to the higher heat and humidity. But there is a limit to how much a person can adjust, which depends on the person’s underlying health and the ambient temperature and humidity. If the outside is hotter than the body, blood at the skin surface won’t release heat. If humidity is high, sweating won’t cool the skin. Two scientists proposed in 2008 that humans cannot effectively dissipate heat with extended exposure to a wet-bulb temperature, which combines heat and humidity, that is greater than 35° C.
In New Delhi during a May 2015 heat wave, a man wipes his brow. That year, heat claimed more than 2,500 lives in the South Asian country. Tsering Topgyal/AP Photo
Forced to regulate heat without a break, the body gets worn out. Heat exhaustion leads to weakness, dizziness and nausea. If a person doesn’t cool off, heat stroke is likely — and likely fatal. The ability to regulate heat breaks down and core body temperature reaches or exceeds 40° C. A person suffering heat stroke may have seizures, convulsions or go into a coma.
No one is immune to heat, but it hits some groups harder than others. The elderly, considered the most vulnerable, have fewer sweat glands and their bodies respond more slowly to rising temperatures. Children haven’t fully developed the ability to regulate heat, and pregnant women can struggle due to the demands of the fetus. People with chronic diseases like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity can have trouble dissipating heat. And, of course, people living in poverty often lack air conditioning and other resources to withstand sweltering conditions.

Collateral damage
Weather dangers
Although tornadoes, floods and hurricanes tend to get more attention, U.S. heat fatalities top the list of weather-related deaths in the 30 years since heat-related data were first reported.
Source: National Weather Service. T. Tibbitts
Researchers are discovering more ways that heat can hurt. Take sleep: The onset and duration of sleep is sensitive to temperature. The body cools down as it prepares to sleep; this decrease in core temperature is a signal to bring on the z’s. Body temperature stays low throughout the night, then rises just before awakening. A good night’s rest is a cornerstone of health.
Hot nights make for bad sleep, according to a study combining responses to a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sleep survey of 765,000 U.S. residents from 2002 to 2011 with data on nighttime temperatures during that period. The higher the nighttime temperatures, the more nights respondents reported getting too little shut-eye. The effect hit low-income respondents and the elderly hardest, the researchers reported in May 2017 in Science Advances.
The ability to think and calculate may take a beating in the heat, according to a small study presented in January in Austin, Texas, at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting. Researchers from Harvard University tested undergraduate students for 12 days — the time before, during and after a heat wave. Twenty-four lived in buildings with air conditioning and 20 in buildings without. The researchers assessed how quickly and accurately students performed an addition and subtraction test and a test that asked for the color of a written word, rather than the word itself. During the heat wave, the students without air conditioning got about 6 percent fewer correct answers on the math problems and 10 percent fewer on the color problems than the students with air conditioning.
Heat may even increase the risk of stillbirth. Researchers with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Bethesda, Md., analyzed weather data and more than 223,000 U.S. births from 2002 to 2008. During the warm months of the year, a 1 degree C increase in temperature during the week before birth was associated with about four additional stillbirths per 10,000 births, the researchers reported in June 2017 in Environmental Health Perspectives.
In July 2014, a worker in Las Vegas cools off with a wet cloth during a break from her outdoor advertising job. Hot days are expected to become more common. AP Photo/John Locher
As heat gets vicious, it threatens to disrupt the fabric of society. Extreme heat — beyond a wet-bulb temperature of 35° C — could become more regular in South Asia and the Persian Gulf, rendering parts of those areas uninhabitable, according to studies in the August 2017 Science Advances (SN: 9/2/17, p. 10) and the February 2016 Nature Climate Change. It’s not hard to imagine that there will be profound societal and political instability “in a world where tens of millions of people have to move and are looking for cooler places to live,” says Howard Frumkin, a physician epidemiologist specializing in environmental health at the University of Washington.

Emerald cities
Fifty-four percent of the world’s population — and around 80 percent of U.S. residents — live in urban areas. Cities are where some action to combat heat can be taken now, says Brian Stone Jr., an environmental planner and member of the Urban Climate Lab at Georgia Tech in Atlanta. “If we’re waiting for the national government to signal it’s time to do this, we’re going to wait too long,” he says. “We are well into a world that’s been altered by climate change.”
Heat thrives in cities. All of the nonreflective roofs, walls, roads and other surfaces absorb and retain heat during the day. Waste heat, emitted from air conditioners and vehicles, concentrates in cities too. Together, these factors contribute to what’s called an urban heat island, an amplification of heat that occurs within cities. On average, a city with at least a million residents can be 1 to 3 degrees C hotter than surrounding areas. At night, the temperature differences widen. Cities may be as much as 12 degrees C hotter than surrounding areas in the evening hours, because cities release built-up heat back out among buildings and avenues.



Hotlanta
These Landsat satellite images show urban Atlanta on September 28, 2000. The core urban area is at the center of the images. The left side shows areas of vegetation (green), bare ground (brown) and roads and dense development (gray). The heat map on the right shows the areas of densest development also have the hottest land surface temperatures (red), near 30 degrees Celsius. The areas of heaviest vegetation are the coolest (yellow) due to evaporation of water and shade.
Marit Jentoft-Nilsen/NASA
City planners can rid their locales of some of this heat with several strategies. One is to plant more trees to create shade for residents and structures. Trees also lower the air temperature by transferring water from the soil through the tree to the air. The surrounding air is cooled as the water changes from a liquid to a vapor. The process is “much like the way sweating works for our bodies,” says George Ban-Weiss, an environmental engineer at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
Another strategy is to reduce the amount of sunlight that city surfaces absorb by using “cool” materials on exposed surfaces. The best known are cool roofs, which “reflect more sunlight than usual,” says Ronnen Levinson of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., who studies cool surfaces and urban heat islands. In general, to make a surface cool, you make it lighter, with coatings or other light-colored materials. For example, a white roof that reflects 80 percent of the sun’s light on a typical summer afternoon will stay about 31 degrees C cooler than a gray roof that reflects only 20 percent.

Cool Top
A light roof (top) reflects more sunlight and can thus be dozens of degrees cooler than a dark roof. 
Giving buildings cool-surface makeovers counters the urban heat island effect and reduces the temperature inside a building. “In disadvantaged communities, people simply may not have air conditioning to help them ride out hot summers,” Levinson says. Cooling off the insides of buildings is “where I think the greatest potential benefits are for improving human comfort and health,” he says.
Stone has estimated how many heat-related deaths could be avoided by reducing urban heat island effects. In 2016, he and colleagues produced a report for the city of Louisville, Ky., that analyzed the impact of adding 450,000 trees, converting 168 square kilometers of surfaces to cool materials and more. The researchers estimated that areas of the city could reduce average summertime temperatures by as much as 1.7 degrees C or more. And based on the 53 deaths Stone attributed to the city’s unusually warm summer of 2012, there could be 11 fewer deaths from heat, a reduction of 21 percent. “When we get a big heat wave,” Stone says, “that could really translate into hundreds of lives.”
Many cities in the United States and abroad are working on tempering their urban heat islands with a variety of strategies, including programs to install cool roofs or plant more trees. The city of Los Angeles now requires that new or replaced roofs for homes and other residential buildings meet a solar reflectance index value — a measure of a materials’ ability to stay cool in the sun between zero (black surface) and 100 (white) — of at least 75 for flatter roofs and 16 for steeper ones. Through a provision in California’s building energy efficiency code, cities throughout the state have been converting flat, commercial roofs, like those on big-box stores, to light-colored cool roofs when a new topper is needed.

Sun-day In The Park
The cooler hues of Central Park jump out of this otherwise red-hot map of New York City heat on a summer day. The built areas of the city are around 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than tree-filled parts of the park.
New York City has planted a million new trees since 2007 and committed additional funds to adding even more to streets and parks. The city also has coated 0.62 square kilometers of roof surfaces white since 2009. The city of Ahmedabad, India, where about 25 percent of the residents live in slum communities, announced a heat action plan in 2017 that includes a cool roofs initiative to paint or otherwise convert at least 500 slum household roofs and to improve the reflectivity of roofs on government buildings and schools.
Measures that tackle the urban heat island effect also make cities more energy efficient (by reducing the cooling needs inside buildings) and more comfortable (by shading city residents). Individual cities need to implement strategies that make sense for their landscapes, their water resources, their usual climate and their populations, Ban-Weiss says.
But ameliorating urban heat can only do so much. There will still need to be a worldwide push to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Ban-Weiss and colleagues estimated how much cool roofs could counter warming from climate change in Southern California. Assuming that greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, the widespread adoption of cool roofs in the Los Angeles metropolitan area would offset some of the warming expected by midcentury, the team reported in 2016 in Environmental Research Letters. But by the end of the century, Ban-Weiss says, the cool roof benefits “become mostly dwarfed by climate change.”

Links

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative