Research Paper Final: Our Eighth Continent: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Our Eighth Continent: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

A combined effort by the people of the world has finally created an eighth continent!  This continent would not be a pleasant place to live, as it is made up of all of our unwanted filth, also known as marine litter.  Marine litter has been defined as solid materials of human origin discarded at sea, or reaching the sea through waterways (Aliani & Molcard, 2003).  This litter gets stuck in a swirling vortex called the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. The Gyre is located in the central North Pacific Ocean located roughly between 135 ° to 155° W and 35° to 42°N (between the California coast line and Hawaii). Discoverer Charles J. Moore , noticed the patch when he was returning home through the North Pacific Gyre after competing in theTranspac sailing race in 1997.  He came upon a wide stretch of floating debris, and dubbed the region the “Eastern Garbage Patch.” The Gyre is a combination of ocean currents and high air pressure that causes the water to swirl in a clockwise pattern and suck anything in its radius into its trap. We manufacture about 60 billion new tons of plastic each year (McLaughlin, 2008), and every day, with each piece of trash, this patch gets bigger and more and more sea life is harmed.  2.5–3.5 kg of rubbish per person per day was estimated to be entering the sea from ships alone. This approximates to 0.6 million tons of litter annually (Barnes & Milner, 2005).  And the scary thing is, is that most of the trash is not coming from ships.  It comes from beach goers and carless human beings. Given the rapid increase in plastic production, the longevity of plastic, and the disposable nature of plastic items, this contamination is likely to increase (Davis & Thompson, 2004). It has been assumed that the collected trash would be impossible to clean up, and even if it was cleaned up, the garbage would not stop coming, and the ocean would continue to fill up with our waste. Although the issue of the floating island in the Pacific is not well known, the Pacific Garbage Patch poses a serious threat to seabirds and marine life because of photodegradation, animal entanglement, and the small surface debris it creates.

When large objects float out to sea they are broken down into small confetti-sized particles by a process called photodegradation.  Photodegradation occurs when an object has prolonged exposure to sunlight.  The sun’s ultraviolet rays make plastic brittle, and the grinding action of waves breaks it to pieces, but polymers don’t vanish. They just get smaller and smaller (Ferris, 2009).  These particles become so small that they actually go unseen by satellites and boats. The major sources of this debris include storm water discharges, sewer overflows, litter, solid waste disposals and landfills, offshore mineral and oil exploration, industrial activities and illegal dumping. The sheer volume and geographic range of marine debris is daunting: 14 billion pounds of garbage accumulates annually in the oceans and travels across the globe (Leous & Parry, 2005). Once these objects are broken into small molecular pieces, it makes the mess even more impossible to clean up.  In addition, the Garbage Patch would not pose such a big risk to seabirds and marine life if the objects were too large to digest. Charles Moore, the oceanographer that first discovered the garbage patch, believes it would be impossible to clean these particles at sea. He has said that “trying to clean up the Pacific gyre would bankrupt any country and kill wildlife in the nets as it went” (DeFranza, 2009).  The simplest solution is to quit using so much plastic. Each of us tosses about 185 pounds of plastic per year (Casey, 2006).  It would be simple to reduce the amount of plastic each of us uses, but first the public has to be made aware of how repulsive their actions have been the past couple centuries.

Sea life living near or passing through the North Pacific Gyre are at risk of losing their lives in the floating debris that stretches for miles through the Pacific Ocean.  Marine debris is generally characterized as discarded anthropogenic solid waste present in marine waterways. Composed largely of plastics, marine debris can include cigarette filters, baby diapers, six-pack rings, beverage bottles and cans, disposable syringes, plastic bags, bottle caps, fishing line and gear, automobiles and numerous other objects. The major sources of this debris include storm water discharges, sewer overflows, litter, solid waste disposal and landfills, offshore mineral and oil exploration, industrial activities and illegal dumping (Leous & Parry, 2005).  Even if plastic waste disposal into the ocean should stop tomorrow, its blight would persist far into the future because of the resistance of existing waste to degradation. Beverage six-pack holders, for example, an extremely common form of plastic waste, are reported to have a life expectancy of 450 years in sea water (Connor & O’Dell, 1988). So even before trash swept out to sea has the opportunity to photodegrade, it poses a serious risk to aquatic life as a whole.  Sea life can easily get trapped in or tangled in various nets, plastic ring top pop can holders, plastic bags, fishing line, and other human-made contraptions.  The sea creatures that get tangled in such things suffer from injuries that limit their mobility, making them more vulnerable to predators.  In some cases, marine life is drowned by the debris in which they have become entangled.  Although marine debris studies have shown that plastic is quickly and intensively colonized by a wide range of species (Barnes & Milner, 2005), this does not mean that plastic is a beneficial thing to sea life.  It is however, very good that creatures have been able to adapt so well to their rapidly changing home makeover.  With the patch growing so quickly, marine life is going to have to adapt and evolve to live in these trashy conditions or they will be wiped out. As described by Charles Moore (the discoverer of the Patch) the Garbage Patch is two to three times the size of Texas, but in fact it might be far larger- as much as 5 million square miles, or one and a half times the size of the United States.  As a marine mammal it would be quite hard to evade this significant trash mass. It is estimated that entanglement claims the lives of hundreds of thousands of marine mammals and seabirds each year (Walsh, 2005).

Because plastic never fully biodegrades, it is broken up into small particles which then form a layer of debris, which resides just below the surface of the water.  Marine life and seabirds mistake this trash for plankton and other edibles. In parts of the ocean, a fish is more likely to consume plastic than actual food (Ferris, 2009). When animals eat indigestible trash, it then sits in their systems and clogs it so that no other food can pass through.  Eventually the animal will die of starvation or suffocation. More than a million seabirds, 100,000 marine mammals, and countless fish die in the North Pacific each year, either from mistakenly eating this junk or from being ensnared in it and drowning (Casey, 2006). On British coastlines in the North Sea, a study of fulmars found that 95 percent of the seabirds had plastic in their stomachs, with an average of 44 pieces per bird. A proportional amount in a human being would weigh nearly five pounds (Doucette, 2009).  Not only does adult bird morbidity rise as a result of the ingestion of plastics, but their ingestion also devastates their offspring.  In the natural course of providing their chicks with sustenance, the adult birds, in a healthy environment, regurgitate partially digested fish and other sea organisms directly into their babies’ mouths.  In the North Pacific Sea Gyre this type of nurturing manifests in a death sentence for these babies.  The product of the regurgitation is compiled with a great amount of plastics and other indigestible trash.  The breaking down of debris also releases toxins like DDT and PBC from plastic, which are then absorbed through the skin of jellyfish and fish.  When these bits are ingested by animals, they get a massive dose of these toxinsResearchers have found this can result in biological damage that affects reproduction and the health of offspring and may even cause mutations (Walsh, 2005).  In marine environments, excess estrogen has led to Twilight Zone-esque discoveries of male fish and seagulls that have sprouted female sex organs (Casey, 2006). Eating fish with these toxins in them is unhealthy and can be fatal to humans. Frederick vom Saal, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Missouri at Columbia who specifically studies estrogenic chemicals in plastics, says declining fertility rates in humans could be linked to exposure to synthetic oestrogen in plastics (Woods, 2007).  So not only are these particles affecting marine life, but they are affecting humans as well. On Kamilo Beach in Hawaii, there are now more plastic particles than sand particles until one digs a foot down.  Pagan Island has what is called the “shopping beach.”  If the islanders need a cigarette lighter, or some flip-flops or a toy, or a ball for their kids, they go down to the shopping beach and pick it out of all the plastic trash that has washed up there from thousands of miles away (Drowning, 2009).  It is clear that the impact of human mismanagement and lack of management of its waste products is resulting in the sickness and death of sea life upon which humans ultimately rely.

To understand the extent of the problem, as well as to combat it and measure effectiveness at doing so, temporal patterns as well as education are crucial (Barnes & Milner, 2005).  Over the past five or six decades, contamination and pollution of the world’s enclosed seas, coastal waters and the wider open oceans by plastics and other synthetic, non-biodegradable materials (generally known as “marine debris”) has been an ever-increasing phenomenon (Gregory, 2009). Humankind is known for its indomitable spirit, endless creativity, and highly evolved intelligence. One may ask why then we have a problem such as this. One of the first steps to fixing a problem is acknowledging that it is there in the first place. In the case of the Pacific Gyre, our planet needs to become more aware of how this occurred, the damage it is causing to life on our planet, as well as the environment, and how we can go about fixing the damage.  New laws prohibiting dumping at sea and on land encouraging recycling may slow the increase of material entering the oceans but evaluating this may prove difficult, as the number of sites surveyed is so small and from such a restricted geographic area (Barnes & Milner, 2005).  Several alternatives are mentioned to stop the problem like using biodegradable plastics, recycling, and consumer tax (Coulter, 2010).  If there were the incentive to handle each item of garbage separately, to put it in its proper place on some shelf, as we handle the initial packages of goods (and other items that leave a residue) when we buy the goods, we might readily manage the flow of garbage in successful ways (Hardin, 1998). Marine debris does not fall out of the sky, it comes from someone’s hands; we are the main cause of the problem, but also the key to the solution (Bamford, 2009).  Sea animals should not have to endure this type of abuse; suffocating on plastic and getting tangled in old fishing line is a cruel way to go.  With the sun and waves continuously working together to break up the marine debris, it will not be long until the entire ocean is filled with microscopic filth.  Now is a good time to take action.

GARBAGE PATCH References

Aliani, S., & Molcard, A. (2003, August). Hitch-hiking on floating marine debris: macrobenthic species in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Hydrobiologia, 503(1-3), 59-67. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (14973811)

Bamford, H. (2009, December 21). Committed to cleaning the ‘Great Pacific  Garbage Patch’. The Washington Post. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (WPT345108910209)

Barnes, D., & Milner, P. (2005, March). Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology, 146(4), 815-825. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (16312115)

Casey, S. (2006, November). Our Oceans are Turning into Plastic… Are We? Best Life, 3(9), 102-109. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (22959390)

Connor, D. K., & O’Dell, R. (1988, January/‌February). The Tightening Net of Marine Plastics Pollution. Environment, 30(1), 16. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (8800004255)

Coulter, J. R. (2010, April). A Sea Change to Change the Sea:  Stopping the Spread of the Pacific Garbage Patch with Small-scale Environmental Legislation. William & Mary Law Review, 51(5), 1959-1995. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (49782694)

Davis, A., & Thompson, R. C. (2004, May 7). Lost at Sea: Where Is All the Plastic? Science, 304(5672), 838-838. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (13212295)

DeFranza, D. (2009, October 20). Isn’t it Time to Clean Up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? Planet Green. Retrieved from http://planetgreen.discovery.com/‌travel-outdoors/‌clean-pacific-garbage-patch.html

Doucette, D. K. (2009, October 29). An Ocean of Plastic. Rolling Stone, (1090), 54-57. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (44760762)

Drowning in plastic: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is twice the size of France. (2009, April 24). Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/‌earth/‌environment/‌5208645/‌Drowning-in-plastic-The-Great-Pacific-Garbage-Patch-is-twice-the-size-of-France.html

Ferris, D. (2009, May/‌June). Message in a Bottle. Sierra, 49(3), 44-71. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (39751902)

Gregory, M. P. (2009, July). Environmental Implications of Plastic Debris in Marine Settings—Entanglement, Ingestion, Smothering. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2013-2025. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (42316874)

Hardin, R. (1998, Spring). Garbage Out, Garbage In. Social Research, 65(1), 9-30. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (540045)

Leous, J. P., & Parry, N. B. (2005, Fall/‌Winter). Who is Responsible for Marine Debris? The International Politics of Cleaning our Oceans. Journal of International Affairs, 59(1), 257-269. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (19476763)

McLaughlin, J. S. (2008, April). The Kingdom Fungi, Food Chains, and Plastic Pollution. American Biology Teacher, 70(4), 201-201. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (33304212)

Walsh, D. (2005, January). The Plastic Ocean. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 131(1), 82-82. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. (15591988)

Woods, A. (2007, December 9). The plastic killing fields. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/‌news/‌environment/‌the-plastic-killing-fields/‌2007/‌12/‌28/‌1198778702627.html?page=fullpage

iew Book Review: Garbage Land: A Dirty Investigation book-review-garbage-land-a-dirty-investigation 12023565 open open publish 17 04 2010 22 31 33 19831,423898,11816076 Book Review	dabaecker	Pollution, Short Essay, Spring 2010	Book Review		0	2010/04/17 Published
	Research Paper Draft-Our Eighth Continent: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Research Paper (Final)- Climate Change: The Myth of Global Warming

Are humans responsible for the destruction of their habitat known as Mother Nature? Human-made pollution is evident; from litter in local streams to plumes of carbon dense smoke billowing out of power plants, it has become apparent sustainability is not a priority.  In addition, our resources are being used and abused much faster than the earth can replenish and recover.  Recently, this abuse of Mother Nature has become a topic of great interest.  Known as the “green movement,” advocates stress awareness of waste and pollution and its effect on the environment.  The most publicized consequence of our non-earth friendly actions is global warming.  This theory is blindly adopted with little scientific evidence because it justifies the worlds’ need to “go green.”  When the overwhelming facts concerning greenhouse gasses, and the sheer amount of waste humans produce is taken into account, there is no wonder global warming is justified in peoples’ minds.  Although human induced global warming is a popular theory, it is misleading because climate change has occurred throughout history, our most recent period of warming ended over ten years ago, and the earth is currently in a state of cooling.

Climate change is nothing new.  In the life span of the earth, a climate where humans could and have inhabited the planet are mere smudges on its climate time-line.  Starting with the big bang over 13.7 billion years ago, the earth has experienced cycles of hot flashes and freezing spells (Sorokhtin, Chilingar, and Khilyuk, 2007, p. 2).  As recently as 650 million years ago the earth was frozen solid.  This period of 10 million years is known as “snowball earth”.  After this period, volcanoes began to erupt producing greenhouse gasses which warmed the earth.  Over the next 400 million years, global temperatures rose and fell allowing for small life forms to succeed.  Plants, cold-blooded animals, and insects did well during this time (Hulme, 2009). Then, quite suddenly, there was a mass extinction.  Over 95% of the earth’s species died due to flood basalt eruptions lasting for one million years.  The earth’s temperatures rose an impressive 18 degrees F due to a 700% increase in carbon dioxide during this time.  It then took 195 billion years for the blanket of carbon dioxide to dissipate and the earth to cool (Köhler, Bintanja, Fischer, Joos, Knutti, Lohmann, and Masson-Delmotte, 2010).  The time spans of these major climatic events far surpass any current data time frames.  Compared to a human life span, the earth moves at a snails pace.  Any temperature fluctuations observed are not significant enough.

At 55 million years ago another 20 degrees F increase occurred due to increased methane gas.  Over the next 40 million years, temperatures continued to fluctuate, allowing for the polar ice caps to expand and retreat. Since, the climate has stayed relatively stable with an ice age occurring in between.  When temperatures warmed, woolly mammoths and other mega mammals that thrived during the ice age could not survive, while humans were able to adapt (Marsh, 2007).  However, it would be naive to think climate change would miraculously come to a stop on behalf of human inhabitation.  The above-mentioned changes had drastic effects on the earth.  Recently there have been less drastic, though still noticeable, climate fluctuations.

The most recognized examples of modern climate change are known as the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.  The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) took place between 800 and 1300 AD, and consisted of temperatures up to 5 degrees F warmer than today.  It is the most recent phase of warming before the industrial era.  These temperatures played a huge role in history, as it was what partially allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland.  Although it is currently being debated, this period of warmth could have been global (Qlan, Burns, Solomon, and Roble, 2009).  If so, the slightly elevated temperatures seen over the last thirty years would not be unprecedented.  In fact, they would be quite normal and expected.

Following the MWP was the Little Ice Age (LIA).  This period consisted of three consecutive cold spikes with slightly warmer periods in between.  These spikes occurred at about 1650, 1770, and 1850 AD and are well documented in North America and Europe.  As with the MWP, it is debatable whether these were global events (Mathews, Weaver, Meissner, Gillett, and Eby, 2004).  At this time the sun was virtually free of sunspot activity.  A correlation between temperature and sun spot activity known as the Maunder Minimum developed with help from observations from that time (Trenberth, 2009).  Not only do these historical events contradict the current theory of human-made global warming, the research gained from these events brings to light other justification for naturally occurring climate change.  The justification being that it just happens.  There are many scientific explanations for what causes temperature fluctuations such as sun spot activity however, what reduces or increases the amount of sun spots themselves is unknown.

There is no doubt the earth has, and will continue to experience periods of warming.  Our most recent period began in the 1900s and lasted through the year 2000.  This warmth can be accredited to a sun that was the brightest it has been in over a 1,000 years (Michaelowa, 2009).  This increase in brightness did not happen over night; instead it was a result of over 100 years of activity.  This increased brightness is due to sunspots.  It is not clear as to the correlation between sunspots and climate change, however a rough assumption is that the more sun spots there are, the brighter it is, and therefore more heat is produced (Melezhik, 2006). In addition, sunspots create a magnetic cycle that has been found to correlate with the Northern Hemisphere land temperatures (“Global Warming”, 2004). The important thing of note is the date attached to the above data.  At this time the earth was in fact warming. Since the early 2000s, data has shown the earth is once again cooling.

According to NASA, sunspots are on the decline: out of the 365 calendar days in 2008, 266 where sunspot free.  This was thought to be an all time low since 1913, however an awesome 87% of the days of 2009 were sunspot free.  The graph accompanying the article depicts a peak in solar activity right around 2000, with a sharp decline predicted through 2012 (“Deep”, 2009).  So far, this activity chart mimics that of the observed temperature fluctuations.  The current lull in activity also allowing scientists to better understand what a deep solar minimum is like first hand.

Other studies have found similar evidence.   In the journal Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects a study was published analyzing the affects of carbon dioxide and the atmosphere.  The scientists concluded the short-term temperature variances scientists have observed over the past 100 years cannot be accredited to fluctuations in carbon dioxide.  Instead they are positively matched with sun spot activity Chilingar, Khilyuk, and Sorokhtin, 2008).  The recent cooling and previous period of warming are considered short-term temperature changes, and cannot be cited for significant data.  However, events such as the Little Ice Age have more historical bearing.  Five hundred years is a much more substantial duration of time yet still trivial in comparison to the earth’s first ice age of one million years.

As the world’s reliance on fossil fuels increases, so do the byproducts of consumerism.  Ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are being admitted into the atmosphere as more cars are on the road and more energy is being produced.  According to computer simulations, the earth’s temperature should have increased 1.8 degrees F over the last 100 years based on the amount of carbon dioxide being released.  This has not been the case however.  Fluctuations have been smaller, staying with in .5 of a degree (Baliunas, 1999).  Previously, carbon dioxide billowing out of volcanoes was responsible for drastic temperature changes.  At times the earth was more than 20 degrees F warmer than it is now.  This is poor support for global warming theorists, the volcanic eruptions responsible for the warming occurred over the course of thousands of years.  These endless eruptions covered the majority of the earth in molten lava (Marsh, 2007).  This scene is unfathomable for humans, and is in no way comparable to the current levels of carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere.

The current levels of carbon dioxide are approximately 390 parts per million.  This number has increased over the years, however when compared to other levels in history it is not alarming.  During the Triassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, these low levels would have resulted in a much earlier extinction. Carbon dioxide is plant food, an abundance of it, approximately 1,560 to 1950 ppm, resulted in robust vegetation for these large animals to devour (Diffenbaugh, 2009).  Humans know the benefits of this gas as well.  Many botanists swear talking to their plants is the key to health.  Though the plants cannot hear, they are very happy to absorb the carbon dioxide given off during the action of talking.

It is clear there is little concrete scientific evidence to support, or deny global warming.  What can be confirmed is that climate change is inevitable.  Some studies have gone as far as to say the increase in carbon dioxide leads to cooling, not warming.  This conclusion has a simple physical explanation: when infrared radiation is absorbed by green house gas molecules the air expands which causes circular fluxes of air masses restoring the temperature in the troposphere.  The small amount of carbon dioxide released into the air by humans is not enough to influence the atmospheric temperature of the Earth (Cooling of Atmosphere, 2008).  If this subject is studied further and found to be true, there is no doubt a wrench will be thrown in this crucial argument.  With compelling, yet questionable evidence for those who agree and disagree with the theory of global warming, there is no doubt that the debate will continue as more research is preformed and time goes on.

Dr. Bell believes global warming is the greatest ruse known to modern science.  It is debatable how the rumor became so large with such little evidence, however it is quite clear the opposite would be a much greater threat.  Food, people and animals can survive in extreme heat with food and water; the same does not go for life in extreme cold.  The essentials to life: food and water would be locked away under ice, crops unable to grow and animals unable to eat (Bell, 2007).  This is a much scarier thought for humans to comprehend.  Some scientists even feel this is one of the reasons global cooling research is so heavily scrutinized and disclaimed.  It is apparent the prevailing research and theories on the subject are not willing to be challenged.

There is no question global warming is a complex issue, however it is nothing new.  Throughout history, extreme climate has been normal.  Regardless of what human kind has done by way of contamination, the earth will continue about its climate cycles without batting an eye.  Human life is a fluke, developed from ideal conditions in an inhabitable environment.  Humans are but insignificant guests in this world who have failed to respect their hostess. They have polluted and contaminated the environment, but the earth will power on.  The current climate fluctuations are not significant enough for one to use to draw conclusions.  Be it another ice age or incinerating heat, the tectonic plates will shift, the volcanoes will erupt, and over millions of years people will be but a memory.  However, humans are the earth’s current inhabitants.  To continue to live, sustainability must be kept in mind.  Research is contradictory on the subject of climate change; however, there is no denying that the earth is its own entity, unbound by the actions of humans.  Humans are but innocent bystanders of earth’s natural climate change.

References

Baliunas, S. (1999, August 5). Why So Hot? Don’t Blame Man, Blame the Sun.The Wall Street journal, 18.

Ball, Timothy. (2007, February 5). Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?. Canada Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Chilingar, G. V., Khilyuk, L. F., & Sorokhtin, O. G. (2008, January). Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission. Energy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization & Environmental Effects, 30(1), 1-9. doi:10.1080/15567030701568727

Deep Solar Minimum . (2009, April 1). National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from NASA website: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

Diffenbaugh, N. S. (2009, December). Influence of modern land cover on the climate of the United States. Climate Dynamics, 33(7), 945-958. doi:10.1007/s00382-009-0566-z

Global Warming: Sun Takes Some Heat. (2004, October). Environment, 46(8), 7. Retrieved from http://p8333metalib5.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/V/QRRXDVTGAV9K6FN15KYB3N4LT6JFNFQ8IGB5IM6FAFVQKR6DVM-02659?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=000499&set_entry=000001&format=999

Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change. New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.

Köhler, P., Bintanja, R., Fischer, H., Joos, F., Knutti, R., Lohmann, G., & Masson-Delmotte, V. (2010, January). What caused Earth’s temperature variations during the last 800,000 years? Data-based evidence on radiative forcing and constraints on climate sensitivity. . Quaternary Science Reviews, 29(1), 129-145. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.09.026

Marsh, S. (Producer), & Hearle, A. (Director). (2007). A Global Warning? [Motion picture]. United States : A&E Television Networks.

Mathews, H. D., Weaver, A. J., Meissner, K. J., Gillett, N. P., & Eby, M. (2004, May). Natural and anthropogenic climate change: incorporating historical land cover change, vegetation dynamics and the global carbon cycle. Climate Dynamics, 22(5), 461-479. doi:10.1007/s00382-004-0392-2

Melezhik, V. A. (2006, April). Multiple causes of Earth’s earliest global glaciation. Terra Nova, 18(2), 130-137. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3121.2006.00672.x

Michaelowa, A. (2009, December). Limiting Global Cooling after Global Warming is Over — Differentiating Between Short- and Long-Lived Greenhouse Gases. OPEC Review: Energy Economics & Related Issues, 24(4), 343-351. doi:10.1111/j.0277-0180.2003.00075.x

Qlan, L., Burns, A., Solomon, S. C., & Roble, R. (2009, October). The effect of carbon dioxide cooling on trends in the F2-layer ionosphere. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 71(14), 1592-1601. doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.03.006

Sorokhtin, O. G., Chilingar, G. V., & Khilyuk, L. F. (2007). Global Warming and Global Cooling: Evolution of climate on earth. The Netherlands: ELSEVIER.

Trenberth, K. E. (2009, October 3). An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(1), 19-27. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001

Research Final Draft: A Slow and Winding Route to Sustainability

A Slow and Winding Route to Sustainability

Jessie Huff

English 213, Section 201001

Professor Maureen Sullivan

April 14, 2010

The Yukon River Basin is the fourth largest watershed in North America (Brabets, 2000, p. 106). When looking at a map of Alaska a string of towns follow its winding route to the Bering Sea. Flying above this land, small mountain like hills rise and fall in isolated patches banded by small rivers with tight looping corners which zigzagging like switchback trails down sloping valleys. Oxbow lakes outline the rivers one after another, crescent moon like impressions doting these watery pathways. Between these hills are vast flat expanses of low boggy terrain and round crater lakes. When seeing the Yukon River there will be no doubt what to call it, much like Mt. Denali, people say, “when you see it you will know”. It is a big river, and the communities on its banks are some of the most remote in North America. The increasing cost of oil affects them incredibly because of the added transportation cost. The current political support for implementing renewable energy systems has the potential to benefit these communities, by supplying the funding they need for the upfront cost. Becoming energy independent and thus increasing their self-reliance is critical to these remote towns survival. It is obvious that with this region’s yearly fluctuation of sunlight and temperature, all renewables are difficult to estimate as viable for yearlong application. However, the Yukon River always flows, even when the top is frozen solid and trucks cross. Although small scale hydro electric power has not yet been successfully utilized along the Yukon River, it is becoming a viable future option for the communities in that region because renewable energy makes long term socio-economic sense, new technologies involving hydrokinetic power are being developed, and hydro’s steady power eliminates the integration problems found with other renewables.

The new activity of experimental hydrokinetic power for Yukon communities is based on the building socioeconomic stress these towns feel. Living in remote Alaska is subsistence based because of the culture and the high cost of transporting goods into the community. In the ever more modern life of these towns, comes increasing energy demand, which when coupled with rising oil costs, it will soon become too expensive to sustain unless changes occur (Larsen et al, 2008).

If hydro could be proven to work for one community, other communities would soon accept it and hydrokinetics could produce an increase in self-reliant communities throughout the region. Solar and wind are not a bad idea either; at times these systems would give the communities an added boost of electrical energy. However, because of the great fluctuations they experience throughout the year and day, hydro and or traditional diesel generation would also be needed as a base, and reliable power source. The key to sustainability is diversity, and taking advantage of all the renewable options will create a wealth of resources.

If you were to analyze a location for the purpose of installing a hydro-electrical system the first two calculations traditionally determined are the Head and Flow. Head refers to the elevation change or the speed at which the water is moving and Flow refers to the amount of water that is moving. 6.67% of the USA’s electricity came from hydro electrical power in 2005 (Kosnik, 2008). All of the large scale power plants making up this percentage fall into two categories, Reservoir type systems or Diversion type systems. A third type of hydro that still to this day is not widely utilized, is hydrokinetic also referred to as in-stream systems. Developments in hydrokinetic systems are becoming more important because of rising oil prices. Companies around the world are taking interest it this opportunity for growth.

• Reservoir type systems (Low Head, High Flow) use a dam or existing lake to control a large amount of water, releasing it under great pressure to spin a turbine.
• Diversion type systems (High Head, Low Flow) gather kinetic energy from a large change of elevation which increases the speed of the water and thus the turbine producing energy. (Frey, 2002; Khan, 2008)
• Hydrokinetic or in stream hydro are turbine placed directly into a flowing river or flowing water source. Its potential energy is measures from the volume of the water, density of the water and the speed at which it flows.

The reason Yukon River communities have not yet employed hydroelectric power is simply because the low, meandering, salmon filled Yukon River Basin is not a suitable site for these typical types of hydroelectric plants. The Yukon does not drop elevation quickly, resulting in a near zero amount of Head, and damming the river is not even a subject of discussion because of subsistence based people surviving off of the salmon runs.

In recent years, the attention given to renewable energy has lead to developments in the area of in-stream or hydrokinetic electrical power generation. This third and still technologically underdeveloped type of hydro-electrical power would be ideal for many applications if completed. The idea is that hydrokinetics function much like a windmill functions in the air. The larger a windmill or the larger the swept area of the blades, the more power a well designed windmill can produce. However, a “wind turbine with a rotor speed of 11-13 m/s will generate the same amount of energy as a hydrokinetic turbine with a rotor speed of 1.75-2.25 m/s; in other words, a single underwater turbine can produce the same amount of energy as a wind turbine three times larger (Kahn et al, 2008). This is because water is denser than air. This is good news for river power since most rivers are not nearly as deep as today’s typical windmill blades.

The town of Ruby, Alaska owns an electrical grid. In 2008 they attempted to install the first ever hydrokinetic electrical generator. Here the river is 73% of its largest size. The stream flow in Ruby is 167,000 ft³/s (USGS, 2008). The town of Ruby partnered with the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council (YRITWC) for this project. They deployed a 5kW turbine that was mounted to a boat anchored in the river. The propeller of the turbine was lowered into the water and the generator at the end of a shaft was in the air.  The 5kW turbine never produced more than 1.5kW that summer.  After some design changes the second summer did not bring new luck. Complications between the ship-to-shore electrical line stopped the unit from producing any power for the village. The YRITWC has not given up, although they have put the project on hold (Pelunis-Messier, personal communication, March 8, 2010).

In the town of Eagle, AK, 600 miles upstream from Ruby and near the Canadian border, Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) have planes to deploy a similar system this coming summer. Because AP&T controls the power in Eagle, there is a larger sum of money available to experiment with this type of hydrokinetic device. The project is scheduled to be a 25kW unit. David Pelunis-Messier in the Renewable Energy Dept. of YRITWC has said that YRITWC’s plan is to let AP&T invest their dollars into working out the kinks of “in-stream hydro” and then they will revisit the idea in Ruby with that gained knowledge (Pelunis-Messier, personal communication, March 8, 2010).

There are many logistical and environmental difficulties with hydrokinetic systems. Not to mention the logistical problems of working in remote Alaska. Some questions needing to be answered are: how best to anchor the turbine into the water, so that it does not affect the flow of water hitting the turbine? How will the current and turbulence change and/or affect the sedimentation on the river bottom? How to produce a steady power frequency in a fluctuating river? How to transport the electricity back to shore? Finally, for Alaska, how do you make this system viable in -40° weather? (Kahn et al, 2008).

In 2009 Hydro Green Energy (HGE), based in Houston Texas, became the first company to build a federally approved and still installed hydrokinetic river device in America. Two in-stream units were connected to the bottom of a boat and deployed into the river in Hastings, MN. The max these two units can produce is 25kW. The project is located just downstream from a reservoir style hydro-electrical plant. The project was an attempt to expand the plant’s production by experimenting with new green energy technologies, while at the same time taking advantage of federal green energy incentives. Over the next few years, the data from this site will be valuable in understanding the future of hydrokinetics. HGE and the power plant are required to conduct comprehensive studies concerning fish survival, water quality, avian interactions, and the effects on the zebra mussel. Hopefully it will also shed light on the questionable effects of sedimentation. This will begin to answer some of the many questions concerning hydrokinetic-electricity.

ABS Alaskan is Fairbanks source of information and supplies regarding small scale renewable energy. They have had experience in implementing these technologies that scientific papers are not covering. They have lined the conduit of in stream hydro devices with the same type of electrical heat tape use in Alaska for preventing sewage and water line freeze ups. For in-stream hydro, they claim that deep water units can function through the winter months with just a few weeks in which it is necessary to take them off grid, due to the initial freeze up and then break up. Their method of in-stream year around hydro is to mount the unit near the bottom, and pull it out before the first freeze. After the top is frozen solid, to cut a hole in the ice and reinstall the system only to cut another hole and take it back out before break up occurs. This may seem like a lot of work, but with diesel well over four dollars a gallon, it is an economical option (ABS, 2009). If hydrokinetic technology continues to be pursued and developed it is highly probable that these devices could be the steady base of power in remote Yukon River communities’ for much of the year, significantly decreasing these communities dependency on oil products.

One of the most beneficial elements of a traditional hydroelectric system is the high level of control associated with it. The Head, Flow, penstock, and thus speed of turbine is controlled to produce a steady electrical frequency and wattage 24 hours/7 days a week and 365 days a year. This steady flow of electricity alleviates the problem of energy storage, which is such a huge factor in solar and wind systems, because of the great fluctuation solar and wind experience throughout the day. Most homes use the majority of their power consumption in the early morning and at night when the sun, especially in the winter, has gone down. One glance at a wind resource map of Alaska will convey the reality that wind is also not a viable source of dependable power in the Yukon River region (Alaska Energy Authority, 2009). When managing a solar and wind system it is essential to incorporate batteries into a system. Batteries contain their own amount of environmental hazard as well as added cost and budgeting for maintenance and a replacement after a short life span. When speaking of renewable energy I like to say that “everyone wishes they had a river in their back yard”. A solid year around flow of water is a reliable form of energy that can dramatically reduce your overall dependency on fossil fuels.

Another factor Electrical Engineers face is how to handle a fluctuating frequency. With traditional Hydro systems this is controlled through the managing of the pressure and amount of water in the penstock, this function of pressure and volume determine the revolutions per second of the turbine. The revolution of the turbine and thus the generator create the Hertz or frequency of the energy. In the US we control the turbine to synchronize with a 60Hz system (in Europe they use 50Hz), in other words turbines spin at some multiple of 60 times per second. Putting a turbine in a flowing river however, does not give as much control as the traditional styles of hydro that utilize a penstock. Once these issues are worked out by using power electronics and automated switching devices it is plausible that in-stream hydro will also achieve a steady frequency along with its reliabilities of constant power generation. If accomplished hydrokinetic power generation could become the base power system. Wind, solar and diesel could help to supply added power when needed in remote Yukon River Communities. I am not alone in my thinking, obviously all parties involved with the Ruby and Eagle projects also believe hydrokinetic electricity has the potential to be the most practical form of renewable energy for communities within the Yukon River Basin.(Bansal, 2005)(Khan, 2002)(Oh, 2005)(Ottersen, 2003)

This is an exciting time and a changing time in the history of man. We could eventually figure out how to integrate and utilize hydrokinetic power in the Yukon River basin just to have the weather patterns change and the Yukon River dry up (Brabets, 2000, 2009). Or villages could go on for years relying on subsidies and watching their communities shrink as more people flee to the cities escaping socioeconomic hardships. Maybe communities will become fed-up with western ways altogether and stop using power when it becomes too expensive to use. Whatever the outcome, whatever your view, if hydrokinetic power can supply even a steady 25 kW in remote villages it will be cost effective and it will benefit and help sustain remote life. Let’s hope that research and funding continues to allow for the exploration and implementation of these systems. One other closing thought. If Alaska can perfect this technology we will be a world leader in the hydrokinetic market. Look around the globe, at all the remote rivers. There are many similar situations and peoples that would benefit from this technological advancement.

References

ABS Alaska Inc.(2008). Micro-Hydro. Retrieved March 19^th, 2010 from http://www.absak.com/library/micro-hydro-power-systems

Alaska Energy Authority, Alaska Center for Energy and Power. (2009). Alaska Energy: A First Step Toward Energy Independence: A Guise for Alaskan Communities to Utilize Local Energy Resources. Anchorage, AK. Standard Register. Retrieved PDF from: http://akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/AK%20Energy%20Final.pdf

The Alternative Power Source. (2010).Retrieved from: http://www.argotrade.com/

Ausubel, J. H. (2007). Renewable and nuclear heresies. International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, 1(3), 229-244.

Bansal, R.C., Bhatti, T.S., Kothari, D.P., Bhat S. (2005) Reactive power control of wind-diesel-micro-hydro hybrid power systems using matlab/simulink. 24( ½), 86–99. Int. J. of Global Energy. Retrieved from InderScience Publishers

Boyle, G., Everett, B., & Ramage, J. (Eds.). (2003). Energy Systems and Sustainability: Power for a sustainable future. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Brabets. T.P., Walvoord. M. (2009). Trends in stream flow in the Yukon River Basin from 1944 to 2005 and the influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. 371, 108-119. Journal of Hydrology. Retrieved from http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/water/pdfs/yukontrends.pdf

Brabets, T.P., Wang, B., and Meade, R.H., (2000), Environmental and hydrologic overview of the Yukon River Basin, Alaska and Canada: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4204, 106 p.

Build It Solar: The Renewable Energy Site for Do-It-Yourselfers. Message posted to: http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Hydro/hydro.htm Retrieved 3.12.2010

Deane. J.P., O Gallachoir. B.P., McKeogh. E.J. (2009). Techno-economic review of existion and new pumped hydro energy storage plant. 14(4), 1293-1302. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review. Retrieved from: Science Direct doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.015

Department of Energy. (2009). Federal Energy regulatory Commission: The Strategic Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.ferc.gov/about/strat-docs/FY-09-14-strat-plan-print.pdf

El-Sharkawi, M. (2009). Electric Energy: An interdiction. (2^nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press

Frey, G., Linke, D.M.,(2002). Hydropower as a renewable and sustainable energy resource meeting global energy challenges in a reasonable way. Energy Policy. 30(14),1261-1265. Reyrived from Science Direct ( doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00086-1)

Guyette, S. (1996). Planning for Balanced Development: A Guide for Native American and Rural Communities. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers.

Hopkins, R. (2009). The Transition Handbook: From oil dependency to local resilience. White River Junction. VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

Khan. M.J., Iqbal M.T., Quaicoe. J.E. (2008). River current energy conversion systems: Progress, prospects and challenges. 12(8), 2177-2193. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review. Retrieved from: Science Direct doi:10.1016/j.rser.2007.04.016

Kolker, A.M., (2008). Geologic setting of the central Alaskan hot spring belt: implications for geothermal resources capacity and sustainable energy production ( Doctoral dissertation, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2008). UAFRAS,  Retrieved March 29, 2010 from http://goldmine.uaf.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/NKykX1epf2/UAFRAS/9360058/9

Kosnik, L. (2008). The potential of water power in the fight against global warming in the US. Energy Policy. 36,3252-3265. Retrieved from ScienceDirec.

Larsen et al. (2008). Estimating future costs for Alaska public infrastructure at risk from climate change. Global Environmental Change. 18(3),442-457.Retrived from ScienceDirec

Low Impact Hydropower Institute. (2010). Portland, ME: Retrieved from: http://www.lowimpacthydro.org/contact.aspx

National Hydropower Association. Web site and links. Retrieved from: http://www.hydro.org/index.php

Natural Resources Canada. (2004). Micro-Hydropower Systems: A buyer’s Guide (Cat. No. M144-29/2004E). Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Hydro/CanadaMicroHydroGuide.pdf

Oh T, Freere P.(2005) Comparison of single phase self excited induction generator excitation configurations using the main and auxiliary windings for a micro hydro system. Int. J. of Global Energy Issues. 24,(1/2),112 – 125 Retrieved from: http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=basic

Ottersen, O. (2003) The institutional co-evolution in diffusion of hydroelectric power technology. 20(2),168-190. Grimstad, Norway. Department of Industrial Management, Agder University College

Pelunis-Messier, D. (2010) personal phone communication, March 8, 2010

UAF-online-class-seminar. (2010, March 23) Alaska’s Future: Changes Facing Alaska .

USGS. (2008). Fact-Sheet 2008-3005 Transport of Water, Carbon, and Sediment Through the Yukon River Basin. Retived on March 15, 2010: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3005/