Skip to content

It’s Greta or Windmills, Claims AEP

September 30, 2019

By Paul Homewood



AEP is off on one of his usual rants about how wonderful renewable energy is:



We have a choice. Either we fight runaway climate change with liberal market policies and capitalist creativity, or we cede the field to Malthusians and the Green Taliban.

Retreating into denialism – or more corrosive these days, into shoulder-shrugging nihilism – will not cut it. Last week the France’s National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) warned that global warming could reach seven degrees by the end of the century under current policies. 

This week the UN warned – after the Saudis lobbied furiously to tone down the language – that the biochemistry of the oceans is changing with alarming speed. Water acidity has increased by 26pc. The pace of melting ice has quickened fivefold (147 Gt yr) in a decade. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are at vanishing at an “accelerating rate”.

There are tipping points and feedback loops all over the place. The impact is hitting earlier than we supposed and at lower CO2 and temperature thresholds. We risk an unstoppable chain-reaction. Greta Thunberg is right about that. ………..

Technical solutions and eternal economic growth are our only salvation. They are also achievable at zero or even negative net cost with the right market signals. The technology leaps are in fact happening – late in the day – with breath-taking speed. ……

Solutions are at hand. They just need an extra push. We have cracked the challenge of renewable electricity. Solar is cheaper than coal in most southern latitudes. The distortions of China’s Silk Road – Beijing’s way of shunting excess industrial capacity abroad – is the chief reason why new coal power plants are still being built in South East Asia. As of late 2019, at ‘2 cent’ solar costs, they are no longer uncompetitive.

The latest auctions for UK offshore wind came in as low as £39.50.  Few had thought this possible even by mid-century. Germany has got the message. It is now ramping up its offshore wind target to 20 gigawatts by 2030.

Energy storage for weeks at a time is in sight at costs that match and may soon undercut gas peaker plants to balance intermittent renewables. Highview Power’s 4GW liquid air project in Texas will compete toe-to-toe with cheap US shale gas, providing wind back-up at levelized costs below $100 per megawatt/hour. It is aiming for $50 within a decade.

“We have a clear path to zero-carbon power from wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal covering 75pc to 85pc of the world’s needs. The last 15pc is harder,” said Mr Liebreich.

“All road transportation up to 200-300 miles is going electric. By 2025 mayors in European and US cities will have banned diesel vans for deliveries,” he said.

“We have a clear path to zero-carbon power from wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal covering 75pc to 85pc of the world’s needs. The last 15pc is harder,” said Mr Liebreich.

“All road transportation up to 200-300 miles is going electric. By 2025 mayors in European and US cities will have banned diesel vans for deliveries,” he said…

The next frontier is green hydrogen made from solar or wind by electrolysis. This is harder to crack but the top US universities are all over it. So are London hedge funds. BNEF thinks the levelized cost will drop to $24 MWh by 2030, and to $15 by 2050.

This opens the way to limitless production of hydrogen for shipping, long-haul road freight, and railways, or for replacing coke in steel making. Once the cost is low enough huge offshore islands could produce limitless amounts of energy from wind and solar for synthetic fuels.

Heating, farming, and land use will be last but nothing is beyond our innovation. The National Farmers Union has plans for net zero emissions in British agriculture by 2040.

There is no necessary macro-economic ‘cost’ to this great transformation. Economic systems are not like family budgets….

What we must not do is carry on with business as usual.  As Greta says, our remaining safe carbon budget will be gone in under nine years. That way lies the temptation of green political tyranny.


It is the usual rehash of previous articles, with this Greta being the target.

I’ll ignore the apocalyptic nonsense, which has been debunked many times. (By the way, how can sea be 26% more acidic, when they are alkali?).

AEP remains convinced that we can run a modern economy on wind and solar power, whittering on about how cheap they both are. Intermittency and fluctuations in demand? Don’t worry, we can soon sort that out with a few batteries.

Clearly AEP has not got a clue about how power grids work, or how little energy battery and other systems can actually store.


But don’t just take my word for it. Even the Committee on Climate Change, in their Net Zero report, admitted that we would still need large volumes of natural gas, both for power generation and also converting to hydrogen for heating.

Below is the key chart:



148 TWh of gas generation is actually greater than last year, when gas power amounted to 131 TWh. The requirement for 225 TWh of hydrogen is also considerable, when compared with current domestic consumption of natural gas, which was 309 TWh last year. For these to be compatible with zero emissions, the CCC assume that carbon capture and storage will be available. If this comes about, of course, AEP’s windmills are pretty much redundant.

This need for hydrogen is because power grids simply cannot cope with the enormous spikes in winter demand for gas.

By all means, build as many wind farms as you want, but you will still need proper dispatchable capacity on standby. In other words, you simply double up the cost for no good reason.

He reckons that our remaining safe carbon budget will be gone in under nine years. But does he really believe China and India are going to shut down all of their coal plants, steelworks and pretty much their whole economies, so that they can live on solar power? Fortunately for their citizens, their governments have not fallen for AEP’s illusions.

  1. Joe Public permalink
    September 30, 2019 5:33 pm

    AEP: “Germany has got the message. It is now ramping up its offshore wind target to 20 gigawatts by 2030.”

    Meanwhile, back in the real world where dependable affordable energy is required 24/7, later this year Germany will benefit from the second pair of Nordstream gas pipelines coming on stream. Combined, they’ll have a total annual flow capacity of 110 billion cubic metres (138GW / 1,210TWh pa) to Germany and other western European countries.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 1, 2019 1:33 pm

      I guess the idiot AEP has not noticed the difference between the target and the reality where wind installation has dropped right off.

  2. Paul Deverson permalink
    September 30, 2019 5:35 pm

    Actually, how can anything be 26% more acidic? It’s like saying temperatures gone up by x%. A percentage of what?

    • Duker permalink
      September 30, 2019 8:05 pm

      The real numbers from the UN Oceans & Cryosphere Report is ( they seem to adverse to the word ICE)
      ” Open ocean surface pH has declined by a very likely range of 0.017–0.027
      pH units per decade since the late 1980s, with the decline in surface ocean pH very likely to have already emerged from background natural variability for more than 95% of the ocean surface area. ”

      So you are correct there is no 26% more acidic. The pH reduction is barely detectable from background variability.
      The use of terms such as likely , very likely etc are defined here
      virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely
      66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%

      • Duker permalink
        September 30, 2019 9:56 pm

        The midpoint of the ‘decline’ is 0.02 units While Seawater normally can vary from 8.08 to 8.33 units it is also amphoteric and can act as acid and base
        However pH scale is logarithmic any idea of changing from 8.25 to 6.9 the start of the acidic range means you need huge changes and describing the chemistry of seawater is beyond my knowledge

    • Malcolm Skipper permalink
      October 1, 2019 2:37 pm

      Paul is correct. Seawater with any pH over 7 is alkaline, but if I can be a nerd:

      The concentration of hydrogen ions in water determines pH. High concentration = low pH; low concentration = high pH.

      pH is a logarithmic scale, that is steps of 10 so pH=1 is 10x more concentrated than pH=2.

      Technically pH = – log [concentration of hydrogen ions]

      From the formula, pH=8.2 has a concentration of 63 hydrogen ions in 10 billion litres of water, whereas pH=8.1 has a concentration of 79 hydrogen ions in 10 billion litres of water, an increase of 16 hydrogen ions, or 26%, over the 63 at pH=8.2.

      So, pedantically, the water has become ‘more acidic’ by ‘26%’ BUT it is propaganda pedantry.

      First, water over pH=7 has more hydroxide ions than hydrogen ions therefore is alkaline not acidic.
      Second, ‘more acidic’ sounds more scary than ‘less alkaline’, although just ‘acid’ sounds scary.
      Third, 26% sounds scary but to get to pH=7 (neutral) from pH=8.2 would need a 1485% increase, and to make it just acid (pH=6.9) would need a1895% increase – which looks even more scary.

      (Could I persuade my bank manager that paying of £25 of my £100 overdraft makes me ‘more solvent’?)

      • Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
        October 2, 2019 4:28 am

        The terms used by climate activists have to be considered carefully, as you have just done. But such an explanation will never make it on the daily news programs, or in newspapers. Our local newspaper in the US prints these UN press releases on a regular basis. I doubt anyone working for the paper actually reads them. There seems to be 2 reporters for our paper. One covers city and county government, and the other covers high school sports.
        Stuff comes via the internet, and they print it if it passes the doom & gloom filter.
        The activists have done something similar with “ice free Arctic” in that it is now accepted that this means 1 million sq. kilometers or less. (see Peter Wadhams). It does not mean zero ice on the Arctic Ocean.

  3. Malcolm Bell permalink
    September 30, 2019 6:04 pm

    I have been a Malthusian since a student (Engineering) in the sixties. I have been screamed at that “science has PROVED him wrong”. I just say “look around” – far, far too many people, look what they are doing.

    If only we had taken action when he warned us what a magical world we would now have. I dare not think how we put it right. Not with windmills!

    .. and of course you are right about sea acidity – proves these people’s incompetence.

    • HotScot permalink
      September 30, 2019 7:33 pm

      How many is “far too many people?

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        October 1, 2019 8:29 am

        I’m afraid we are on the road to poverty no matter what we say or do. Far too many people believe the sort of nonsense AEP is spouting (always the worst case scenarios of worst case assumptions) and blindly believe we can reach zero carbon without anybody really noticing.

        It is a delusion based on a delusion. I think there is a good chance this is the end of the Modern Age. It is certainly the end of the Enlightenment with our supposed elites believing what ever suits them and makes them feel better, much as the religious elites did so in the past. There is no turning back now I fear. Only the inevitable disasters of mass unemployment and economic depression will show how flawed this thinking is.

    • Gamecock permalink
      September 30, 2019 10:38 pm

      “How many fools does it take to make up a public?” – Chamfort

  4. Up2snuff permalink
    September 30, 2019 6:06 pm

    Ummmh, I hope my scrambled brain (after reading that Evans-Pritchard article) remembers the science right but if oceans are acidifying that would be good for Arctic ice cap and sea ice in Antarctica, right? Less saline, more neutral seas = easier freezing despite warmer oceans and atmosphere + less chance of melting in summer when splashed with less salt..

    How come these AGW/CC/C-E enthusiasts keep coming up with these contradictions? My little grey cells are now suffering overheating.

    Aauuugghhh! Help!

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 1, 2019 1:34 pm

      It is difficult for something that is not acidic to become more acidic…

      • Frank Everest permalink
        October 1, 2019 2:43 pm

        Less alkaline = more acidic in AE-P’s wonderland, no doubt!

    • Malcolm Skipper permalink
      October 1, 2019 4:26 pm

      See my reply to Paul Deverson

  5. Stonyground permalink
    September 30, 2019 6:12 pm

    Lots of stationary windmills in my neck of the woods just now.

    These commenters are still getting away with claiming that something needs to be done to avert catastrophic climate change. Reality strongly suggests otherwise. People do seem to be noticing but not yet enough of them.

  6. Bob Aldridge permalink
    September 30, 2019 6:46 pm

    Malcom; I think Malthus war right about history – it probably explains the migrations out of Africa, Polynesia, and into the Americas, in prehistoric times,and continued to be true up until Malthus the moment when Malthus wrote; suddenly, his theory was undermined by industrialisation, ease of migration, and the agricultural revolution. This was all pretty new, so he could not be expected to base a theory on facts which hadn’t emerged yet. We now see that wealth reduces the need for large families. So I think you are wrong on this. But wealth is accrued by the use of cheap energy, so you are quite right to deplore wind turbines.

  7. Broadlands permalink
    September 30, 2019 6:49 pm

    What we must not do is carry on with business as usual. As Greta says, our remaining safe carbon budget will be gone in under nine years. That way lies the temptation of green political tyranny.

    The billions of tons of CO2 necessary to influence the climate (and Greta) cannot be removed and safely stored, regardless of the number of years. The is no technology or engineering that can do it even with all of the alternative energy available to try it. Where is the reality with climate alarm?

    • October 1, 2019 9:02 am

      But surely it is not CO2 that causes the “global warming”. Last graph I saw had CO2 increasing after the rise in Global Temperatures . I also noticed a Scientist suggested that the CO2 layer was getting smaller and could soon start affecting growth rates of the green stuff

  8. Curious George permalink
    September 30, 2019 7:15 pm

    Does AEP talk to his house plants?

    • HotScot permalink
      September 30, 2019 7:37 pm

      Hilarious really that whilst it is actually fairly difficult for the casual Googler to find documented evidence of the Global Cooling scare that was all over the papers in the 70’s, every single detail of the stupidity of people like AEP will be a mere mouse click away in generations to come.

      • john cooknell permalink
        September 30, 2019 9:25 pm

        You are a little naive HotScot, none of this will be found when it all goes wrong, for example try and find anything said by Government or Science leaders, UN, World Bank etc etc etc regarding the non existent millenium computer bug. All of it has just disappeared in a puff!

        All that has been allowed to remain is a few false news sites dating from 2018 (why did they wait so long) that give lots of faults caused by Y2K.that cannot be disproved because it was 20 years ago.

        I still have my IEE manual on Y2K that was entirely useless, and did not contain one example of faulty coding or anything of use.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        September 30, 2019 9:45 pm

        John, if your systems did not contain ‘faulty coding’ (there was nothing faulty about it, it was just time-limited when originally coded) then you were lucky. My systems would have been hugely compromised by y2k and a lot of work went into making them compliant. As a result they continued to work well after 2k. That’s why the ‘y2k bug’ seemed not to have any effect: a lot of people spent a lot of time making sure it wouldn’t. I guess you were lucky – or you don’t know that some software techie spent time to make it so.

        The moral of this story is that if Brexit works for us someone will say, ‘what was all the fuss about?’ I’m sure it will work. It will be because someone puts the time in to make it so.

      • Gamecock permalink
        September 30, 2019 10:44 pm

        Absolutely correct, Harry.

        Some systems (mine) needed little work to handle the change in millennia. Some needed a log of work.

        We checked ’em all.

      • Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
        October 2, 2019 4:44 am

        Agree, a lot of folks spent time fixing the issue. We had a credit card that did not work at a grocery the next day. Another card did work, and the other did the next time we tried it.
        The local university bought a bunch (?) of food-safe plastic water containers of about 200 L volume. The water went unused and the barrels were sold as surplus the next year.

  9. M E permalink
    September 30, 2019 9:32 pm

    It is interesting that so many people write about Malthus. born 1776 and died in 1834.
    His outlook on life would have been formed in a world dependent on argriculture when famines were common. He could not have foreseen the Industrial use of coal fired steam as he wrote as a gentleman economist. and obviously didn’t sully his hands with practical problems. If the world is run by extreme green policies there will be less food and the elimination of people will need to be the norm. Many of the young people face elimination themselves as they become redundant ,surplus to the needs of Society.
    My own view is that individuals matter but that is not what Totalitarians like Greta Thunberg or her backers teach

    • Henning Nielsen permalink
      October 2, 2019 9:42 am

      M E; Frankly, I don’t think Greta Thunberg has the slightest idea about the consequences of what she is preaching. Her mind is simply not geared for that kind of work, she can list an awesome lot of alarmist drivel, but she can’t do much reasoning, or critical evaluation of what she is fed. She is a mouthpiece, nothing more. She deserves pity, not abuse.

  10. Harry Passfield permalink
    September 30, 2019 9:51 pm

    AEP: “Runaway global warming”: Runaway!!?? If the gentle (natural, mainly) warming of the last 170 years (start date not so arbitrarily arrived at as a base) is considered to be ‘runaway’ how would AEP describe a true apocalypse?

    • Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
      October 2, 2019 4:50 am

      Where we live the early morning temperature on an August day might be 15°C and by 2 pm it might ramp up to 40°C.
      That’s a bit of a shocker.

  11. Dave Ward permalink
    September 30, 2019 10:12 pm

    “By 2025 Mayors in European and US cities will have banned diesel vans for deliveries”

    That’ll be Common Purpose inspired “Leading Beyond Authority” from various local government organisations such as:

    The Compact of Mayors

    The Global Covenant of Mayors

    ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability

    “The Swamp” just keeps on growing (must be all that extra CO2), and there doesn’t seem to be a dammed thing we can do to drain it. Trump is not having an easy ride, and there’s no-one like him on the horizon over this side of the pond…

  12. Gamecock permalink
    September 30, 2019 10:45 pm

    ‘We have a choice. Either we fight runaway climate change with liberal market policies and capitalist creativity, or we cede the field to Malthusians and the Green Taliban.’

    Duh. False dichotomy.

    • Henning Nielsen permalink
      October 2, 2019 9:44 am

      Greta Green Taliban Thunberg? I don’t think she’s quite ready for the suicide mission, but keep her away from superglue, just in case.

  13. September 30, 2019 11:29 pm

    Greta then.

    Here’s how you generate electricity from Greta, courtesy of cartoonist Kudelka.

  14. October 1, 2019 1:23 am


    It’s Greta or Windmills, Claims AEP

    by Paul Homewood

    By Paul Homewood
    AEP is off on one of his usual rants about how wonderful renewable energy is:

    “We have a choice. Either we fight runaway climate change with liberal market policies and capitalist creativity, or we cede the field to Malthusians and the Green Taliban”

    Or we test the “runaway climate change” hypothesis against the data before we cede the field to Malthusians and the Green Taliban or to their apologists who have re-phrased the Taliban agenda.

  15. Malcolm Bell permalink
    October 1, 2019 10:08 am

    I commented I am a Malthusian and point out that our continued physical destruction of forests and fishing to feed us whilst destroying wild habitats etc etc not ti mention wars for resources and living space is my clear proof.
    But look how many people still attack Malthus. Just as he was right about the Irish famine (have any of them read his brilliant, rational, book?) fifty years in the future he remains right today – obviously.


    I am no green, anti-capitalist or piratical tory or banker. I am rooted firmly in the Enlightenment and an Engineer who only uses hard evidence ideally collected by my own experiments and tests. Not particularly “rabid” about anything.

    Except perhaps – why do the technically ignorant insist on calling windmills (generators) “turbines”? A turbine is a fan in a tube like those under modern plane wings. So I know to ignore turbine enthusiasts, like acidifying ocean propagandists, as probably arts graduates or social scientists who are inadequately informed, and then only second hand at best.


    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 1, 2019 1:40 pm

      It makes what is really something that has been around for thousands of years – the windmill – sound modern and high tech. It isn’t and it’s not. Which explains why modern societies stopped using them in the mainstream over a century ago.

  16. Malcolm Chapman permalink
    October 1, 2019 1:47 pm

    AEP used to write good sense. The stuff he turns out now about energy is run-of-the-mill alarmist nonsense. The dichotomy he pins his argument on is indeed a false one. Malthus’s essay was one of the first things I was asked to read as an undergraduate, about fifty years ago. I did not know then how ominous the ‘neo-Malthusian’ view would become, blown up into pseudo-scientific nonsense by ‘the Club of Rome’, and those who still peddle the same claptrap. Malcolm B. above is right – Matlhus was brilliant and rational, for his time. I think it is still useful to call the alarmist view ‘neo-Malthusian’; Malthus was wrong because he was unable (forgivable, this) to foresee how much fossil fuel energy, and its application, already had and would change the world that he knew. We have enough experience now, from one failed prediction to the next, to know that neo-Malthusians have been (so far) pretty much always wrong. Stern turned the discount rate into a weapon of Malthusian expectations. But we know that things are going to be discovered, and of course we do not know what they are. In the meantime, let us use the materials and technologies we have to provide cheap energy for all, and take it from there. Long live the enlightenment, and engineering, and non-rabid policy makers.

  17. Bob Aldridge permalink
    October 1, 2019 1:51 pm

    Hello again Malcom;
    I infer that you refer to my comment. It seems to me that a turbine drives something, whereas a mill grinds something. Unforgivable, I know, You are the engineer, so I won’t quibble. My argument was not about engineering and you failed to address it. Did you actually read what I had to say? I broadly agreed with you about Malthus and about windmills, but I merely said that events had overtaken M’s theory. The Irish famine can certainly be used as an example of Malthusian checks, but not exclusively so, as Ireland was a unique case of a total reliance on one crop, with extraordinary social, political and economic factors aggravating it. However, I’ll grant you that, too, if it soothes your ruffled feathers.
    My argument is that wealth contributes to population decrease, that science and technology are able to provide for a large population, that the destruction of the environment that you fear is largely the result of poverty, not wealth, and that cheap energy (i.e. NOT generated by windmills) is the foundation of a wealthy society. You are welcome to dispute this, but telling me that you can ignore my argument because I incorrectly and unpardonably used the word “turbine” is petulant.
    Lighten up, Malcom! Remember that as we are talking about the future, we are both speculating; neither of us KNOW.
    But perhaps someone like yourself who has nevah, evah, used an incorrect word in his life, has to be right about the future, too!

  18. Gerry, England permalink
    October 1, 2019 2:01 pm

    Meanwhile, 4 energy companies owe £14.7m in green global warming taxes to Ofgem for buying ROCs. To make you laugh, the worst offender is Robin hood Energy – a not for profit supplier owned by Nottingham City Council. Failure to pay will see their licence revoked, but then they might go bankrupt first.

  19. Harley Schlanger permalink
    October 1, 2019 2:52 pm

    Paul — I am a subscriber to your newsletter, which I look forward to receiving.

    I recently posted an article on Mark Carney’s threat delivered to the U.N. Climate Conference, on behalf of the leading banks, that they either submit to “Green” financial investment, or be cut off from credit. The link to my article is below — feel free to use it as you wish.

    Best regards, Harley Schlanger

    On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:25 PM NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT wrote:

    > Paul Homewood posted: “By Paul Homewood AEP is off on one of his usual > rants about how wonderful renewable energy is: We have a choice. Either > we fight runaway climate change with liberal market policies and capitalist > creativity, or we cede the f” >

  20. swan101 permalink
    October 1, 2019 3:10 pm

    Reblogged this on ECO-ENERGY DATABASE.

  21. October 1, 2019 3:22 pm

    “We have a choice. Either we fight runaway climate change with liberal market policies and capitalist creativity, or we cede the field to Malthusians and the Green Taliban”

    Or we find that there is no runaway climate to fight and the UN is an ineffectual organization run by numnut bureaucrats with no governance powers and no governance skills but with an agenda that needs a runaway climate crisis.

  22. October 1, 2019 6:47 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate-

  23. tom0mason permalink
    October 2, 2019 12:13 am

    “I’ll ignore the apocalyptic nonsense, which has been debunked many times. (By the way, how can sea be 26% more acidic, when they are alkali?). ”

    No it cannot as carbonic acid (CO2 plus water) no matter how much you try (at sea level, oceanic temperatures, and atmospheric pressures) only forms a very weak acid — as strong as your own urine first thing in the morning! — Normally the pH of healthy person’s urine usually lies in the range of 5.5 to 7 (depending on diet) with an average of 6.2, and tends to be more acidic at first release in the morning. Carbonic Acid’s pH value is usually ~5.7 (but depends on the partial pressure of the gaseous carbon dioxide)
    Also of an appreciable part of the sea floor is covered in basalt rocks (see ). These rocks are naturally alkaline. These abundant rocks would easily counter any propensity for the seas to became acidic.

    Our atmosphere only has 0.04% (by volume) CO2, and the oceans contain ~1.3 Billion Cubic Kilometers of salt water (see ). “The oceans play an important role in regulating the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because CO2 can move quickly into and out of the oceans. …CO2 also moves quickly between the atmosphere and the land biosphere (material that is or was living on land).
    Of the three places where carbon is stored — atmosphere, oceans, and land biosphere — approximately 93 percent of the CO2 is found in the oceans. The atmosphere, at about 750 petagrams of CO2 (a petagram [Pg] is 10^15 grams), so has the smallest amount of carbon. ”
    “The oceans contain about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. CO2 moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO2 gas pressure (pCO2 ) between the atmosphere and oceans. For example, when the atmospheric pCO2 is higher than the surface ocean, CO2 diffuses across the air-sea boundary into the sea water, and when when the atmospheric pCO2 is lower than the surface ocean, CO2 bubbles out of the air-sea boundary.
    The oceans are able to hold much more carbon than the atmosphere because most of the CO2 that diffuses into the oceans reacts with the water to form carbonic acid and its dissociation products, bicarbonate and carbonate ions . The conversion of CO2 gas into non-gaseous forms such as carbonic acid and bicarbonate and carbonate ions effectively reduces the CO2 gas pressure in the water, thereby allowing more diffusion from the atmosphere.
    The oceans are mixed much more slowly than the atmosphere, so there are large horizontal and vertical changes in CO2 concentration. In general, tropical waters release CO2 to the atmosphere, whereas high-latitude oceans take up CO2 from the atmosphere.
    The two basic mechanisms that control the distribution of carbon in the oceans are referred to as the solubility pump and the biological pump. ” (based on http://www.waterencyclopedia·com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html with my bold sections.)

    With that said now consider how really stupid the idea of ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’ truly is!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: