Plate Tectonics---Carbon Cycle---- and Climate Change--from UCLA Library

[oneoff]

The Relationship Between

Plate Tectonics and the Carbon cycle







Plate tectonics and the carbon cycle are intertwined in several different ways. In many respects, it is plate tectonics that spurs on the recycling of carbon atoms.

Convergent boundaries affect the carbon cycle in two ways: through subduction and eruption.

Subduction is the process by which continental crust slides beneath another portion of crust. The subducting crust melts and becomes magma, the material that fuels volcanic eruption. The melted crust contains carbon in the sediments and soils, thus recycling it through the mantle of the earth.
The melted crust convecting through the mantle will eventually resurface in the form of lava during eruptions from volcanoes. These volcanoes were originally formed by tectonic forces--where there is an excess of magma below the crust due to subduction, it is forced to erupt. The process of eruption includes degassing. Degassing is where carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere as the eruption occurs because the dissolved carbon in the magma is unstable and under pressure, and is therefore forced to leave the fluid.
The recycling process can be seen in the diagram below. The trenches are the areas of subduction where a "slab" of crust is pulled into the earth. This crust, containing carbon, is then recycled through the mantle and later released through a ridge, either convergent or divergent.







Plate tectonics and the carbon cycle also have a major effect on climate change. The stages of Snowball Earth of about 600 Ma are a prime example of this relationship.

The breakup of Pangea about 770 Ma ago left many small continents scattered about the globe. These broken areas of land became surrounded by plentiful sources of moisture (e.g. oceans). Increased rainfall takes carbon dioxide out of the air, making the erosion and weathering of continental rocks occur at a faster rate. This in turn reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which results in a fall of global temperature. As the temperature falls, glaciation occurs in the polar oceans. White ice has a high albedo and thus reflects more solar energy back into space. This creates a positive feedback which continues to reduce global temperature.
As the cooling continues, the cold dry air eventually halts the further growth of glaciation, creating deserts. The air becomes so dry that next to no rainfall occurs so the carbon dioxide released through volcanoes is kept in the atmosphere. The atmospheric carbon then accumulates and begins to trap the infrared waves of the sun in the greenhouse effect, eventually increasing the global temperature.
As the planet grows warmer, moisture from the sea ice refreezes at a higher elevation due to the difference in isostacy. The open waters that are left around the equator absorb more solar energy and help to increase the global temperature.
The large amount of carbon in the atmosphere can now combine with the water being evaporated into the atmosphere and form carbonic acid. This rain erodes and weathers rock formation. Water then carries the bicarbonate and the other ions into the ocean where they form carbonate sediment.

The pictures below describe each step of the snowball earth:


Snowball Earth Prologue Snowball Earth at its Coldest


Snowball Earth as it Thaws Hothouse Aftermath




Thus the effects snowball earth, characterized by large areas of glaciation, were eventually countered when volcanic activity and tectonic forces allowed further concentrations of carbon dioxide to build up. Here the relationship can be seen how plate tectonics, through the formation of volcanoes, works with the carbon cycle: it is the tectonic forces which release carbon through degassing and entrap carbon during subduction. This relationship has occurred most noticeably in the break up and formation of continents and the resulting effect on climate.




Resources:
- Carbon Cycle Modelling, ed. Bert Bolin. 1981, John Wiley & Sons
- Tectonic Uplift and Climate Change, ed. William F. Ruddiman. 1997, Plenum Press
- Natural Sinks of CO2, ed. Dr. Joe Wisniewski & Dr. Ariel E. Lugo. 1992, Kluwer Academic Publishers
- GE 70A Reader by Mark Morris, Mark Harrison, and Stephen Mojzsis
- The Cosmic Perspective by Jeffrey Bennett, Megan Donahue, Nicholas Schneider, and Mark Voit, 1999 Addison Wesley Longman.
- http://www.sciam.com/2000/0100issue/0100hoffmanbox1.html

[oneoff]

Apparently the decision has been made TO NOT CONVERT BOUNDARY DAM UNITS 4 and 5 to carbon capture upgrade.

Just hasn't been released to public yet

Can you say 2019

[oneoff]

And this from what shouldn't have to be pointed out.

Line up enough incentives and cash backs from those generous with tax dollars and solar etc can be installed for free; in fact nothing stopping the schemes being so lucrative that some bodies taxes and utility bills puts actual cash in your jeans. In Manitoba its up tp 55 to 60 % as the salesmen promise; just with one program applied.

Take Manitoba Hydro's incentive because the data is irrefutable and even posted on this site.

But same principle as what other brag about elsewhere....of being able to lock your electrical generation at 2 to 3.5 cents a Kwh for instance

The $1000 grant per Kw installed capacity is there for all to see BUT as has been pointed out and ignored so many many times

Absolutely everyone should know that at best, only 15% to 20 % od nameplate installed capacity could ever be produced through out the year.

Thus the grant is lucrative to someone who who never would do it on its own merits....but they certainly would grab and run and let someone else pay for coming up with an actual solution for warming and powering Sask in what can be harsh condition.

Which ties in in some obscure way with replacing Boundary Dam units 4 and 5; then shortly after Poplar River, then Shand....because its a fact 12XX Mw is about to get shut down; and nothing firm to replace them Oh and Manitoba Hydro imports might not be cheap when Manitoba residents are already complaining about their power bills (At least they indicated that at Brandon last Tuesday)

Hypocrisy defined.

[chuckChuck]

Finally got an answer from Sask Power. 15500 Mwh/year. They said used the same online calculator I used (PVWatts) except they probably used fixed angle instead of seasonably adjustable single axis.

[oneoff]

Finally got an answer from Sask Power. 15500 Mwh/year. They said used the same online calculator I used (PVWatts) except they probably used fixed angle instead of seasonably adjustable single axis.

Here we maybe go again. On second reading I take it that the calculator you (and Sask Power are using is PV Watts). Maybe that calculator is feeding everyone some misinformation; but right now there are better things to do and to confirm just say id the 15,500Mwh accounts for feeding you raw DC current output before going though any inverters etc to convert it (and transform it) to an AC voltage of some use to the grid.

Now we're back to about what I was told a week ago Well the difference between my quote from the professional engineer "in solar project area"

and what was given to you is 10.7 % And estimates can be plus or minus 10% of actual.


But that dam question raised was :

Please give an answer of how it is conscionable to not tell the press and investers and homeowners that rebates (including Sask Power's one )are based on actually 5 to 6 times greater per Kwhof power any one expects to be produced.

Answer that without clear biases and I will develop a modicum of respect.

[oneoff]

And what about the plate tectonic idea bring on big climate changes which the cycle back to interglacial periods with volcanic eruptions.

Maybe a personcoulkd even tie in the bentonite deposits at Roleau Sask for all I know.

[chuckChuck]

Saskpower will pay a 20% rebate on the cost of installing grid tied solar PV systems. I am suspecting that the installing companies may just raise the price 20%.

Are their other subsidies? I don't think so in Saskatchewan. I am not sure I understand your question about subsidies for exaggerated output?

I think the the estimate of 15% efficiency is about right for solar PV in Sask.

As I said before long term owners would lock in about 10 cents per kWh. Not a big saving now but will be by year 30 when electricity could be 25 cents per kWh or more.

[chuckChuck]

Plate Tetonics and volcanoes certainly add carbon to the surface. But I am not sure about the impact in the last 200 years relative to releases of C02 caused by burning fossil fuels. It would be interesting to see what climate scientists say about plate Tetonics. There is lots of evidence of naturally caused climate change. The thing that makes human caused climate change so concerning is the rate of change in such a short time period and also the positive feed back that can drive very dramatic changes that we can not easily adapt too.

[oneoff]

Saskpower will pay a 20% rebate on the cost of installing grid tied solar PV systems. I am suspecting that the installing companies may just raise the price 20%.

Are their other subsidies? I don't think so in Saskatchewan. I am not sure I understand your question about subsidies for exaggerated output?

I think the the estimate of 15% efficiency is about right for solar PV in Sask.

As I said before long term owners would lock in about 10 cents per kWh. Not a big saving now but will be by year 30 when electricity could be 25 cents per kWh or more.

One more try...because its a crucial concept

15% efficiency for solar in SasK. That's 150 watts (and only 150 watts) out of every 1000 watts of installed capacity that anyone can expect(on average) over a cycle of one year. And for decades into future; unless climate changes substantially.

Now solar salesmen (and Sask Power and Man Hydro for example) always highlight the nameplate rating....not the relatively puny 15% efficiency figure. In fact; because of their agenda (possibly 100% ontrack and valid...but also could be overlooking the details that similarly fatally flawed the carbon capture initiative.)

My point being they are paying a subsidy of say $1000 for each KW of installed capacity in Manitoba; but only 150 watts of that capacity (the 15% efficiency) can be unlocked without what must be considered prohibitive costs; scary complexity and relying on remote control computer system. Which granted may change; but those trusted salesmen are consistently advising against the high tech versions. PS I'm not sold on that way of thinking just yet.

Now in big scheme of things; costs attributed to a new project (such as public solar) should still have honest balance sheets; or else no one will be able to have faith to judge the next poular idea on its merits.

Spending $1000 of additional debt or taking it from general revenue; or from special taxes (carbon tax) is coming from some present or future taxpayer....or maybe some form of banking institution which will possibly have to fail.

I'm saying that a thousand dollars per KW gained only 150 watts...and that it is deceitful and very much overgenerous to make a pet project a no brainer for the relatively select few of those who are aware...when everyone knows (or will slowly become aware) that someone else is ultimately responsible for paying those lucrative incentives that only end up in select pockets

Now on an interesting note....the powerhousesolar.ca site is actually up and running. Sask Power should get one of those systems installed and then this point and every other one (including dual axis tracking; reliability; effect of only diffuse sunn light; frost; local conditions; a skiff of snow; howling blizzards and more) would be available to all...and be able to be reasonably correlated with electrical energy output....research that would be invaluable and for a mere song.

I t would at least contribute to the continuing education of professional engineers and aybe more importantly bring same information before the general public.


Got to get back to powerhousesolar.ca websitte "Live Tracker" Everyone please be careful and lets not break it this time.

[chuckChuck]

A 1 kw solar PV system will produce 1873 kwh per year at Estevan with adjustable seasonable tillt.

Why are you worried about Manitoba when you live in Saskatchewan?

SaskPower will pay a 20% rebate on installed solar pv systems costs. Considering that Saskpower does not have to pay the capital costs or operating costs maybe they see it as a good investment at 20%.

So many things are subsidized including agriculture in Canada.

What is good and effective policy is a matter of opinion and priorities. SolarPV susbisdies at 20% will amount to peanuts compared to other investments Sask Power is making because very few will install solar pv untill the price comes down even further.

[oneoff]

Chuck.... when someone gives you a lead to raw data (albiet from Ontario sites which in some ways have some more favorable latitude positions)why would you not at least go to that unbiased source to see for yourself what real life situations deliver for some actual situation. And even apply what you have learned without repeating mistakes and overlooking that which turns out important.

I do caution you that every one of those electrical value produced is based on the 80 cent/Kwh that most if not all contract were signed for.

Now that good for those who took advantage of the program...in fact its an ongoing 20 year gift.


But does not everyone believe that every such windfall is paid for by debt or others sacrifice.

I do encourage everyone to visit powerhousesolar.ca to confirm for themselves that solar panels might as well be shut down in Ontario in December and January of each year. The output; year after year and site after site is dismal...even at 80 cents a Kwh and remember that every one of those sites has dual axis tracking (that I have run across so far). That is a further 50 % output gain expected over fixed tilted array that Sask Power and Manitoba Hydro have promoted. And I stand to be corrected , but it seems that dual axis tracking in real time requires communication with software and remote control such as the Ontario Hydro blessed program provides

I firmly believe that on evidence produced so far "promises" expectation and unjustified estimates biased in selling and promoting something which doesn't currently deliver what people think it essentially says on the surface.

The argument isn't about whether the subsidy is 20% or 55% or 60% of installed capacity. It isn't about being paid an outrageous 80 cents a Kwh for 20 years.

More about deceiving some people (who are susceptible to swallowing an agenda that fits in with their chosen life goals and running with it to an audience who is even more ripe for swallowing the line even easier). With lucrative upfront incentives most can see why it is so popular. But lets not all be shallow thinkers
And lets learn what is on that extremely good site which is a little slow; but its fully functional and is currently up and running.

If Sask Power is listening I'd suggest spending $107,000 (dual tracker; deluxe, remote controlled; Cadillac; state of art; awesome technology) for a demo system at Estevan before spending an extra $29,897,000 on finding out less than what that minute investment could provide. I'd be surprised if that company wouldn't do it for nothing if they had long term faith in their product producing power at approx. 12 cents a Kwh and still make decent returns.

[furrowtickler]

A tid bit from Ontario..

[oneoff]

Well if you can't find a measurable effect in Ontario from years ago shutting down all coal fired generation in that province; then should it be concluded that the further away realms in the world must have been the ones who were always most affected.

Or is the truth that nowhere in the world did anybody else notice one iota of change just because Ontario took a certain move.

This absurdity will become pretty evident when our federal government punishes Canadians; but overlooks making the US being held to the same standards. Our leaders aren't up to playing in today's real ballpark.

[sumdumguy]

Not much between the ears.

[chuckChuck]

Had a look at Powerhousesolar.

If you take a look at Powerhouse 1 which is a 10.8 kw system. In 2016 it produced 18710.5 kwh which is worth $2207.00 at 11.8 cents per kwh in Saskatchewan.

So I put Milverton Ontario into the PVWatts calculator with a 10.8 kw system which is the location of Powerhouse 1.

2 axis tracking 18914 kwh per year
1 axis tracking 16637 kwh per year
Fixed with a 20% angle 13448 kwh per year

2 axis tracking is about 30% better. 1 axis is about 20% better.

What is interesting is the PVWatts solar estimator is very close to the actual produced in 2016.

What also is interesting is these output numbers are similar to what is expected at Estevan.

But based on a 30 year lifespan and increasing Saskpower electricity costs up to about 25 cents per kwh and a $3.00 per watt installed solar pv system will still pay for itself and make some money.

As Boyd solar has said, you can lock in electricity at about 10 cents a kwh for 30 years. If you dispute these numbers contact Boyd solar.

Basically these production numbers are in line with what we have been agreeing on for both actual from powerhouse1 and PVWatts.

I think Estevan will be a better location than Milverton Ont. as there should be more sunny days at Estevan.