Thursday, October 14, 2021

In a world fighting climate change, fossil fuels take revenge
Bloomberg News | October 11, 2021 | 

Refinery. (Reference image from Pxfuels).

With its chimneys towering 200 meters above the industrial heartland of England, West Burton A power station is a relic of the fossil fuel age. When fired up, its boilers burn thousands of tonnes of coal each day, spewing out the carbon dioxide that’s warming up the planet.


After more than 50 years of operation, it will close next year, part of a global transition into green energy sources like wind and solar. It’s only rarely used, but for several days in September, it was this old, polluting facility that kept the lights on in the U.K.

West Burton isn’t an oddity. Across the world, fossil fuels are making a remarkable comeback as a super-charged recovery from the pandemic boosts demand. For all the green energy promises and plans, that transition is in its infancy, and the world still leans heavily on fossils. It’s an addiction built up over two and a half centuries, and it runs deep.

In Europe, where electric vehicles are becoming ever more popular, gasoline sales are booming, reaching a 10-year high in some countries. In the developing world, from Brazil to China, natural gas consumption is stronger than ever. The global hunger for energy has collided with constrained supply, itself the result of a tangle of factors, sending power prices surging in many countries.

Adding it all up, fossil fuel demand is already flirting with pre-pandemic levels, which means emissions are on the rise too. On current trends, the combined consumption of coal, natural gas and oil is likely to hit an all-time high by mid-2022.

“This is the revenge of the fossil fuels,” said Thierry Bros, an energy expert and professor at Sciences Po in Paris.

The situation points to a daunting new phase for the energy transition, with growing tensions among the disparate policy objectives of simultaneously reducing emissions, keeping prices low, and guaranteeing security of supply. The pace of the effort could even be at risk if soaring prices dent public support for climate policies.

It’s a dark backdrop just days ahead of the start of a United Nations summit in Glasgow, COP26, which many believe is the last opportunity to avert catastrophic climate change.

“The climate crisis is real, and energy transition is a necessity, and we must accelerate it — but it’s not a flick of a switch,” said Amos Hochstein, U.S.’s top energy diplomat. “If we want to solve climate change we need to do so while at the same time insulating the global economy from extreme energy shocks.”

Price squeeze


Governments can’t ignore the price squeeze, and many have stepped in to cushion the impact with subsidies and tax cuts. But with constant warnings about irreparable damage to the planet, few see officials rolling back from their emissions commitments.

More than 70% of people around the world are worried that climate change will harm them personally at some point, according to the Pew Research Center. The figure is lower in the U.S., though still at 60%. In Germany, the Green party just had its best ever result in an election, and is likely to form part of the next government.

For several years, the world has grown complacent about fossil fuel consumption. From oil to coal, peak demand has been the buzzword, always about to happen, but never actually materializing. Then many assumed that some of the drop in consumption during the pandemic was structural, driven by social changes like work-from-home and the hope of a greener recovery.

But outside jet-fuel, still hamstrung by travel restrictions, oil demand is today higher than it was in 2019. The car has returned to city centers as people avoid public transport. Many countries are desperate for gas as it’s become the swing fuel that offsets the ups-and-downs of solar and wind in electricity generation. Coal is on the up too, even if the medium-term outlook for the dirtiest fossil fuels remains decidedly somber.

Under the short-term cyclical factors — the super-fast rebound and supply constraints — a bigger longer-trend is also shaping the market. As governments work to reduce emissions, investors are pulling out of dirty businesses, and companies are cutting spending and closing facilities. With cleaner energies not fully ready to take up the slack, that’s created an imbalance, as well as volatile prices.

“We’re at a fairly critical junction,” said Russell Hardy, the head of Vitol Group, the world’s largest independent oil trader. “The hydrocarbon industry is going to suffer a bit of under-investment as we go forward as people focus their capital on greener projects.’’

The market is already flashing red. The cost of coal has surged above $200 a tonne, surpassing the 2008 peak during the last commodity boom, and natural gas in Europe and Asia is at an all time high. U.K. benchmark electricity prices last month surged at one point to more than 400 pounds per megawatt hour, about 10 times normal, prompting West Burton A to come into action.

The demand surge has challenged many assumptions about how quickly the world would decabornize. Faced with an energy crisis, many consuming nations zoned in on older fuels. The White House urged the OPEC cartel to increase oil production fast, and the International Energy Agency asked Russia to pump more gas. China ordered banks to prioritize loans to coal miners to boost supplies.

“I’m concerned hydrocarbon demand is not falling fast enough to match the potential under investment in fossil fuels,” said Jason Bordoff, dean of the Columbia Climate School and a former senior energy official in the Obama administration.

Coal is paradigmatic. For nearly a decade, it appeared in terminal decline as investors shunned miners and European countries shut down coal-fired power plants.

And yet, the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel won’t go away. Global consumption peaked in 2014, but rather than fall rapidly, as many expected, it stabilized in a gentle plateau. And now, just as the fight against climate change intensifies, it’s growing again, with the resurgence largely driven by China.



Oil is another case where hopes of an early peak in demand are quickly fading. In 2020, Bernard Looney, the head of British oil giant BP Plc, said it was possible that Covid marked the moment of peak oil. That view has since shifted, with BP predicting in August that demand will reach pre-Covid levels in the second half of 2022.

All of this means carbon dioxide emissions are rising too. The IEA estimates that they’ll post their second largest annual increase ever this year, reversing most of the decline during the lockdowns of 2020. On current trends, emissions will hit a fresh record in 2022 despite all government pledges bring them down, and quickly.

According to the IEA, about $750 billion will be spent on clean energy and efficiency worldwide in 2021, “far below what is required” to meet decarbonization targets. Total energy investment, including green and fossil fuels sources, will hit $1.9 trillion.

As political leaders prepare for COP26, the energy price spike has polarized views about the green transition, already an enormous challenge that involves rewiring the whole global economy. Climate change deniers and fossil fuel industry lobbyists have seized on it to campaign against green energy. On the other side, some climate activists say it shows the need to go even faster.

“Inevitably, it wasn’t going to be a transition without tension,” said Morgan Bazilian, an energy expert and professor of public policy at the Colorado School of Mines. “The balancing act politically is becoming a lot harder.”

(By Javier Blas)
US coal use is rebounding under Biden like it never did with Trump

Bloomberg News | October 12, 2021 

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Donald Trump vowed to revive the coal industry, but it’s President Joe Biden who’s seeing a big comeback of the dirtiest fossil fuel.


U.S. power plants are on track to burn 23% more coal this year, the first increase since 2013, despite Biden’s ambitious plan to eliminate carbon emissions from the power grid. The rebound comes after consumption by utilities plunged 36% under Trump, who slashed environmental regulations in an unsuccessful effort to boost the fuel.

That’s going to increase emissions at a time when Biden and other world leaders prepare to gather in Scotland in a few weeks, hoping to reach a deal on curbing fossil fuels in a last-ditch effort to save the world from climate change. The boom is being driven by surging natural gas prices and a global energy crisis that’s forcing countries to burn dirtier fuels to keep up with demand. It’s also a stark reminder that government policy can steer energy markets, but it can’t control them.

“Over the short term, the market will always dominate,” said Jeremy Fisher, senior adviser for the Sierra Club’s environmental law program.



As the world emerges from the coronavirus pandemic, reopening economies are driving a huge rebound for power demand. But natural gas is in short supply, creating shortfalls at a time when wind and hydro have been unreliable in some regions. Europe and Asia have been hit the worst, with skyrocketing markets, blackouts in places like India, power shortages in China and the threat of outages in other countries. Energy prices are also soaring in the U.S., though not to the same extremes.

The situation is driving up coal demand around the world, and in the U.S., utilities are cranking up aging power plants and miners are digging up as much as they can.

The shift means that coal will supply about 24% of U.S. electricity this year, after falling to 20% in 2020, an historic low after years of efforts to push utilities toward clean power and amid cheap natural gas supplies. That resurgence may look even more extreme when the Energy Department releases its latest monthly report Wednesday.
’Markets have spoken’

“The markets have spoken,” said Rich Nolan, chief executive officer of the National Mining Association. “We’re seeing the essential nature of coal come roaring back.”

In 2021, the U.S. utilities are poised to burn 536.9 million short tons of coal, up from 436.5 million in 2020, the Energy Information Administration forecasts.

Coal from the central Appalachia region has climbed 39% since the start of the year to $75.50 a ton, the highest since May 2019. Prices in other regions are lower, but also on the rise.

Demand for coal will likely remain strong into next year, said Ernie Thrasher, CEO of Xcoal Energy & Resources, the biggest U.S. exporter of the fuel. Supply is already constrained, and Thrasher said he’s hearing some utilities express concern that they may face fuel shortages over the next several months as colder weather pushes energy demand higher to heat homes.

“It won’t be easy this winter,” he said.

Kevin Book, managing director of research firm ClearView Energy Partners, said the current crisis has added fodder to the debate over efforts to move away from coal.

“The goal of policy, if you listen to what’s being said in Western countries in the context of climate discussions, is not only to stop building new coal but to eliminate the existing capacity to burn coal,” Book said. “This is a moment in time when that idea is going to be challenged.”
Short-lived boom?

While the coal boom is dramatic, the moment may be short-lived.


Global pressure to curb carbon emissions remains strong, and in the long-term, “policy absolutely matters,” said Cara Bottorff, a senior energy sector analyst at the Sierra Club.

Coal consumption plunged under Trump largely because utilities shifted to gas, which was far cheaper at the time, and increasingly embraced renewables as the cost of wind and solar fell. The decline was also the result of key policy decisions from his predecessor Barack Obama. And though Trump sought to revive the industry, legal challenges and the risk of an unpredictable regulatory environment discouraged long-term investments in coal.

Coal mining and generating capacity declined 40% over the past six years, according to B. Riley Securities.

Similarly, Biden’s policies will likely eventually lead to further reductions in coal use. He’s pursuing structural changes including tax incentives and new market rules that will drive decisions at energy companies.

“The transition is well underway, but it won’t be over tomorrow,” said Dennis Wamsted, an analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

(By Will Wade, with assistance from Jennifer A Dlouhy)
LEFT AND RIGHT AGREE HE HAS TO GO
Kenney's approval drops to 22 per cent, lowest among Canadian premiers

Commissioned by ARI, the latest online survey was done between Sept. 29 and Oct. 3 and queried 5,011 adults who are members of Angus Reid Forum. A sample of this size carries a margin of error +/- 2.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Dave Dormer
CTVNewsCalgary.ca 
Digital Producer
Updated Oct. 13, 2021 

CALGARY -

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney's approval rating has dropped to 22 per cent, the lowest among provincial leaders in Canada, according to numbers released Wednesday by Angus Reid.

That's a drop of nine per cent compared to a similar poll done in June, which then showed Kenney's approval at 31 per cent.

Almost all provincial leaders saw a drop in popularity between June and this week, save for Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose approval went up one per cent..

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs each saw their approval drop nearly 20 points in the last quarter to 43 and 38 per cent respectively, down from 61 and 55 per cent.

Quebec Premier François Legault also had his approval drop 10 points, to 56 per cent, the same as B.C. Premier John Horgan, who fell seven points.

Some critics in Alberta have called on Kenney to resign, pointing out former premier Alison Redford did in 2014 after an approval rating of just 18 per cent, but the current situation is a slightly different one, says Mount Royal University political scientist Lori Williams.

"He's got a lot of control within the party so I think it's important to appreciate the difference between where Jason Kenney is, and where Alison Redford was, for example," she said.

"Because Alison Redford really didn't ever have the support of caucus, she only had one person endorse her for the leadership and she never really brought the rest of caucus on side with her after winning the leadership. Whereas, Jason Kenney is very strategic, and he's sort of playing the numbers and apparently thinks he still has some chance of winning party members over."

A leadership review is planned for April 2022, during the UCP annual general meeting in Edmonton, with the timeline having been moved up from the fall.

Some UCP caucus members have criticized health measures for going too far, while others say it’s been too little too late.

And it's that division that is causing Kenney many of his problems, says Doreen Barrie, an adjunct assistant professor of political science at the University of Calgary,

"Jason Kenney has several problems but most of them are internal, his caucus is split between those who want more stringent measures and those who want less, and I think he's been able to gain peace is by threatening to call an election and take the party down with him," she said.

Another issue, said Barrie, is that "there is no graceful exit available to Kenney."

"He's flailing around, hoping that this equalization referendum and the Senate election will buy him some time, but I think these are weapons of mass distraction, they're meaningless really, both of these initiative's, so he really doesn't know what to do."

CTV Calgary has reached out to Kenney's office for comment on the poll.

STILL NOT THE LOWEST RATING

Sask. Premier Scott Moe's approval drops sharply, according to new poll

Moe has approval rating of 43 per cent in Angus Reid

 Institute online survey

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe's approval rating is at 43 per cent, according to a new online survey from the Angus Reid Institute. (Michael Bell/The Canadian Press)

Premier Scott Moe has lost a significant amount of support from the people of Saskatchewan, according to a new online survey from the Angus Reid Institute.

The poll, which was conducted from Sept. 29 to Oct. 3, showed Moe has an approval rating of 43 per cent. A previous poll conducted in June gave Moe an approval rating of 61 per cent.

The results mean Moe's approval has dropped by 18 percentage points, the most significant drop in support among all Canadian premiers.

"The province's recent virus struggles appear to be reflected in the premier's approval," read a report from the institute.

"For the first time in his tenure, Moe does not enjoy a majority level of approval."

The results place Moe as Canada's fifth-most-popular premier.

The report went on to mention Saskatchewan's record number of people with COVID-19 in hospitals and intensive care units.

The poll showed most premiers saw a decrease in popularity since the last time people were asked. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney saw a drop of nine percentage points, giving him an approval rating of 22 per cent.

A line graph showing previous approval ratings for Premier Scott Moe. (Angus Reid Institute)

The online poll received responses from 505 people. 

We cannot accurately calculate a margin of error for methodologies with online surveys. For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of the same size would yield a margin of error of +/-4.0 per cent, 19 times out of 20. 

The people asked were taken from a representative randomized sample of members of the Angus Reid Forum.

The survey was self-commissioned and paid for by the Angus Reid Institute.

WHEN THE LEVEE BREAKS

 

'No growing support' for fossil fuel divestment: RBC

Jeff Lagerquist
Wed., October 13, 2021

Working with the fossil fuel industry to improve its environmental impact is seen as more effective than divesting from the emissions-heavy sector, according to RBC Global Asset Management's latest survey on environmental, social and governance-focused (ESG) investments.

The asset management division of Canada's largest bank found global institutional investors preferred engagement (45 per cent) over divestment (10 per cent) by a more than four-to-one margin, a slight increase from 40 per cent a year ago. However, the result comes as some major investment funds sell off oil and gas holdings in pursuit of a greener portfolio. Many of those decisions have targeted companies in Canada's oil patch.

"Over the last three years, there has been no growing support for divestment amongst institutional investors, indicating a clear preference for engaging in dialogue with companies," the survey's authors wrote.

Last month, Harvard University announced a plan to divest its US$42 billion endowment from fossil fuels, citing a need to decarbonize the economy, and a responsibility to make prudent long-term investments. The move was prompted by the activist group Fossil Fuel Divest Harvard.

However, Anne Simpson, who leads the sustainable investment strategy for the US$400 billion California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), criticized the decision at the time, saying giving up ownership also means giving up the ability to drive change from the inside.

"If we sell our shares in oil and gas companies, we're losing an opportunity to have an influence," Simpson told The Guardian newspaper in September.



WATCH
 Editor’s Edition: ‘We’re in inning-one’ of the energy transition
Energy chaos is unfolding from Asia to Europe as economies attempt to emerge from the COVID-19 slowdown. Spiking natural gas and coal prices, fuel line-ups in the UK, and power shortages at Chinese factories are evidence of wide-spread instability in key commodities. So, when will renewable forms of energy be at a scale to meaningfully smooth things out? Tom Rand, author of the book Climate Capitalism, expects that could take a while. “We’re in inning one of a nine-inning ball game here,” he told Yahoo Finance Canada’s Editor’s Edition. “Rebuilding our energy systems is not a five-year, or even ten-year trajectory. It’s multi-decades. We need to shorten that because of climate risk. But no matter how cheap renewables can be, and how useful, you’re not going to quickly displace existing assets that have a lifespan of 50 years.” Rand calls upon governments to act like the conductor of an orchestra in guiding private-sector investment in clean energy. “We do need a strategic vision of what our energy systems will look like in 10 years and 20 years,” he said. “This is the hardest thing humankind has ever tried to do, get off fossil fuels in 10 or 20 years.” 


In a similar move to Harvard's, New York's state pension fund said in April that it will restrict investment in six Canadian oil sands companies "that have not demonstrated that they are prepared for the transition to a low-carbon economy." Last May, Norway's US$1 trillion sovereign wealth fund blacklisted four Canadian oil firms. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at the time that this underscores the importance of fighting climate change.

RBC says it surveyed 805 institutional asset owners, investment consultants and investment professionals in the United States, Canada, Europe and Asia between May and July 2021.

Just under 16 per cent of those surveyed believe divestment and engagement are equally effective. The bank found the biggest support for engagement in Europe and Canada, 50 per cent and 53 per cent, respectively. That's followed by the U.S., at 42 per cent, and Asia at 40 per cent.

Among the survey's other findings:

29 per cent say they have placed greater emphasis on ESG considerations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic

Anti-corruption topped the list of ESG concerns for a second consecutive year, followed by cybersecurity, and climate change

European investors pay the closest attention to ESG in their investment decisions (80 per cent), well ahead of Asia (32 per cent), Canada (31 per cent), and the U.S. at 20 per cent

Less than half of global investors (41 per cent) say corporate boards should adopt visible minority diversity targets, almost unchanged from last year

Jeff Lagerquist is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance Canada. Follow him on Twitter @jefflagerquist.
Explained: How Jupiter Trojan asteroids will help NASA understand evolution of solar system

The spacecraft's first encounter will be with an asteroid that lies in the main belt that can be found between Mars and Jupiter. 

This asteroid is named 'Donald Johnson' after the paleoanthropologist who discovered the fossilised remains of "Lucy".


By: Explained Desk | New Delhi |
Updated: October 13, 2021 
NASA's Lucy spacecraft is seen at the AstroTech facility, 
Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2021, in Titusville, Fla. 
(AP Photo/John Raoux)

NASA is set to launch ‘Lucy’ next week, its first mission to explore the Jupiter Trojan asteroids. These asteroids are believed to be the remnants of the early solar system, and studying them will help scientists understand its origins and evolution, and why it looks the way it does.

The solar-powered mission is estimated to be over 12 years long, during the course of which the spacecraft will visit eight asteroids covering a distance of about 6.3 billion km to deepen the understanding of the “young solar system”.

The mission is named after ‘Lucy’, a 3.2 million-year-old ancestor who belonged to a species of hominins (which include humans and their ancestors).

The spacecraft’s first encounter will be with an asteroid that lies in the main belt that can be found between Mars and Jupiter. This asteroid is named ‘Donald Johnson’ after the paleoanthropologist who discovered the fossilised remains of ‘Lucy’.

When will ‘Lucy’ be launched?

The spacecraft will launch from the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida on an Atlas V 401 rocket during a 21-day launch period that will start on October 16, 2021. Subsequently, the spacecraft will fly by the Earth twice in order to use the planet’s gravitational field to assist it on its journey to the asteroids.

What is the aim of this mission?


NASA says that as per some planet formation and evolution models, the Trojan asteroids are believed to be formed from the same material that led to the formation of planets nearly 4 billion years ago when the solar system was formed.

Therefore, the mission is designed to understand the composition of the diverse asteroids that are a part of the Trojan asteroid swarms, to determine the mass and densities of the materials and to look for and study the satellites and rings that may orbit the Trojan asteroids.

Where and what are the Trojan asteroids?

Asteroids are divided into three categories.

First, those found in the main asteroid belt, between Mars and Jupiter. This region is estimated to contain somewhere between 1.1-1.9 million asteroids.

The second group is that of trojans (the name comes from Greek mythology), which are asteroids that share an orbit with a larger planet. NASA reports the presence of Jupiter, Neptune and Mars trojans. In 2011, they reported an Earth trojan as well.

The Jupiter asteroids can be found in what are referred to as “swarms” that lead and follow the planet Jupiter along its orbit around the Sun. ‘Lucy’ will reach the first swarm of these asteroids that precede Jupiter by August 2027.

The third classification of asteroids is under Near-Earth Asteroids (NEA), which has orbits that pass close to the Earth. Those that cross the Earth’s orbit are called Earth-crossers. More than 10,000 such asteroids are known, of which over 1,400 are classified as potentially hazardous asteroids (PHAs).

RUSSIAN STUDY CONFIRMS THAT SPACE TRAVEL DAMAGES YOUR BRAIN CELLS

"THIS MUST BE EXPLORED FURTHER AND PREVENTED IF SPACE TRAVEL IS TO BECOME MORE COMMON IN THE FUTURE."



A new study on the brains of five Russian cosmonauts who spent months on the International Space Station confirms that space travel can do some serious damage to the human body and mind.

For years, scientists have been tallying up adverse effects of space travel including weakened muscles and bones and worsened vision. This new research, published in the journal JAMA Neurology on Monday, is the clearest sign yet that spending time in orbit damages brain cells as well.

Five cosmonauts who spent five and a half months in orbit all had elevated levels of biomarkers indicating brain cell damage in blood tests taken after their return, according to the study. The researchers don’t yet know if those biomarkers also indicate changes in brain function, but they do know that it’s a bad sign for their health.

“This is the first time that concrete proof of brain-cell damage has been documented in blood tests following space flights,” senior study coauthor and University of Gothenburg neuroscientist Henrik Zetterberg said in a press release. “This must be explored further and prevented if space travel is to become more common in the future.”

Zetterberg added that he hopes his research can lead to new treatments to reverse or prevent any health issues caused by space travel. But before that can happen, he and others need to conduct more research to determine what, exactly, is causing the problem.

“To get there, we must help one another to find out why the damage arises,” Zetterberg said in the release. “Is it being weightless, changes in brain fluid, or stressors associated with launch and landing, or is it caused by something else? Here, loads of exciting experimental studies on humans can be done on Earth.”


Brain damage biomarkers detected in cosmonauts after long space jaunts
By Rich Haridy
October 12, 2021

Cosmonauts showed elevated levels of blood-based biomarkers suggestive of brain damage after more than five months in space

Striking new research investigating blood samples taken from Russian cosmonauts before and after long stints on the International Space Station (ISS) has revealed significant elevations of several biomarkers that could indicate brain damage. The study adds to a small but growing body of research tracking the deleterious effects of space travel on the human body.

Published in JAMA Neurology, the new research looked at five male Russian cosmonauts. Each spent an average of 169 days in space. Blood samples were taken from each subject before leaving Earth, and then at three points after returning.

Five different blood-based biomarkers were measured, each known to correlate with some kind of brain damage. Three biomarkers in particular were found to be significantly elevated after the cosmonauts returned to Earth – neurofilament light (NfL), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and a specific type of amyloid beta protein.

The researchers hypothesize the increases in NfL and GFAP levels may indicate a type of neurodegeneration called axonal disintegration. Elevated NfL levels are currently being investigated as a way of detecting the earliest stages of brain damage associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

Another interesting link with Alzheimer’s raised by the new research is the increase in levels of amyloid beta proteins seen in blood tests after the cosmonauts returned to Earth. The abnormal accumulation of proteins are believed to be the primary pathological sign of Alzheimer's neurodegeneration. These levels increased post spaceflight and the researchers speculate this to indicate a “washout phase” after returning to Earth where the brain clears accumulated waste that wasn’t effectively being removed while in space.

“The increases of both Aβ [amyloid beta] proteins over the entire postflight phase potentially depict an accumulative association of the cephalad fluid shift with the interstitial tissue,” the researchers write in the study. “We speculate the elevation of amyloid proteins back on Earth to represent a washout phase after months of hindered protein waste clearance since albumin has been shown to remain stable or even decrease.”

Henrik Zetterberg, a neuroscientist working on the study from the University of Gothenburg, says the research only focused on the presence of these specific biomarkers. What particular aspect of space travel is causing this potential damage, and what kinds of cognitive impairments could the damage generate, are questions for future studies. And Zetterberg suggests we must answer these questions before space travel becomes common in the future.

”To get there, we must help one another to find out why the damage arises,” says Zetterberg. “Is it being weightless, changes in brain fluid, or stressors associated with launch and landing, or is it caused by something else?”

This is certainly not the first study to propose time in space can negatively influence brain physiology. Multiple recent studies of ISS astronauts have shown their time in space changing the volume of brain white matter. And astronauts have long noted blurry vision upon returning to Earth, a problem recently suspected to be linked to the effect zero gravity has on cerebrospinal fluid.

Just earlier this year a team of researchers published the results of a compelling study investigating the effect of microgravity on cognition. The Earthbound experiment revealed compelling changes in cognition after two months of simulated microgravity.

Zetterberg says the biomarkers described in the new study could be used in the future to monitor neurodegeneration during space travel. Plus, they could be used to evaluate the efficacy of any preventative measures to help reduce the damage that may be associated with long interplanetary voyages.

“This is the first time that concrete proof of brain-cell damage has been documented in blood tests following space flights,” says Zetterberg. “This must be explored further and prevented if space travel is to become more common in the future. If we can sort out what causes the damage, the biomarkers we’ve developed may help us find out how best to remedy the problem.”

The new study was published in the journal PLOS Neurology.

Prize asteroid near Earth studied, found to be worth trillions

Researchers have published a new study that details an asteroid located near Earth that would be worth trillions if mined.

Jak Connor @Jak_ConnorTT

PUBLISHED TUE, OCT 12 2021 

There are many asteroids out in space, and some of them contain high amounts of precious metals that are used here on Earth to make smartphones, batteries, and build large skyscrapers.

Human civilization doesn't quite yet have the technology to harvest the materials contained in these asteroids, but that hasn't stopped researchers from estimating their worth if it was possible. A recent study published in The Planetary Science Journal explores the possibility of harvesting the precious metal-rich asteroid named 1986 DA.

The researchers behind the study examined the asteroid and found that it's 85% metallic and possibly contains the following metals; iron, nickel, cobalt, copper, gold, and platinum. The researchers estimated that the mass of these metals contained in the 1986 DA would exceed the total metal reserves on Earth. Additionally, the researchers estimated the worth of the asteroid, taking into account market deflation that would occur if the materials were transported back to Earth and sold.

Over a period of 50 years, the researchers estimated that mining the asteroid for its metals would yield $233 billion a year. In total, 1986 DA was estimated to be worth $11.65 trillion.

David Cantillo, a co-author on the study, said, "We believe that these two 'mini Psyches' are probably fragments from a large metallic asteroid in the main belt, but not Psyche itself. It's possible that some of the iron and stony-iron meteorites found on Earth could have also come from that region in the solar system too."

The researchers said 1986 DA and the other asteroid dubbed 2016 ED85 that were studied have a similar composition to the famous asteroid Psyche. More on Psyche can be found here.

Vishnu Reddy, an associate professor at the University of Arizona and co-lead on the study, said, "We started a compositional survey of the NEA [near-Earth asteroids] population in 2005, when I was a graduate student, with the goal of identifying and characterizing rare NEAs such as these metal-rich asteroids. It is rewarding that we have discovered these 'mini Psyches' so close to the Earth."

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/82123/prize-asteroid-near-earth-studied-found-to-be-worth-trillions/index.html

Several asteroids bigger than Great Pyramid of Giza will approach Earth in coming weeks

Jordan Mendoza, USA TODAY

Several asteroids bigger than the Great Pyramid of Giza will closely pass by Earth in the upcoming weeks, including one this week.

According to data from NASA's Center for Near-Earth Object Studies, the asteroid 2021 SM3, which was discovered just last month, will pass by our planet on Friday. The diameter of the asteroid is up to 525 feet, just bigger than the 482-foot long Great Pyramid of Giza. An object of that size would be enough to "cause local damage to the impact area" if it were to hit Earth.

2021 SM3 is classified as a near-Earth object, which NASA says "are comets and asteroids that have been nudged by the gravitational attraction of nearby planets into orbits that allow them to enter the Earth’s neighborhood." The bodies are anything that comes within 120 million miles of Earth.

At its closest point, the asteroid will be about 3.6 million miles from Earth. Though that sounds like a safe distance, it's much closer than our neighbor Venus, which can be 74.8 million miles away depending on each planet's orbit.

2021 SM3 won't be the only large asteroid that passes by Earth soon. Seven asteroids bigger than SM3 will come close to our planet by the end of November.

Of all the recently approaching asteroids, 1996 VB3 will be the closest to Earth at 2.1 million miles on Oct. 20. That asteroid has a diameter of up to 754 feet.

The biggest asteroid in the coming weeks is 2004 UE, which has a diameter of up to 1,246 feet, just a few feet shorter than the Empire State Building. 2004 UE will be 2.6 million miles from Earth on Nov. 13.

There are thousands of near-Earth objects in our solar system – 27,024 to be exact. Of those objects, 9,856 are at least 459 feet long, and 890 of them measure 3,280 feet or longer.

The biggest asteroid to pass by Earth this year came in March, when Asteroid 2001 FO32, estimated to be 3,000 feet wide, came 1.2 million miles away from Earth.

The asteroid Apophis, named after the God of Chaos and just smaller than 2004 UE, made headlines this year for the possibility that it could strike Earth. Scientists determined it wouldn't hit the planet in the next 100 years but would be within 20,000 miles of the Earth on April 13, 2029.

Follow Jordan Mendoza on Twitter: @jordan_mendoza5.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Asteroids bigger than Pyramid of Giza to pass by Earth, NASA says