Please don't make personal digs just because I suggested an idea that may not work.
Why is a nuclear bomb worse than a volcano anyway? And what about artillery as a method? 2008/12/8 Alvia Gaskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The only people seriously considering using nuclear weapons to put lots of > particulate matter into the stratosphere live in the tribal areas of > Pakistan. Alan Robock showed what happens if India and Pakistan play > nuclear ping pong with their meager arsenals. The particulate matter > carried into the stratosphere absorbs enough solar energy to heat the > stratosphere to the point where reactions that destroy ozone are maximized. > The net result is that everyone and everything on the surface of the Earth > is killed by UV radiation. Now you wouldn't want that, would you Andrew? > Your organization is called Friends of the Earth, isn't it, although the > acronym FOE is a little disturbing. > > I've looked at the delivery system issue (see the group files for some of > what I've written) and concluded that airplanes and balloons could be used. > To get precursor gas to circulate globally, it must be released above 53,000 > ft, the boundary between the tropical tropopause and the stratosphere. In > fact, due to the fall rates of aerosol, it should be released at above > 65,000 ft to guarantee at least a one-year residence time in order to make > it practical. The B-52, the KC-135 and other large subsonic aircraft cannot > fly this high, their ceilings right at around 50,000 ft. To fly as high as > would be necessary and carry enough payload to make it worthwhile would > require supersonic aircraft. I settled on the F-15c with a ceiling of > around 65,000 and the ability to carry about 8 tons of payload of which half > could be the gas. > > You are correct about the balloons in that using hydrogen as the lifting gas > instead of helium doubles the lifting capacity. Using H2S instead of SO2 > doubles the precursor quantity that can be carried again as well. So > balloons containing hydrogen and H2S within the envelope of the balloon > could deliver the gas to the stratosphere in the quantities required and to > much higher altitudes as well, up to 120,000 ft. The technology to inflate > and recover payloads from large football stadium sized stratospheric > balloons exists today and has been used since the 1940's to deliver payloads > of up to 8000 lbs to 120,000 ft and recover them. > > The real issue about the delivery systems is whether or not the gas will > form the proper sized aerosol using the existing water vapor in the > stratosphere. This will requre field tests to determine its feasibility as > well as whether gas can be released from tanks quickly enough to vaporize in > the time that the planes can spend in flight at these altitudes, probably > about an hour. Balloon residue can be addressed through a collection > program and I doubt the residue would come close to that already floating in > the middle of the Pacific from land based plastic waste. Alan Robock's > statement in his AMS slides that "billions of weather balloons would be > required" is only accurate if weather balloons were used. High altitude > stratospheric balloons are not weather balloons. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Lockley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:14 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: delivering aerosols > > > > As they are just converted old bombers you could easily convert a > different bomber to do the job. B52s are an obvious choice as there > are loads lying about and they are very large, reducing the costs. I > think they fly very high. > > A > > 2008/12/8 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> These planes cannot reach the sub-stratosphere at all. >> Gregory >> >> Has anyone looked at using firefighting planes to deliver aerosol >> particles? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andrew Lockley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >> Sent: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 5:46 pm >> Subject: [geo] delivering aerosols >> >> Has anyone looked at using firefighting planes to deliver aerosol >> particles? These are designed to spray powder. There are a lot of >> them about in Northern latitudes, and for much of the year they really >> don't do a lot. >> >> I've seen several other methods, all of which have disadvantages: >> 1) Space lift - still scifi >> 2) Balloons - could work, but would have to be hydrogen, not helium >> due to the volumes needed. Unless the balloons are programmed to >> deflate and float back down, there will be a lot of 'litter'. To get >> a decent payload, a very large flammable balloon would be needed. >> 3) artillery - possibly useful, but may be a lot more polluting, >> expensive and energy intensive than a plane. >> >> > >> >> ________________________________ >> Listen to 350+ music, sports, & news radio stations – including songs for >> the holidays – FREE while you browse. Start Listening Now! > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
