Seems planes are the best method then?

2008/12/9 Oliver Wingenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Paul Crutzen suggested artillery.  But this won't work.  Never trust
> the Germans with artillery.
>
> (Before I get any hate mail, Prof. Crutzen is not German.  He is
> Dutch. I am the only one in my family not born in Germany, so I guess
> that makes me German.)
>
> Oliver Wingenter
>
> On Dec 8, 8:13 am, "Andrew Lockley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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: <[email protected]>
>> > 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 <[email protected]>
>> >> 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 [email protected]
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to