Sam offers an interesting, if somewhat simplistic set of criteria. Simple can be very powerful, so don't take that as a negative critique. I do note, I see nothing on cost-effectiveness, nor any comparison on a per ton of carbon offset concept, both of which would be necessary for most policy analysts.
As for the British effort, I was referring to the Royal Society study now underway and due out in about 6 months. d. On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: > > Thanks to Sam for pulling together this matrix of evaluation criteria. > Is anyone knowledgeable/brave/foolish enough to have a go at ranking > the ideas against these criteria? I don't have the knowledge or the > credibility. > > A > > 2008/12/24 Sam Carana <[email protected]>: > > Here are some points on which I have evaluated a number of > geo-engineering > > projects. I encourage others to suggest additions and changes. > > > > ======= > > SCIENCE > > ======= > > - EXISTING STUDIES - Are relevant studies available? Has there been any > > peer-review? > > - FURTHER STUDY - What further studies and modeling are required? > > - EFFECTIVENESS - How effective will the proposal be in reducing global > > warming? > > - TIMESCALE - How long will it take to see results? > > - CONCERNS - What are possible climate risks, side-effects, dangers? > > > > =========== > > ENGINEERING > > =========== > > - METHODS - How can it be done? Have specific methods been proposed? > > - TECHNICAL PROBLEMS - Could the project run into technical problems? > > - TECHNOLOGIES - Does the project require development of new > technologies? > > - TESTING - Has any testing been done? At what scale? > > > > ========== > > ECONOMICS > > ========== > > - COST - Are there estimates as to what (each of the various stages of) > > implementations would cost? > > - FINANCING - How could the project be financed? Is there any backing for > > the project? > > - RESOURCES - Will there be access to the various resources needed to > make > > it work? > > - IMPACT - What will be the economic impact? Who will profit from the > > project? > > > > ======= > > POLITICS > > ======= > > - APPROVAL - What kind of approvals are needed to go ahead? > > - SUBSIDIES - Are subsidies required for impact studies, feasibility > studies > > or for specific parts of the project? > > - POLICY - How does the project fit in with specific policies, e.g. > offset > > policies, emissions trading or feebates? > > - LEGAL - Does it require new laws or amendment of existing laws? Can > legal > > challenges be expected? > > - DIPLOMACY - Would the project require international negotiations > between > > nations? > > - ADMINISTRATION - From where will the project be administered? > > > > =============== > > SOCIAL & MEDICAL > > =============== > > - SUPPORT - Is there public support for, concern about or resistance > against > > the project? > > - CONSULTATION - Who will benefit, who could be harmed? Has the public > been > > consulted? > > - CONTROL - What level of policing, supervision and security is needed? > What > > monitoring is needed? > > - MEDICAL - Would the project pose safety and health concerns? > > - CULTURAL - Does the project offend some people in some way? > > > > ============ > > ENVIRONMENT > > ============ > > - IMPACT STUDY - Has an environmental impact assessment been done? Are > > further studies required? > > - MAINTENANCE - Is any monitoring, maintenance or restoration required, > to > > prevent environmental damage? > > > > These points could give some indication as to how hard it will be to > > implement with a proposed project. Projects could be scored on each point > by > > asking whether this point will raise any difficulties for the respective > > project. A high score would indicate that there can be expected to be > little > > or no difficulty on this point for the project, while a low score would > > indicate that the project can be expected to have difficulty on this > point. > > > > Each point could be given a specific weighting, resulting in overall > score > > for each of the projects. The higher the overall score, the more the > project > > should be of interest to members of this group. A high overall score > should > > indicate that there is sufficient confidence that the project is safe, > > effective, feasible, viable, etc, with little or no concern, risk or > danger > > that things could go wrong or that a proposal could cause damage or harm > in > > some way. > > > > Importantly however, this should not be seen as a race where only one > winner > > is selected. It is prudent to encourage diversity in approach and to > > continue to study multiple ideas and suggestions in parallel. > > > > > > Cheers! > > Sam Carana > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Andrew Lockley < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Here's the reference I used for soot. > >> http://www.californiaskywatch.com/documents/htmldocs/geoengineering.htm > >> > >> I am pretty sure that soot from burning rainforests caused > >> significant regional cooling in SE asia. > >> > >> If I'm wrong please can someone set me straight. > >> > >> 2008/12/23 Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>: > >> > I cannot imagine how adding soot to the atmosphere would lead to > cooling > >> > instead of warming. > >> > > >> > On the use of sulfates, indeed there were problems as a result of > >> > deposition. The worst problems occurred when the sulfate was not > lofted > >> > and > >> > so dispersed, as opposed to local, concentrated deposition. Sometimes > >> > this > >> > occurred well down some particular trajectories (such as UK to > >> > Scandinavia). > >> > The question is whether there might be a way, by selectively > determining > >> > locations and the particular weather, to build up sulfate > concentrations > >> > over dark oceans rather than over land and forests. Certainly there > >> > would > >> > still be (and likely are now) some adverse consequences, but one would > >> > seek > >> > to minimize those. Then the question is how these impacts would > compare > >> > with > >> > the effects of the warming that is being alleviated--and how this > would > >> > compare with the balance for other approaches and the costs and > >> > challenges > >> > of implementing the various approaches. > >> > > >> > Mike MacCracken > >> > > >> > > >> > On 12/23/08 4:31 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Thanks, I hope others with opinions about this and other categories > >> >> will put their views forward. > >> >> > >> >> I'm concerned by the use of sulphur in this way. It caused terrible > >> >> damage to the forests of Europe in the 70s and 80s. At this time it > >> >> was apparently difficult to establish exactly which sources were > >> >> causing the problem. How can we ensure that this does not happen > >> >> again? > >> >> > >> >> Furthermore, I understand that tropospheric soot is also very > >> >> significant, and that some have proposed using 'dirty burn' in ships > >> >> and aircraft to promote cooling. Smoke from rainforest fires in SE > >> >> Asia is apparently sufficient to promote regional cooling. Should > >> >> this go on the IN list? > >> >> > >> >> A > >> >> > >> >> 2008/12/23 Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>: > >> >>> Dear Andrew-- > >> >>> > >> >>> Although not done intentionally (well, in many cases we have chosen > >> >>> not to > >> >>> use the technology that would maximally limit emissions), we are > >> >>> already, > >> >>> quite fortunately, creating a significant cooling influence with > >> >>> tropospheric sulfate aerosols. While there are negative side > effects, > >> >>> comparing those against the impacts this cooling presently > alleviates > >> >>> (resulting from about the 0.5 C cooling influence) has not been > done, > >> >>> but > >> >>> might not be clear-cut. > >> >>> > >> >>> In that there is no overwhelming negative influence of the > >> >>> tropospheric > >> >>> sulfate aerosols, one could well imagine increasing their amount, at > >> >>> least > >> >>> to generate additional sulfate aerosols in regions where ecological > >> >>> impacts > >> >>> are likely to be minimal. So, increasing tropospheric sulfur dioxide > >> >>> emissions from the elevated stacks of coal-fired power plants or by > >> >>> some > >> >>> other means of lofting the sulfur dioxide to above the boundary > layer > >> >>> (where > >> >>> its lifetime is long enough to allow conversion to sulfate aerosol) > >> >>> would > >> >>> seem to be an option to be included in the IN category. Indeed, > there > >> >>> may be > >> >>> adverse impacts in terms of deposition and human health, but it may > >> >>> well be > >> >>> possible to manage the emissions to that they occur only for > >> >>> trajectories > >> >>> that take the sulfates out over the oceans or to other locations > where > >> >>> deposition would not be problematic. > >> >>> > >> >>> In fact, given the apparently increasing SO2 emissions from the new > >> >>> coal-fired power plants in China (as evidenced by the high sulfate > >> >>> levels > >> >>> shown in the figure in the IPCC WG I report), this approach to > >> >>> limiting > >> >>> warming may already be having some effect--indeed, maybe, as in the > >> >>> mid 20th > >> >>> century, sulfates may be what seems to be somewhat slowing the > warming > >> >>> over > >> >>> the past decade. > >> >>> > >> >>> Mike MacCracken > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On 12/22/08 8:37 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Can anyone else help me 'rank' the technologies? Just because > people > >> >>>> talk about a tech lots doesn't mean it's actually any good! I'm > >> >>>> getting the impression that the following are basically in/out > >> >>>> > >> >>>> IN > >> >>>> Sea water spraying > >> >>>> Sulphur stratospheric seeding > >> >>>> Ocean fertilisation with iron/urea > >> >>>> White roofs (nice but not very effective) > >> >>>> > >> >>>> DON'T KNOW > >> >>>> Limestone powder into the sea > >> >>>> Fake plastic trees > >> >>>> Biochar > >> >>>> Removing HCl from oceans > >> >>>> > >> >>>> OUT > >> >>>> Nuclear bombs > >> >>>> Space mirrors > >> >>>> Shiny balloons > >> >>>> Sea albedo from litter/pykrete > >> >>>> Low level soot and sulphur burning > >> >>>> > >> >>>> This is obviously just a list based on my bar stool expertise. If > >> >>>> anyone with more knowledge could help that would be appreciated. > Any > >> >>>> references to an objective ranking system that I can put in the > wiki > >> >>>> would be appreciated. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> A > >> >>>> > >> >>>> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
