Movement of aerosols and air in general above 53,000 ft is governed by the rotation of the Earth and the Brewer Dobson circulation that transports air towards the poles. Aerosols formed from tropical volcanic eruptions will be carried to both poles, although the distribution may be uneven and seasonal.
CSP is an old technology attracting interest in part due to the cost of PV. Most projections have it used in concentrated arrays in selected desert or other areas with significant numbers of cloudless days, e.g. the US southwest, N. Africa, parts of Spain. It could also be used in Australia. Problems facing CSP are how to tie it into the transmission system as the prime real estate is usually far from population centers and how to store heat energy generated during the day to provide for on demand usage. It is true that the percentage contribution of CSP has yet to be determined and it may not be as important 50 years from now as today. The problem with the Murphy study (and I haven't read the paper yet) is that it probably obsesses on what a Pinatubo-like reduction in sunlight would do to concentrator performance. Opponents of geoengineering always like to worst case it as they know the media will pick up on that. Proposals to launch whatever from the moon or to capture asteroids are the stuff of 22nd century technology and won't help us now. Why would you want to go 250,000 miles from the Earth to do this when the stratosphere is only 15 miles away? On Apr 22, 3:17 am, dsw_s <[email protected]> wrote: > To what extent do stratospheric aerosols cross the equator? I doubt > there's all that much concentrating solar power in the southern > hemisphere. > > And who knows whether CSP will still have such an edge over PV by the > time we would get an aerosol program in place anyway. > > > Most of the CCN for stratospheric aerosols are meteoritic in origin (they > > came from Outer Space, not leaded gasoline!!!!) > > A base on the moon, or a captured asteroid, might be useful to put CCN > into selected parts of the atmosphere. The design of the objects to > be dropped into the atmosphere, and their trajectory, should be able > to give some control over what size particles are produced and at what > altitude. > > On Apr 20, 5:55 pm, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Francois--- > > > Is this related to geoengineering somehow? > > > D > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:51 PM, f.m.maugis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To all of you, > > > > Please be informed of this interesting symposium: > > > > http://www.evgars.com/ > > > > «REORGANIZATION OF NATURAL SCIENCES AND ENERGY»-2009 > > > XVIII-th International Scientific Symposium > > > Saint-Petersburg, Rostov-on Don, Russia, 28-30 April, 2009 > > > > Regards, > > > > François MAUGIS > > >http://assee.free.fr > > > > =============================================================== > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > De : [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Dan Whaley > > > Envoyé : lundi 20 avril 2009 23:07 > > > À : geoengineering > > > Objet : [geo] USA Today on Geoengineering.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
