We also have the desired nuclear reactor; it is just below the Earth's crust. Someone has called it geothermal. We have deep drilling technology and geothermal is already being exploited near the surface. It is completely free of carbon emissions. We also have stores of molten rock heated by radioactivity near the surface, volcanoes, that it may be possible to exploit more than it is.
If we don't watch out the CO2-free energy problem will be solved and we won't need geoengineering. Great solution. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Larson Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 6:28 AM To: [email protected] Cc: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: An interesting question Andrew - cc list: I don't mean to sound flip - and maybe you were asking for this response: We already have the desired fusion machine: our sun. The two reasons that Biochar can work in the big way that Peter Read has commented on a few hours ago are 1) that the sun's energy is already free (and really already in great abundance compared to the global need for energy) and 2) Mother Nature has given us many millions of years of fixing photosynthesis to be pretty good. The fake trees in your scenario can be replaced by real trees. We'll need more of them, but they are cheap. The right ones will also provide food. I believe the land can be made available. There is also the 75% of the world's surface in oceans to use as well. Biochar has been reported to retain methane quite efficiently. Shifting pasture to trees will save a lot on methane. The overshoot issue is possibly already also solved with Biochar. Certainly the main detractor (BFW) claims it won't last in the ground. We know from Terra Preta studies that some large (but undeterminable) amount is still effective many millenia after its anthropogenic placement in Amazonian soils. If we have a billion new hectares of biomass intended for Biochar, there will be plenty of ways to put all of its energy content to use - economically - as humans have done for millennia. Char can also be designed for short lifetimes - and some proponents believe it should be for better feeding the necessary bacteria and fungi in the first year or two. We only need to add about one percent to the world average photosynthetic efficiency (NPP - Net Primary Productivity). Quite a few plants already do much better than the average. I think Biologists and Soil scientists can help almost any plant do better as well. Ron Andrew Lockley wrote: > If energy was free, what could we do with geoengineering? It may seem > a daft question, but bearing in mind that fusion power is only 40 > years away (and always will be) then it is worth considering. > > My understanding is that Lackner's 'fake plastic trees' are > energy-hungry, and fusion could make them a lot more attractive. > (Perhaps an alternative technology could be used to remove dissolved > C02 from the sea.) > > However, there is a potentially serious problem with this. What if we > emit such large volumes of secondary GHGs (eg methane) that we need to > reduce CO2 below natural levels to control temperature? If we take > CO2 too low, plants will not grow and we'll all starve. Wildfires > would then act to balance CO2 levels. > > Previously, I've outlined my ideas for tackling methane to this list, > but what if none of them worked? What would our options be? How > practical would it be to 'overshoot' CO2? We wouldn't need to worry > about stability anymore, as it would be so cheap to draw down the CO2 > that we could just dump it in the deep ocean and pump down a bit more > when it leaks. Leakage in an 'overshoot' world would possibly be an > advantage - bringing up CO2 levels 'naturally' when the secondary GHGs > had decomposed chemically or photochemically in the atmosphere. > > I just thought I'd ask for comments as to the kind of geoengineering > our grandchildren will be able to engage in once they have the 'Mr > Fusion' machines which power the cars in 'Back to the Future', but in > a world where secondary GHGs are the primary problem. > > Comments please. I think it's worth a paper on this. > > A > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.42/2473 - Release Date: 10/31/09 21:14:00 > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
