We will still, I suggest, need geoengineering to deal with the existing CO2 and the feedback effects - especially methane. The challenge is how to effect a permanent solution, and I suggest that fusion + air capture is the only credible method I've seen to date.
A 2009/11/1 Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
