The problem of particle size, coagulation and so on is the main argument for my proposal for Tetra ethyl silicate in aviation fuel to produce silica particles of a size defined by the concentration.
Even assuming that a burner has to be designed rather then putting the fuel through the jet engine, this proposal seems to have far fewer practical barriers to be overcome before experimental implementation than most proposals for SO2 or sulphuric acid. Thanks to unpronounceable Iceland we now have far more information on the levels of atmospheric silica that are acceptable to a jet engine than we did a year ago. Recent proposal for grant attached. If anyone can find the money to proceed with this I am happy to cooperate. John Gorman ----- Original Message ----- From: Joshua Horton To: Ken Caldeira Cc: geoengineering Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Help Appreciated Hi Ken, If I frame this a bit better, I think we're on the same page (although my claim is probably too strong). My overall argument is that the threat of unilateral deployment is largely unfounded, and that there are in fact numerous structural incentives that favor cooperation and multilateralism when it comes to SRM. One constraint relates to potential interactions and reduced effectivess resulting from uncoordinated injections. The coagulation example is meant to illustrate this point, i.e., because SRM is relatively simple, affordable, and widely available, a country considering implementation faces strong incentives to work with other members of the international community that share its inclination if it wants to maximize the likelihood of successful deployment. I discuss several other constraints as well, including countermeasures as you mention. I think the specter of unilateral deployment crumbles under scrutiny, and amounts to little more than a boogeyman that inhibits constructive engagement. Josh On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote: Multiple, independent injections would decrease the likelihood of coagulation relative to injecting it all in one place. Of course, there is potential for coordinated injections to decrease coagulation (aggregation) relative to uncoordinated injections. There is no evidence that I know of that one injection could "cancel out" the effects of another injection. It seems that the main case is that the climate effect of A+B would be less than the climate effects of A plus the climate effects of B. It is an interesting research question to understand whether there are countermeasures that would decrease the effectiveness of injection by injecting something upwind from an injection site that would promote aggregation of the injected material. ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Josh Horton <[email protected]> wrote: Hi everyone, I am finalizing a chapter on geoengineering policy for publication and would greatly appreciate informed feedback on the following paragraph: "The aerosol most commonly suggested for stratospheric injection is sulfuric acid. Plans call for delivering sulfate aerosols by dispersing gas-phase precursor materials. Precursor oxidation and aerosol formation involve complex processes with the potential to reduce the effectiveness of stratospheric insertion. For instance, coagulation could lead to excessively large sulfuric acid particles that sediment out of the stratosphere, neutralizing the effect of the initial dispersion. Multiple, independent injections would increase the likelihood of such unintended consequences. Unsynchronized staging, scheduling, and delivery of sulfate aerosol injections would magnify the potential for perverse particulate interactions, and might jeopardize the success of geoengineering deployment. Lack of policy coordination may result in separate injection schemes that effectively cancel each other out." For those with scientific/technical backgrounds, is this a sound argument? Is the basic science correct? I am outside my comfort zone with this and want to be sure I don't miss the mark. Thanks to anyone who can offer insight. Josh Horton [email protected] http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
Grant Proposal.rtf
Description: MS-Word document
