Peter, cc List Greg Rau 1. I wonder if you or anyone on the list could comment on an idea that popped in my head today re your interesting salt water Arctic ice thickening SRM approach. The idea following mainly changes the wind energy source over to a biomass-biochar approach. Other biomass approaches might work, but I think the economics will favor biochar. For those new to this topic see past "arctic-ice-albedo" discussions on this "Geo" list and part of a Peter Flynn paper that was attached on the 17th or available at: http://web.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/Climatic%20Change%20%282005%29%2071%20203-220.pdf?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=1952820&part=2 2. The main positive differences for biochar over wind are: a. energy and power always available when snow/ice-making can be optimum b. a salable energy biofuel mitigation co-product (biodiesel, etc) is possible to defray costs c. a salable co-product (charcoal) can also defray costs d. there is a global CDR benefit (extra income dollars) on top of the needed SRM (albedo) income from the ice-making - same service-oriented incomes as any other CDR/SRM approach e. possibly there can be additional sequestering CO2 through production of carbonates (an approach of interest to Greg Rau??) f. can use dead wood and other biomass from Arctic sources that would be rotting anyway - and no better way to exploit this resource g the needed extra 24-7 manpower should be helpful in putting our more ice per year per platform (maybe also per $?) h. almost any power and energy level is available - much more than for the nominal 1 MW or less wind turbine, so greater height and areal coverage for snow making i. can be a platform for wind systems also. j. maybe there can also be a methane capture aspect. k. maybe there are other income streams (eco-tourism, commercial fishing, science support, etc) to an array of big old boats. 3. The similarities to wind, compared to other SRM approaches are considerable a Can learn a lot from one unit b. Impacts local, easily seen and verified c. Numerous countries can contribute, together or separately. d Governance no worse than any other approach and maybe no issue for first testing (?) e. Can stop instantaneously f. Can also be done from shore or inland 4. The negative sides, comparing to wind a. Extra heat is supplied to the Arctic from the pyrolysis process (this needs to be balanced against the atmospheric SRM and CDR benefits) b. Much longer input biomass transport distances are needed than usually proposed for biochar facilities (but ship transport is low cost) c. Considerable staffing is needed for a terribly frigid environment (although plentiful CHP energy will be plentiful. Maybe low cost help encouraged by prison authorities, who might see these floating platfoms as equivalent to prisons for certain types of prisoners - with prisoners (volunteers only) motivated by greater freedom of action, some salary, repaying society, chance to learn new skills, etc. Alternatively, could be a low cost one-year service project rather than military. I have checked with one "ethicist" (S'OK if volunteer) and have calls in to two others skilled in prison matters. Low labor costs will be essential.) 5. The benefit for biochar development, independent of wind, is this "Ice" application's need for large amounts of electrical energy (possible from the gases) or a produced liquid, which can be available on demand (such as pumping mainly at night), as well as being a good CPH application. 6. Maybe there is a design class or PhD candidate who can do a quick analysis to see: a. how much the "Flynn-8000" number of platforms can change with larger platforms with more available power and energy. b. how much the economics can be improved (if at all) over other SRM approaches c. whether there is any other geoengineerng approach supplying both SRM and CDR benefits d. how many decrepit cargo ships are available, at what cost for refitting. e. the benefit to cost ratio (if positive at all) in climate improvement terms f. the optimum added ice thickness to strive for (one meter? probably will increase over time until we start removing more CO2 each year than we add (2030?) g. the ability of ice breakers to arrive periodically (only in September?) to bring in new crew, biomass and provisions and take out the biofuels and char. 7. This is not a proposal - only a possible modification (needing a lot of work) of Prof. Flynn's note from several weeks ago. It is intended to have possibly improved economics, by adding carbon neutrality, carbon negativity, and other possible income streams, not available with an un-manned wind station. Any major issues left out? Ron -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
