I have an atmosphere related question which I hope someone can shed light upon.
This project, http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/propulsion-lasers-for-large-scale.html Or as a lecture I gave last July at Google, http://youtu.be/qCiw99yRBo8 It is a space based solar power project that can grow large enough to displace fossil fuels in a bit over two decades from the start. It displaces fossil fuels by seriously undercutting them, electric power for half the price of the least expensive from coal, and synthetic oil for less than $50 per bbl going down to $30/bbl. It's based on new technology (high efficiency solid state lasers) that has come along in the last 4-5 years and the old idea of power satellites One problem is that the rocket planes that haul the parts to orbit dump from 12 million tons to 240 million tons of water into the atmosphere each year, about half above 25 km. I am not qualified to estimate what this will do to the atmosphere, but I know some of you are. _Some_ damage can probably be tolerated since (if it works at all) it should solve the energy, carbon and climate problems. I would very much appreciate any thoughts you might have. Keith Henson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Dr. Adrian Tuck <dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk> wrote: > > At the suggestion of Andrew Lockley, I am forwarding this to the whole > group. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Dr. Adrian Tuck <dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk> > Date: 14 November 2013 05:58 > Subject: Re: [geo] Sulphur injection regime - request for comments > To: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > Cc: James Donaldson <jdona...@chem.utoronto.ca>, Matt Hitchman > <m...@aos.wisc.edu>, Erik Richard <erik.rich...@lasp.colorado.edu>, Heikki > Tervahattu <heikki.tervaha...@gmail.com>, Veronica Vaida > <va...@colorado.edu>, Chuck Wilson <jwil...@du.edu> > > > [1] The PALMS initial results in 1998 destroyed the belief long held by > atmospheric aerosol scientists (largely engineers, atmospheric physicists > and modellers) that the aerosol was either pure sulphuric acid or ammonium > sulphate. In fact there were up to 46 elements present over the population > in the UT/LS. The chemical composition has very large effects on what the > aerosols do chemically, physically and radiatively; the chemists' question > "What is it made of?" cannot be ignored. With that as background, here is a > take on the composition of volcanic plumes:- > > Composition > > Schematic draw of volcanic eruption > > The principal components of volcanic gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon > dioxide (CO2), sulfur either as sulfur dioxide (SO2) (high-temperature > volcanic gases) or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (low-temperature volcanic gases), > nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Other > compounds detected in volcanic gases are oxygen (meteoric), hydrogen > chloride, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur > hexafluoride, carbonyl sulfide, and organic compounds. Exotic trace > compounds include mercury, halocarbons (including CFCs), and halogen oxide > radicals.The abundance of gases varies considerably from volcano to volcano. > Water vapor is consistently the most common volcanic gas, normally > comprising more than 60% of total emissions. Carbon dioxide typically > accounts for 10 to 40% of emissions. Can we infer that in the case of > volcanic injection of SO2, the requisite water is there also, in abundance? > Would high-altitudeinjection of CO2 also act to cool, radiatively? If these > are true, there may well be big differences with rocket-based injection > methods. > > [2] It is a truth universally acknowledged that the greatest source of > uncertainty in the assessment of the effects of fossil fuel burning on > climate is the role of aerosols (with apologies to Jane Austen). It is > therefore unwise as well as ironic to base geoengineering proposals upon > injecting them into the UT/LS. > > [3] As it says in [1], volcanoes fluctuate widely in their characteristics. > This is something they share with the behaviour of the entire fluid envelope > of the planet, see Lovejoy & Schertzer's book published earlier this year by > CUP. It is idle to pretend that we can predict the behaviour of this highly > nonlinear, coupled system with confidence beyond a week or so. > > > > > > > On 13 November 2013 09:39, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> They Fall more quickly initially, but they have further to go. We know a >> lot about the behaviour from volcanic eruptions, so once the particles have >> formed, there shouldn't be too many surprises. >> >> On Nov 13, 2013 6:34 AM, "Dr. Adrian Tuck" >> <dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> The higher you go, the quicker the aerosols fall out. You seem to think >>> we know enough to titrate one pollutant against others. I don't think we do. >>> >>> >>> On 13 November 2013 00:20, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The increased particle flux will tend to strip the stratosphere of >>>> organics, so the problem may get reduced in due course. Nevertheless, >>>> if we need to avoid the lower stratosphere, it's fairly simple - we >>>> just use more propellant! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 November 2013 00:14, Dr. Adrian Tuck >>>> <dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk> wrote: >>>> > Thank you for the information. I had heard Tom Peter talk about the >>>> > 2009 >>>> > paper, but I had not seen the 2012 paper in GRL. I seriously doubt >>>> > that pure >>>> > sulphuric acid particles will stay that way; the PALMS results show >>>> > them to >>>> > be very rare, almost certainly because they readily acquire an organic >>>> > coating very readily in the upper troposphere, at the tropical >>>> > tropopause >>>> > and even in the lower stratosphere. It is true too that the dynamics >>>> > of >>>> > particle formation and interaction are affected by the scale invariant >>>> > structure of turbulence, which currently is very different than the >>>> > way it >>>> > happens in models, especially on the smaller scales that will matter >>>> > with >>>> > aircraft plumes or artillery shell bursts. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 12 November 2013 21:48, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks. I cited your paper. Are you familiar with Heckendorn 2012 >>>> >> and 2009, who looked at this? >>>> >> >>>> >> A >>>> >> >>>> >> On 12 November 2013 01:49, Dr. Adrian Tuck >>>> >> <dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >> > We did consider the use of artillery in our paper in Climate >>>> >> > Change, 90, >>>> >> > 315-331[2008], see attachment. Purely from a S mass point of view, >>>> >> > hydrogen >>>> >> > sulphide will be far more efficient than sulphur trioxide or >>>> >> > sulphur >>>> >> > dioxide, but it is highly toxic and foul smelling, so any accident >>>> >> > would >>>> >> > be >>>> >> > serious. Above and beyond that, there are serious uncertainties >>>> >> > connected >>>> >> > with such aerosols, which generally have been ignored. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Adrian Tuck >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On 11 November 2013 17:04, Andrew Lockley >>>> >> > <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >>>> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Hi >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> I'm drafting a paper on the use of guns. A great deal of design >>>> >> >> considerations hinge on whether to use condensing vapors (e.g. >>>> >> >> SO3), or >>>> >> >> reactive gases (SO2, H2S). The former seem to dislike local >>>> >> >> saturation, >>>> >> >> and >>>> >> >> the latter seem to prefer it (unless I'm missing something). >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Is there currently a settled view on which type of injection >>>> >> >> regime is >>>> >> >> likely to be more suitable? >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> The use of heavy guns to distribute condensing vapours is >>>> >> >> (relatively >>>> >> >> speaking) much less appealing than their use to distribute >>>> >> >> reactive >>>> >> >> gases, >>>> >> >> which are probably best dispersed from aircraft. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> A >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> -- >>>> >> >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> >> >> To post to this group, send email to >>>> >> >> geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>>> >> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>>> >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > -- >>>> >> > *************************************************** >>>> >> > >>>> >> > 'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective'. >>>> >> > Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4. >>>> >> > http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199236534 >>>> >> > >>>> >> > *************************************************** >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > *************************************************** >>>> > >>>> > 'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective'. >>>> > Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4. >>>> > http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199236534 >>>> > >>>> > *************************************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *************************************************** >>> >>> 'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective'. >>> Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4. >>> http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199236534 >>> >>> *************************************************** > > > > > -- > *************************************************** > > 'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective'. > Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4. > http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199236534 > > *************************************************** > > > > -- > *************************************************** > > 'ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE: A Molecular Dynamics Perspective'. > Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-923653-4. > http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199236534 > > *************************************************** > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
