On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > List cc Keith and Greg > > 1. This is #3/3 in a string today - all with some relationship to the > MacDougall article). Not sure of the etiquette here as Keith was only > addressing Greg and myself. But Greg responded to the full list and I > think/hope Keith would like that I do the same. Keith has talked of his > proposed low-cost electricity approach earlier on this list. > > 2. As background, readers interested in Keith’s electricity production > views should look at material at > https://docs.google.com/file/d/1PHkFACumTHyfMPOfIDhAY46vPe_mt8zNmy3i2ZsOnHgqZqpGuMpSh3JaJsCO/edit > I also found a video covering the same. > > 3. I am pretty sure that Keith is one of the world experts on this solar > satellite topic. He certainly has had a long history of various > space-oriented activities. > > 4. See also two responses below. > > > On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Keith Henson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Ronal W. Larson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Keith cc Greg > > I appreciate your enthusiasm for the solar satellite approach, but I have > my hands more than full with CDR (and specifically biochar). > > > What you really need is a way to turn off the current flow of CO2 into > the atmosphere. *Then* biochar or other ways to lower the CO2 have a > chance to work. But that's not going to happen as long as people need > energy to stay alive unless there is a way to replace the energy from > fossil fuels. It's the reason Hansen and the rest of them have > recognized nuclear energy. That will work if you are willing to put > up with a meltdown a year. > > > RWL1. Readers will find that Keith’s approach is quite expensive (many > trillions of $) and not likely ready soon. The above site shows a new lower > cost way to put hardware in space. My view is that today's renewables can > do the job at an acceptable cost - but I wish Keith luck if he can do the > fossil fuel replacement job cheaper. I concur on his statements about > nuclear - which I believe has no or small connection to geoengineering. > Keith has previously proposed a way to make a fuel starting with CO2 and his > low cost electricity. Again not a “Geo” topic -but maybe someone can offer > other approaches on either the CDR or fossil replacement tasks? > > > What was the > reason the Japanese dropped their program? > > > I don't know, but it really doesn't matter. The program they were > working on would not lead to displacing fossil fuels. The > Skylon/laser propulsion/power satellite approach *might*. > > I calculated how much energy it would take to capture and safely > sequester 100 ppm of CO2. Have you run this calculation? > > > [RWL: The first answer is that biochar doesn’t require ANY energy - as > pyrolysis is exothermic. But assuming Keith wants to know how energy and > char work together, I can say they are NOT partners; more of one means less > of the other (biochar is a partner with soil improvement). But if half of > the initial carbon produces energy (and released CO2), then 100 ppm of CO2 > requires about 400 Gt C to be put in the ground (we have had other dialog > on this number). The energy content of the other 400 Gt C is valued at > about 30 GJ/tonne C. (of course not all useful). Thus the theoretical > available energy is about 12,000 E18 Joules. > > Hopefully, we can get started soon enough that we need less than 100 ppm. > Hopefully there will be a suite of CDR approaches, that will be using PV, > wind, hydro, geothermal (and some non-biochar biomass) > > What is your own calculation on “how much energy it would take”? (I > presume all of an opposite sign?) > > Ron > > > (The next addressed today to Greg and myself, with one response each > from Greg and myself) > > > > On Dec 20, 2013, at 12:05 AM, Keith Henson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Would you be interested in an engineering proposal to end the use of > fossil fuels? > > Warning, it does so by substituting a cheaper energy source. > > Keith Henson > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > > Delayed response from me also. Just saw a brief review of this paper in my > > > <snipped - to save space; I think all repeated earlier today> >
-- 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.
