Ron,As for your point 4, the C negative H2 I'm talking about is powered by
renewable electricity (or nuclear). The basic idea is: H2O + base minerals +
CO2 + renewable Vdc ---> H2 + O2 + dissolved mineral bicarbonates (+ SiO2 if
present).e.g. silicates - 4CO2g + 4H2O + Mg2SiO4s + Vdc ----> 2H2g + O2g +
Mg2+ + 4HCO3- + SiO2se.g. carbonates:CO2g + 2H2O + CaCO3s + Vdc ---->H2g +
1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3- See the links I listed earlier.
Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to electrolytic H2 production
is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of minerals is exothermic.
CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges from 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne).G
From: Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]>
To: RAU greg <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephen Salter <[email protected]>; Geoengineering
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record
Greg, Stephen, list
1. Re Stephen’s idea: Sounds like an idea where the next step will have to
be by the US air force (or someone’s military). Starting with 200 passenger
designs wouldn’t seem to go very far.
2. I have nothing against H2 for lighter than air craft - but Helium should
be considered as well. I believe we are still venting a lot.
3. To get back onto the CDR aspects of this list (and costs lower than
$100/tonne CO2) - there are companies talking co-products of biochar and jet
fuel. Not happening now (I gather) because oil is $40/barrel - not the
anticipated $100/bbl.
4. Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with either solar, wind,
hydro, geothermal or other RE electric? Seems to me it has to be biochar.
Ron
On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks, Stephen, that's a wonderful segway for our negative emissions
H2:http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875
Happy to provide all of the supergreen H2 you need (for a price).
As for H2 aircraft and the landing problem, how about zeppelins? I know that
Hindenberg incident over here last century didn't help this technology (the Led
Zepplin album cover (not to mention what as inside) influenced an entire
generation), but why not put H2 to use both for lift and for propulsion?
Zepplins would also seem to satisfy Prof. Northcott's desire for more civilized
travel (his Action Item 11 below).
Then there is Plan C - rockets. Rockets can use H2 as fuel, and Mr. Musk has
now demonstrated the soft vertical landing of such. Was that landing on a
rolling barge in the open ocean the most amazing engineering feat ever, or is
it just me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI
Regards,Greg
From: Stephen Salter <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record
Hi All One more possible option would be to use hydrogen for aircraft fuel.
It has a great weight advantage but also a severe volume disadvantage. This
could be partly overcome if we remove the landing gear and have planes landing
on ground vehicles.The landing gear on an Airbus 380 weighs the same as 200
passengers and their luggage. A note with sketches is attached. Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University
of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland [email protected], Tel
+44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube
Jamie Taylor Power for Change On 18/04/2016 06:38, Greg Rau wrote:
Dear Michael, Yes, we need "moral alternatives to the present madness",
but just in case all of those suggested aren't adopted in the next few decades
it would seem immoral not to at least hope for additional options just in case
1-11 don't pan out in time. As for crossing the the "large scale",
"totalitarian" and "public debt" thresholds, something tells me that it's
going to take some very large scale, draconian implementation to execute 1-11
in the dwindling time remaining, and many of these activities will require
capital and investment from somewhere. Meanwhile, natural CDR seems to be
doing a good job consuming more than half of our CO2 emissions and actually
reversing the air CO2 rise for a period each year*. So given this positive
example and the task we face, how immoral might it be to see if there are safe
and cost effectively ways to increase or add to this natural CO2 uptake process
just in case our journey on more virtuous paths to a stable planet proves to
take longer than demanded by the recently lowered and oh so moral 1.5 Deg C
warming limit?
*https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf
Regards, Greg
From: NORTHCOTT Michael <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>; Greg Rau <[email protected]>; James Hansen
<[email protected]>; P. Wadhams <[email protected]>; John Topping
<[email protected]>; Robert Corell <[email protected]>; Peter R Carter
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record
Hi John
The course of action to slow the rate of warming (it is 0.1 degree per decade
not 0.2) and ultimately to stop it requires all of the following. Young people
and climate activists the world over are calling for these things and
campaigning actively and at cost of their freedom sometimes to bring them
about:
1. Ending tropical forest burning 2. Stopping building of new coal and oil
fired power stations (Turkey and India and S Africa are planning 100s) and
ending coal extraction by China, Indonesia, and even Australia, Germany US and
UK who have no conceivable need to continue extracting the stuff given the
wealth already at the disposal of their citizens and corporations 3. Closing
existing coal and oil fired electric power plants 4. Reforesting uplands,
reducing sheep grazing, and increasing uptake of co2 in agric land with
biochar, compost etc 5. Ending expansion of air sea and road travel and moving
all road and sea travel to electric vehicles and wind. Rationing air travel to
gradually shift international and national travellers to other means. 6.
Moving all electricity production to renewable power and battery / reservoir
storage of back up power.
7. Reengineering older buildings with insulation. 8. Requiring all new
builds to generate own power and be zero carbon 9. Reducing shipping and flying
of food by favouring local over global food production. 10. Ending large scale
animal husbandry and moving mainstream human protein requirements to beans,
vegetables etc. 11. Favour pedestrians, cyclists and electric bikes, segways,
electric wheelchairs etc in all city planning and movement infrastructure
Globally these measures would generate at least a billion of jobs, reduce
deaths from pollution, and reduce health costs of cancers, heart disease,
obesity and air pollution, and reduce concentrations of wealth by putting
capacity to generate power, grow food and move around back in the hands of
householders and local communities. None of them require large scale
totalitarian and public debt-based technologies of the kind represented by CDR.
We need moral alternatives to the present madness. We need to argue for them
in every possible forum and embrace them ourselves. Arming the future against
the sun is a counsel of despair.
Regards
Michael
Professor of Ethics University of Edinburgh
On 17 Apr 2016, at 17:10, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Professor Mann,
Most of us would like to keep global warming below 1.5C this century. But we
are way off course.
Nobody likes to admit in public that we are already in dangerous territory.
But we are!
The rate of global warming (near-surface temperature rise) could now exceed
0.2 C per decade; CO2 is above 400 ppm (an excess of 120 ppm above
pre-industrial 280 ppm) of which most will remain this century due to CO2's
long lifetime in the atmosphere; and we have already had over 1 C
anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This means that, even with the most
drastic cut in CO2 emissions, we cannot avoid an extremely dangerous 3C this
century without aggressive CO2 removal (CDR). Indeed, if we want to keep AGW
below 1.5 C this century and halt ocean acidification, then we need to get
global warming rate down below 0.05 C per decade, i.e. less than a quarter the
current rate.
Thus climate forcing has to be reduced by 75% within a decade or two, to have
a chance to keep below 1.5 C this century.
Thus we have to reduce the CO2 level to around 210 ppm (30 ppm above
pre-industrial 280 ppm), and reduce methane from 1.8 ppm to around 1.0 ppm in
order to reduce their combined forcing by 75%. This assumes we maintain
aerosol cooling, especially the SO2 cooling from coal-fired power stations.
This is exacerbated by climate forcing from the Arctic, at around 0.5 W/m2
and rising exponentially as albedo loss accelerates.
Therefore, in addition to urgent CO2 emissions reduction, we need (i)
aggressive CDR so that CO2 is soon being removed from the atmosphere faster
than than it is being emitted, (ii) suppression of methane emissions,
especially fugitive methane (iii) rapid cooling of the Arctic to restore
albedo, and (iv) maintenance of SO2 aerosol cooling, if global warming is to be
kept below 1.5 C this century.
Do you agree or can you suggest an alternative course of action to avert
extreme danger?
Kind regards,
John Nissen Chair, Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record
"The UK Met Office expects 2016 to set a new record, meaning the global
temperature record is set to have been broken for three years in a row. Prof
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University in the US,
responded to the March data by saying: “Wow. I continue to be shocked by what
we are seeing.” He said the world had now been hovering close to the threshold
of “dangerous” warming for two months, something not seen before. “The [new
data] is a reminder of how perilously close we now are to permanently crossing
into dangerous territory,” Mann said. “It underscores the urgency of reducing
global carbon emissions.” GR - and the need to seriously consider additional
ways of managing CO2 and climate.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
