FYI, the article is still in the process of peer review and has not yet been accepted. You can create an account and comment it https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/
I agree with Klauss and the energy requirements. *But I also welcome any new ideas to try to reduce global warming. * Even if the "proposals" made in this article seem awful to some, it can provide other researchers or entrepreneurs better ideas? Maybe on a smaller scale, in some conditions and regions, it could be applicable without impacting the natural world of ecological communities and of biodiversity? Let us imagine for instance that we can still enhance 5x the Miscanthus productivity (or another plant?) under an agricultural greenhouse, using artificial light at night, consuming 10x much less clear water or using slightly salted water in the Sahara, and produce biofuels with it, devoted to BECCS, then don't you think that lighting up at night, using excess electricity produced by wind energy, could be justified? https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-turn-negative <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092913932030603X?casa_token=QqAwJQY5CLgAAAAA:kuDKaIRWIVAH7aPSWE7X4EmI-TGTcCjq_qJMosfhOS7DOj-RWRLGjW7KRF3mZ1aIloDb5rYyV6g> Le mer. 10 nov. 2021 à 18:19, Klaus Lackner <klaus.lack...@asu.edu> a écrit : > The abstract is also wrong about energy consumption. Photosynthesis is > inefficient. If one percent of the light goes into biomass it is doing > well. You also need to account for the inefficiency of generating > light. So at best you need a hundred times as much energy as you would > get out of carbon in the first place. Even the worst of air capture is > better than that. > > > > All told this is a huge boondoggle. It is bad for the environment, it > consumes ridiculous amounts of energy, and as a result it is hugely > expensive. > > > > Klaus > > > > > > > > *From: *geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > on behalf of Jessica Gurevitch <jessica.gurevi...@stonybrook.edu> > *Date: *Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 09:52 > *To: *infogeo...@gmail.com <infogeo...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject: *Re: [geo] Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: > lighting up tropical forests at night > > This is a truly awful idea. These authors are apparently totally ignorant > of, or uninterested in, the natural world of ecological communities and of > biodiversity. Many, many organisms in tropical forests depend on nighttime > darkness to survive and function. The "unintended (or uninformed) > consequences" of this are horrifically mind blowing. > > Jessica > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Jessica Gurevitch > > Distinguished Professor and Co-Chair > > Department of Ecology and Evolution > Stony Brook University > Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 1:54 AM Geoeng Info <infogeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2021-85/__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!N45BLASZM9G7aaXXEFsbbLrZP2fpZleDpKDU4RFQN0qSdBB6Gh6qSHqfbFTClIJTvKo$> > > > Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical > forests at night > > > > > > Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, Aolin Jia > > > > *Abstract.* > > > > Plants primarily conduct photosynthesis in the daytime, offering an > opportunity to increase photosynthesis and carbon sink by providing light > at night. We used a fully coupled Earth System Model to quantify the carbon > sequestration and climate effects of a novel carbon removal proposal: > lighting up tropical forests at night via lamp networks above the forest > canopy. Simulation results show that additional light increased tropical > forest carbon sink by 10.4 ± 0.05 petagrams of carbon per year during a > 16-year lighting experiment, resulting in a decrease in atmospheric CO2 and > suppression of global warming. In addition, local temperature and > precipitation increased. The energy requirement for capturing one ton of > carbon is lower than that of Direct Air Carbon Capture. When the lighting > experiment was terminated, tropical forests started to release carbon > slowly. This study suggests that lighting up tropical forests at night > could be an emergency solution to climate change, and carbon removal > actions focused on enhancing ecosystem productivity by altering > environmental factors in the short term could induce post-action CO2 > outgassing. > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY%2BwsJV%2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpY*2BwsJV*2BoDydH9fcXOdgPX5UEheUqkpZ5io2MfLozoQDw*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JSUl!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!N45BLASZM9G7aaXXEFsbbLrZP2fpZleDpKDU4RFQN0qSdBB6Gh6qSHqfbFTCSVrwwWc$> > . > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BPtSAPWgexkKYvxWkEGViyTaQQNiw2FAE8kXicYJcM0Fzp%2BRg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA*2BPtSAPWgexkKYvxWkEGViyTaQQNiw2FAE8kXicYJcM0Fzp*2BRg*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JSUl!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!N45BLASZM9G7aaXXEFsbbLrZP2fpZleDpKDU4RFQN0qSdBB6Gh6qSHqfbFTCkBisvYY$> > . > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BYAPR06MB53521B6E7C0C983B478A7330F5939%40BYAPR06MB5352.namprd06.prod.outlook.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BYAPR06MB53521B6E7C0C983B478A7330F5939%40BYAPR06MB5352.namprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn987dez7FRXZnhZcBYiM_3MTtxNksR5DYQ1BoB%3DcRBdz0w%40mail.gmail.com.
