Jim- Yes-the point is that there is no budget anywhere for cooling the planet, no matter how good an idea you think it is. Not only that, there is no movement or organization like the Sierra Club or Citizens Climate Lobby working to create the political will for it. If you want it to happen, you need to organize your own Sierra Club to lobby for it (or try to finance it with electricity generation.)
Please give my book Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race <https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09WKVMXTT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0> a read, and you'll see why our "big 4" solutions are self financing and already in progress. They're OIF, synthetic limestone, seaweed, and methane oxidation. Don't let that discourage you--just keep your feet on the ground. Best regards, Peter On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 4:27 PM Jim Baird <[email protected]> wrote: > Wind, solar and batteries do not provide 0.8 W/m2 of average global > cooling of the surface or 4.4 gigatonnes of CO2 from the removal atmosphere > by reversing the current offgassiing of CO2 from the ocean to the > atmosphere. As a consequence they do not address the major consequence of > global warming that will be with of for centuries. This is the $5.9 > trillion benefit only Thermodynamic Geoengineering provides. > > > > *From:* Peter Fiekowsky > *Sent:* June 14, 2022 4:10 PM > *To:* Jim Baird <[email protected]>; Tom Goreau < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* Ron Baiman <[email protected]>; Robert Tulip < > [email protected]>; Sev Clarke <[email protected]>; Dan Galpern < > [email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>; geoengineering < > [email protected]>; Kevin Lister <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings < > [email protected]>; Greg Rau <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: FW: Climate Security Timeline > > > > Jim- > > > > Studying your spreadsheet briefly— > > 1. Good work on that—really good work. > 2. OTEC energy must compete with solar and wind and batteries, not > fossil fuel (coal or natural gas). FF is uneconomical in 80% of the world > already. Coal and gas plants are still being built for political > reasons, not because it's competitive. > 3. The cost of solar and wind and batteries go down predictably every > year, so depending on how long it will take to scale up OTEC to commercial > scale, you can predict the threshold cost. See Tony Seba and RethinkX for > more good info. If it takes 10 years to start commercial OTEC plants, the > cost of wind, solar, and batteries will likely be 1c / kWh then. > > I just want you to have realistic market expectations. > > Peter > > *From: *Jim Baird <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 9:16 AM > *To: *'Tom Goreau' <[email protected]>, 'Peter Fiekowsky' < > [email protected]> > *Cc: *'Ron Baiman' <[email protected]>, 'Robert Tulip' < > [email protected]>, 'Sev Clarke' <[email protected]>, 'Dan Galpern' < > [email protected]>, 'Planetary Restoration' < > [email protected]>, > 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' < > [email protected]>, 'geoengineering' < > [email protected]>, 'Kevin Lister' < > [email protected]>, [email protected] < > [email protected]>, ''Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings' < > [email protected]>, 'Greg Rau' <[email protected]> > *Subject: *RE: FW: Climate Security Timeline > > Tom these plants will harvest heat and operate solely within the > Intertropical Convergence Zone which should limit the impact of extreme > weather events. Plus, like Nimitz Class Carriers > <https://thechive.com/2020/06/18/can-a-hurricane-destroy-an-aircraft-carrier-6-navy-vets-answers/>, > their mass is protection from large storms, which with today’s navigational > aids they are nimble enough to avoid the brunt of. > > > > > > > > *From:* Tom Goreau > *Sent:* June 14, 2022 7:01 AM > *To:* Peter Fiekowsky <[email protected]>; Jim Baird < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* Ron Baiman <[email protected]>; Robert Tulip < > [email protected]>; Sev Clarke <[email protected]>; Dan Galpern < > [email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>; geoengineering < > [email protected]>; Kevin Lister <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings < > [email protected]>; Greg Rau <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: FW: Climate Security Timeline > > > > Hope they are right, but those without long ocean construction experience > tend to overestimate the ease of repair and underestimate damage and cost > of maintenance, which mostly happen in extreme weather events, which are > unfortunately more inevitable than ever. > > > > These OTEC devices, and also marine wave, current, and floating wind power > systems will always be complicated and expensive to repair, and require > very specialized skills. > > > > The OPEX estimates may be best case scenarios rather than real world ones? > > > > *From: *Peter Fiekowsky <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 9:33 AM > *To: *Jim Baird <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Tom Goreau <[email protected]>, Ron Baiman <[email protected]>, > Robert Tulip <[email protected]>, Sev Clarke <[email protected]>, > Dan Galpern <[email protected]>, Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>, healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>, geoengineering < > [email protected]>, Kevin Lister <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, 'Eelco Rohling' via > NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>, Greg Rau < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: FW: Climate Security Timeline > > Jim- > > Thank you for providing your numbers. Indeed they're 20X below those from > the UC Santa Cruz fellow who died about 3 years ago, and whose name I don't > remember. > > If you can produce electricity for less than 1c / kWh including financing, > then you've got a winner. You don't need us! > > > > The global cooling aspect of this is well established, although the > knock-on impacts of moving such massive amounts of water could excite some > environmentalists to oppose it. There is no budget anywhere for global > cooling, so just as global warming was financed by energy sales, global > cooling will need to be financed commercially too. Continuous electricity > cheaper than solar + batteries could provide that funding. > > > > I apologize if I'm just saying the obvious here. > > Peter > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 7:34 PM Jim Baird <[email protected]> > wrote: > > They may be guesses but 10% is the rule of thumb for maintenance and > operations for typical vessels. > > > > In the attached I used 76% for the operation for something like a Nimitz > sized carrier but I think this is extreme. On the other hand even if you > add 76% for OPEC TG plants are still a bargain. > > > > JIm > > > > *From:* Tom Goreau > *Sent:* June 13, 2022 7:22 PM > *To:* Ron Baiman <[email protected]>; Jim Baird < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* Peter Fiekowsky <[email protected]>; Robert Tulip < > [email protected]>; Sev Clarke <[email protected]>; Dan Galpern < > [email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>; geoengineering < > [email protected]>; Kevin Lister <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings < > [email protected]>; Greg Rau <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: FW: Climate Security Timeline > > > > All the OPEX numbers are 10% of the CAPEX numbers, so they must be guesses? > > > > *From: *[email protected] < > [email protected]> on behalf of Ron Baiman > <[email protected]> > *Date: *Monday, June 13, 2022 at 10:17 PM > *To: *Jim Baird <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Peter Fiekowsky <[email protected]>, Robert Tulip < > [email protected]>, Sev Clarke <[email protected]>, Dan Galpern < > [email protected]>, Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>, healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>, geoengineering < > [email protected]>, Kevin Lister <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, 'Eelco Rohling' via > NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>, Greg Rau < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: FW: Climate Security Timeline > > LOL - Jim has done the detailed calculation that I didn't even notice! > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 9:15 PM Jim Baird <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This bill of material speaks for itself. The cost is less than a > cent/kWh for electricity production or 3.5 cents for hydrogen production. > This is the same way Elon Musk proved that the components for batteries > could be purchased off the London Commodity Change for $80 whereas the cost > of the complete batteries was $600/Kwh. > > > > If your going to make a statement about cost I believe it behooves you to > look at the evidence. > > > > Jim Baird > > *From:* Peter Fiekowsky > *Sent:* June 13, 2022 4:10 PM > *To:* Ron Baiman <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Jim Baird <[email protected]>; Robert Tulip < > [email protected]>; Sev Clarke <[email protected]>; Dan Galpern < > [email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>; geoengineering < > [email protected]>; Kevin Lister <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings < > [email protected]>; Greg Rau <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: FW: Climate Security Timeline > > > > Ron- > > When I looked at OTEC, almost 8 years ago, it was a viable way to cool the > planet, except that the electricity it generates is too expensive--I recall > it was 25c / kWh on a good day. Solar is in the 1c to 3c / kWh range, and > adding batteries only increases the cost slightly (1c to 3c / kWh, > depending on circumstances). > > > > So although OTEC is physically viable, it's not economically viable. That > of course is true of most solutions--but not all. > > > > Those numbers from my memory are surely off, but close--someone may have > better numbers. > > Peter > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 9:40 AM Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you, Jim. > > > > You've convinced me that this is a potentially very important global > cooling (and negative emissions global energy production, carbon removal, > hydrogen production, and ocean deacidification) method. If your and Greg's > estimates are in the ballpark, it appears that this method would go a long > way toward covering all these bases. I think the later are extremely > important, since if we can deal with the short-term climate cooling crisis > that we are in right now, as you've pointed out, we're going to need to > produce much more (not less) energy in the future to get to a sustainable > and potentially more equitable renewable energy and materials economy in > the long term "on the other side", and of course, one of the drawbacks of > temporary climate cooling is that it does not address ocean acidification. > Related (also as you've pointed out), a climate cooling method that at > scale potentially generates significant profit and could out compete fossil > fuel sources for portable and dispatchable energy, could induce more > private and political interest. > > > > I'm going to add OTEC as a potential global climate cooling method in the > draft HPAC climate cooling document that we will hopefully be presenting > for review and approval shortly at a future HPAC meeting. > > > > I'd, and I think others in HPAC, would be very interested to find out how > far you've gotten with trying to get more traction on this, and how we > might possibly be able to assist with this - perhaps at a future HPAC > general meeting? > > > > Best, > > Ron > > > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 12:13 PM Jim Baird <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Apologies. A stroke and old age does wonders for the math skills. > > > > 2.6 GW of CO2 for 1 GW of power equals 31000*2.6= 80.6 terawatts of > cooling for CO2 removal. > > And the OTEC cooling would be 5 times that at 403 terawatts, which is > essentially all the warming that was calculated by Resplandy et al in their > paper Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 > and CO2 composition <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56490-z>. > - 1.29 ± 0.79 × 1022 Joules which equates to *409 terawatts*, which is a > moving target. Resplandy’s study was for the period 1991-2016 while ocean > heat content has been doubling every 14 years. > <https://weather.com/en-IN/india/environment/news/2021-06-19-amount-of-heat-trapped-by-earth-doubled-in-14-years> > > > > The bottom line, Thermodynamic Geoengineering is a complete surface > warming remedy. > > > > > > *From:* Jim Baird > *Sent:* June 11, 2022 11:03 AM > *To:* 'Ron Baiman' <[email protected]> > *Cc:* 'Robert Tulip' <[email protected]>; 'Sev Clarke' < > [email protected]>; 'Dan Galpern' <[email protected]>; 'Planetary > Restoration' <[email protected]>; > 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' < > [email protected]>; 'geoengineering' < > [email protected]>; 'Kevin Lister' < > [email protected]>; [email protected]; ''Eelco Rohling' > via NOAC Meetings' <[email protected]>; 'Greg Rau' < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: Climate Security Timeline > > > > Ron, I think you missed a 0 but it looks like the surface area was also > calculated incorrectly in the paper by 6 orders of magnitude. It is 510 > trillion m2 not 510 million m2? The 2.6 GW of cooling is for CO2 removal > alone per 1 GW of energy production. For 31 terawatts of energy production > multiply this by 31000, which amounts to 48 terawatts of cooling for CO2 > removal. But the OTEC cooling is 5 times that making a total of 288 > terawatts of cooling. The surface is 510 trillion m2 so the total cooling > is 0.56 w/m2 which is significant. > > > > Also per the following the warming of the tropics is more like 70 w/m2. So > Thermodynamic Geoengineering converts and sequesters less than 1 percent of > the heat. > > > > James Hansen & Dan Galpern <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYCx8ikCzlk> > in their video claim we should sue the bastards to solve the climate > problem but I suggest it would be better to bankrupt them by undercutting > them on cost. > > > > As shown in the spreadsheet below, it would cost about 2 trillion dollars > a year for about 30 years to build up to 31,000 one gigawatts Thermodynamic > Geoengineering plants and then maintain that level every year thereafter > for replacements to produce over twice the energy as we are getting from > fossil fuels which are costing us $121 a barrel, times 88,000,000 > barrels/day, > <https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/oil-consumption-by-country> > times 365 days, or = $3.9 trillion/year for half as much energy. Not > counting the $5.9 trillion > <https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004> > the IMF calculates is the annual environmental cost of doing business with > fossil fuels. > > > > For further analysis of TG costing I offer the following > https://1drv.ms/x/s!AuobX9-jR2xglj5A7iUrB22aWiBa?e=iA3cTx, > > > > I suggest that cutting cost in half while deriving twice the energy isn’t > a lift, it is a bonus. Plus you get CO2 removal at no additional cost. > > > > Jim > > > > > > *From:* Ron Baiman > *Sent:* June 10, 2022 7:47 PM > *To:* Jim Baird <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Robert Tulip <[email protected]>; Sev Clarke <[email protected]>; > Dan Galpern <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>; geoengineering < > [email protected]>; Kevin Lister <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings < > [email protected]>; Greg Rau <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Climate Security Timeline > > > > Thank you Jim. I found (what I could decipher) of your (2018 Rau and > Baird) paper very helpful to understanding the OTEC method. It's > particularly interesting that in terms of cooling as it appears that it > would mimic the 1998-2013 global warming hiatus - though at a local level > as at the global level it would be quite small (0.00000051 W/m2 cooling of > the planet surface (p. 268) compared to planetary short-term top of > atmosphere warming imbalance of about 0.6 W/m2 as far as I can tell). I > also appreciated the discussion of possible impacts on deepwater organisms > in the ocean (p. 270) - though again at this level of cooling/warming > perhaps this will not be significant? > > > > Robert, Again, I absolutely agree that cooling is the paramount emergency! > The notion that we can cut emissions by 50% in 8 years as the IPCC says we > must do to remain below 1.5 C warming is complete fantasy. To do this we > would have to cut global GHGs by roughly 8% a year every year for the next > 8 years, from about 59 GT to roughly 30 GT CO2eq. This would be a feat > unparalleled in human history and would require an existential wartime > mobilization of every country on the planet that is impossible in > democratic societies who don't feel that their survival is at stake, and > without trillions of dollars of funding and technology transfers from rich > to poor countries that ain't going to happen anytime soon - let alone in > the next eight years - this would lead to massive starvation and death in > developing countries. This is why we have to focus on cooling. But the good > part is that cooling is not a big lift in terms of resources. It does not > significantly take away from climate restoration and ecological > regeneration. So I don't think these are rival approaches. We can and must > do both. My thinking is that we don't want to make enemies out of our > colleagues who are working on GHG cuts and drawdown! > > > > Best, > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 6:27 PM Jim Baird <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Greg Rau and I addressed some of the limitations in the attached. > > > > Per the following, the optimal conditions are every tropical ocean. > > > > Jim > > > > *From:* Ron Baiman > *Sent:* June 8, 2022 2:00 PM > *To:* Jim Baird <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Robert Tulip <[email protected]>; Sev Clarke <[email protected]>; > Dan Galpern <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>; geoengineering < > [email protected]>; Kevin Lister <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Climate Security Timeline > > > > Thank you Jim, > > > > This appears to be an interesting cooling technique that we should add to > our list of potential cooling methods that may be useful and optimal in > particular locations and circumstances. Has Prueitt or anyone else > investigated potential oceanic ecological impacts of doing this at large > scales - or what the possible limitations are? > > > > Best, > > Ron > > > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 3:22 PM Jim Baird <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Ron, as an economist you might appreciate the following. > > > > *Love paying exorbitant energy costs?* > <https://energycentral.com/c/um/love-paying-exorbitant-energy-costs?utm_medium=PANTHEON_STRIPPED> > > If the answer is no, start implementing existing solutions. > > In 2020 the world consumed an estimated 88 million barrels > <https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/oil-consumption-by-country> > of oil a day. For the year this was 32,120,000,000 barrels and the Brent > Crude <https://oilprice.com/> spot price as of April 20, 2022, was 107.20 > USD barrel. The notional cost of energy is therefore about 3.44 trillion > USD for an equivalent of 171,240 terawatt hours in 2019 > <https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix>, which equates to 19.5 terawatts. > (TW). > > It is estimated the equivalent of 408 TW > <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56490-z> of heat went into > the oceans between 1991 and 2016 and this rate is doubling every 16 years > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/06/16/earth-heat-imbalance-warming/> > . > > It took about 225 years of warming to reach the current level of warming > and it will take at least thirty years to scale a solution to the point it > can start reversing the problem. At which point the annual increase of the > ocean heat will be about 1650 TW and it will take another 225 years before > that level of warming can be brought down to the preindustrial baseline. > > Reverting to the mean, the 1991-2016 heat content will be about the > average for the previous 225 years by 2054. > > The experimental physicist Melvin Prueitt > <https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070289303A1/en> calculated 7.6% of > this heat can be converted to work with a system like Thermodynamic > Geoengineering (TG), which would produce 31 TW/year. Which is 59% more > energy than we are currently using. > > Prorating the current rate of consumption to 31 TW, the notional cost of > energy is 5.47 trillion USD. Which compares poorly to the cost of between > 2.1 trillion to 2.9 trillion USD, depending on whether the plants are > producing electricity or hydrogen, for TG platforms per this opensource > spreadsheet <https://1drv.ms/x/s!AuobX9-jR2xglj5A7iUrB22aWiBa?e=tOabp9>. > > And $107.20 is the sport price for oil whereas the average retail price > for gas at the pump was $4.11 in April 20 <https://gasprices.aaa.com/>. > And since there are 42 gallons in a barrel, the equivalent cost of fuel was > $172.62 a barrel times 32.12 billion barrels, times 31TW/19.5TW, which > equates to 8.81 trillion USD, which is over 4 times the cost of electricity > generation with TG. > > Granted current prices for oil are high but we have seen spikes before and > even at half the current price, oil can’t compete with TG on price. Let > alone when the $5,9 trillion fossil fuel subsidies the IMF > <https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004> > calculated consumers paid in fossil fuel subsidies are added in. Which > would bring the true price of oil to 14.7 trillion USD or 15.6% of the $94 > trillion world > <https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-94-trillion-world-economy-in-one-chart/> > economy. Whereas energy should be at most only 3% of GDP with the > difference being the opportunity cost of not addressing the other concerns > of humanity. > > And it gets worse. In The Atlantic article, We’ve Never Seen a > Carbon-Removal Plan Like This Before > <https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/04/big-tech-investment-carbon-removal/629545/>, > Nan Ransohoff of Stripe says “the carbon-removal market will probably need > to reach $1 trillion a year” to keep the planet’s average temperature from > rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above its pre-industrial level. > Whereas TG can remove 4.4 gigatonnes of carbon a year, with 31,000 > one-gigawatt platforms at a profit of 6.3 trillion USD simply by cooling > the surface by shifting the 92.4% of the heat of warming not converted to > work to a depth of 1,000 meters. > > This heat will diffuse back to the surface at a rate of 4 meters and in > 225 years can be recycled to produce 31 more TWs of electricity. With a > process that can be repeated 12 more times to produce 3,000 years of > climate respite and abundant energy. > > The consulting firm Wood Mackenzie says it will cost 4.5 trillion USD to > fully upgrade the US grid. Which is another unnecessary expense avoided > with TG which decarbonizes every sector of the global economy by loading > raw materials on one side of an ocean basin and delivering finish products > made with electricity produced on board on the other side of the basin. > > The shipbuilding industry currently has about 50,000 ships plying the > oceans transporting raw materials and finished goods from one of side of an > oceans to the other and most of these will need to be replaced over the > course of the next 30 years. > > Those 50,000 ships can be superseded by 31,000 one gigawatt TG platforms > that service both transport as well as manufacturing functions. > > The Guardian article IPCC: We can tackle climate change if big oil gets > out of the way > <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/05/ipcc-report-scientists-climate-crisis-fossil-fuels> > points out “criticism of oil and gas’s ‘climate-blocking activities’ cut > from the (IPCC’s) final draft are reflective of the industry’s power and > influence.” > > This power and influence are not only blocking climate activities, it is > also an impediment to scientific advancement and energy innovation. > > Since fossil fuel industry’s prime motivation is money, the best way to > defeat it is in the marketplace on cost. > > Ken Caldeira said in The Guardian article, “Back in the 80s, we believed > in the information deficit model of social change, and that if we could > only get the information to policymakers, they would do the right thing. > And now we see that really, it’s not about information deficit, it’s about > power relations, and people wanting to keep economic and political power. > And so just telling people some more climate science isn’t going to help > anything.” > > What will help is showing the public how they are being gaslit about > energy by those wanting to keep the economic and political power for > themselves. > > > > > > *From:* Ron Baiman > *Sent:* June 5, 2022 12:33 PM > *To:* Robert Tulip <[email protected]>; Sev Clarke <[email protected] > > > *Cc:* Jim Baird <[email protected]>; Dan Galpern < > [email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>; healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>; geoengineering < > [email protected]>; Kevin Lister <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Climate Security Timeline > > > > As you know, and per my earlier comments, I fundamentally agree, Robert! > > > > The current imperative and emergency is 1) cooling. But (as many in this > thread have pointed out), the politics of 2) reducing emissions, 3) > adaptation and addressing loss and damage, and of 4) removing legacy GHGs > is, as we all know up against the enormous power of vested interests and > inertia of existing physical, political-economic, and social inertia. We > therefore, I think, have to be extremely careful to try as much as possible > to avoid fanning the (at this point highly destructive rather than > constructive) conso-called "moral hazard" concerns about undermining 2) by > appearing in anyway to suggest that 1) or 4) could (even temporarily) > substitute for it. > > > > Regarding "radiative forcing" credits, if this could be implemented in a > practical way, yes! > > > > As we've discussed, I've also toyed with this idea but have stumbled on > the issue of, what economist's call when referring to public goods like > global cooling and removal, "exclusivity" and "what if' - that is measuring > "individual agent contributions" relative to an "ex-ante" baseline. > > > > Interestingly, "cap and trade" regimes like the EUs very successful > "emissions trading system" (ETS), that basically is a continuation in the > EU of the very unfortunately suspended global Kyoto ETS, have struggled > with the difficulties of setting up protocols for emissions offset > contracts. I nonetheless very much support ETS's even if contracts are > imperfect as the only demonstrably proven way to significantly reduce GHGs > and force massive transfers of funding and technology from rich to poor > countries and agents. > > For example, for a revived Kyoto-like global ETS nations can be made > responsible for emissions reductions targets regardless of the legitimacy > of individual off-set contracts, see: > https://www.cpegonline.org/post/arctic-sea-ice-traige-carbon-cycle-restoration-and-a-renewable-energy-and-materials-economy. > > > > > But however accurate "moon reflectivity" measurement is for earth albedo > it wouldn't provide any help with allocating "credits" to individual > earthlings or even nations of earthlings as their (our) contributions. In > this, unfortuately (I'd be loved to be proven wrong) I think cooling is > even more of a "non-rival and non-exclusive" public good than GHG emissions > reduction or removal. > > Another problem, that you allude to and we've discussed, is that there are > other methods besides albedo enhancement for increasing "global direct > cooling" like CCT and increasing water cycle driven condensation (like at > least one of Sev Clarke's many proposals - "Seatomizers", and I think we > want to broaden the discussion of cooling methods beyond SAI, SRM, SCI, or > Sunlight Reflection, as this exclusive focus feeds into the "geoengineering > hubris" image of "high tech" rockets messing with sunlight that, needless > to say, has produced a visceral opposition movement to global cooling > efforts. > > > > Best, > > Ron > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 11:21 PM Robert Tulip <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Reply to Jim Baird and Ron Baiman > > > > Hello Jim – congratulations on your work on OTEC. I would like to see > OTEC deployed in northern Australia. The attached map shows ocean thermal > energy conversion potentials across the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Cape > York and the North West Shelf, where continental shelves abut deep tropical > water, could be good starting points. Combined with tidal pumping and > marine permaculture, OTEC has major cooling potential. Bringing deep cold > water to the surface would protect marine ecosystems and mitigate extreme > weather, while generating electricity and biomass. > > > > Albedo Management is a primary suite of technologies for direct cooling, > and has to combine with other cooling methods such as OTEC and MEER. I see > AM as a shorthand for all direct cooling technologies. > > > > The following is prompted by Ron Baiman. Albedo is the most tractable > immediate climate forcing. It will be more feasible to increase albedo than > to cut carbon at climate scale. My intention in calling for a shift of > political focus away from emission reduction and toward direct cooling is > that they are rival goods, in a struggle for attention. At the moment > there is almost no political conversation supporting immediate direct > cooling. The best way to prompt such a conversation is to point out that > the current path relying on emission reduction will allow far too much > dangerous warming, even with greenhouse gas removal. For the sake of the > planet and for all life on earth, immediate steps to lift albedo should be > a primary goal. Cutting emissions can wait. > > > > The climate metric of warming is radiative forcing, the balance between > incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Cutting > radiative forcing, which is largely driven by albedo, is the only available > way to prevent climate tipping points. A key measure of albedo is > reflectivity of the earth, with radiative forcing seen in the brightness of > the old moon in the new moon’s arms, measured > <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094888> as > declining by half a watt per square metre this century. The sooner we > shift our climate accounting from carbon credits to radiative forcing > credits the better. > > > > Robert Tulip > > > > *From:* Jim Baird <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, 3 June 2022 8:22 AM > *To:* 'Kevin Lister' <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Cc:* 'Robert Tulip' <[email protected]>; 'Dan Galpern' < > [email protected]>; 'Planetary Restoration' < > [email protected]>; > [email protected]; 'geoengineering' < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [geo] Re: [CDR] Climate Security Timeline > > > > With respect, AM is not the only solution. > > > > *Rebalancing Earth’s Energy* > <https://energycentral.com/c/ec/rebalancing-earth%E2%80%99s-energy?utm_medium=update_email&utm_campaign=weekly&utm_content=207040&utm_source=2022_06_01> > > Credit: MEER:ReflEction project > <https://drawdown.psu.edu/poster/mirrors-earths-energy-rebalancing-meerreflection-resource-driven-engineering-leveraging> > > Dr. Ye Tao of The Rowland Institute at Harvard points out, "Temperature > rise, is the biggest and gravest concern that we face. We are overstepping > a heat threshold. Thermal stress decimates biodiversity, ruining aquatic, > marine, and terrestrial ecosystems alike. Humans may not be around once we > transgress that redline. If we survive, we can have conversations about low > emissions and deacidification. Prioritize temperature—then worry about > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and carbonic acid in the oceans!" > > His solution, Mirrors for Earth’s Energy Rebalancing > <https://drawdown.psu.edu/poster/mirrors-earths-energy-rebalancing-meerreflection-resource-driven-engineering-leveraging> > (MEER), uses glass mirrors that reflect solar radiation away from Earth > to cool the biosphere; redirect some of the solar radiation to harness its > potential for enhanced food production and carbon-neutral energy > generation; facilitate and accelerate the biological and chemical processes > that reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane; and establish “an open > education network for promoting panhuman solidarity and justice and > supporting them through relentless innovation.” > > To accomplish these goals, between 15-20 trillion > <https://www.thecarbonic.com/post/harvard-researcher-leads-grassroots-meer-reflection-project-to-save-humanity-from-climate-change> > square meters of land and/or ocean surfaces must be covered with > thin-aluminum-film-coated glass mirrors that reflect solar radiation back > into space to cool the biosphere and/or to redirect some of the radiation > to bolster agriculture and renewable energy production or to heat marine > bivalve shells to convert the convert the calcium carbonate to lime that > can neutralize ocean acidity. > > Stratospheric aerosol injection is a Band-Aid that would commit mankind to > a slow death because it inhibits the transition to renewable energy, he > says. And direct air capture would not be scalable. > > <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-marg > > -- *Peter Fiekowsky* Author- *Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race <https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Restoration-Future-Sustain-Human/dp/1953943101/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=>* *Foundation for Climate Restoration <http://f4cr.org/> **Founder and Chairman Emeritus* Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. PeterFiekowsky.com <http://PeterFIekowsky.com> Climate restoration 2021 <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lnVraignEvW1n5cWhvB4AswfpCFyaZzf/view?usp=sharing> *(650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California* -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAEr4H2mm22vv3hbBYbyoFDdoO-2Ox8RPDYF-pve2Yc9tpYnD0A%40mail.gmail.com.
