And why not just do this in the US?  That's where you're based, correct?

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 11:21 AM Joshua Horton <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Setting aside whether answers like "don't know, several grams" are
> sufficient in this context, I don't recall seeing anything about safety
> protocols, consultations, or permits.  Did you talk to Mexican authorities
> before doing this?
>
> Josh
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 10:39 AM Luke Iseman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Josh,
>>
>> I believe I've addressed all of these I can. You'll get a lot more detail
>> when I fly telemetry, particularly if I can recover the balloons after the
>> flight. To recap:
>> locations: Baja California
>> flight descriptions: the balloons were intentionally underinflated and
>> went up. guesstimate 25-30km burst altitude. as i have made clear, i cannot
>> confirm with 100% certainty that they reached the stratosphere.
>> release altitudes and amounts: don't know, several grams
>> safety protocols, consultations, permits, funding, etc.? nothing to add
>> here that hasn't been covered.
>>
>> These were self-funded, initial flights. They were meant to demonstrate
>> (mainly to me) that I could launch balloons containing some small amount of
>> sulfur dioxide.
>>
>> --------------------
>> Luke Iseman
>> make sunsets <https://makesunsets.com/> : global cooling
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 8:03 AM Josh Horton <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I want to repeat a set of questions I publicly posed to Luke on December
>>> 9, few if any of which have been fully answered (despite the statement
>>> "Happy to answer any questions").
>>>
>>> Hi Luke,
>>>
>>> Can you provide more information about your launches--locations, flight
>>> descriptions, release altitudes and amounts, safety protocols,
>>> consultations, permits, funding, etc.?
>>>
>>> Josh Horton
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 8:07:48 PM UTC-5 Russell Seitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Luke,  Make Sunsets has tweeted invoking "trade secrets ' in denying
>>>> simple requests to quantify how much  helium is needed  per
>>>>  " cooling credit".
>>>> This lack of transparency cannot stop anyone , policy analysts included
>>>> from running the numbers .
>>>>
>>>> Dimensional analysis  based on handbook  and commercially disclosed
>>>> values of the physical constants of  air, helium and SO2 indicates that you
>>>> can at best hope to lift 1.01 Kg per  STP cubic meter of 97% pure balloon
>>>> grade He.
>>>>
>>>> Since SO2 vapor's molecular weight makes it over twice as dense as air
>>>>  ( ~64/29),  even if  if the dead weigh of the balloon and its telemetry
>>>> are completely disregarded it will still take  a tonne  or more of helium
>>>> to loft a  tonne of aerosol feedstock to stratospheric elevation.
>>>>
>>>> As you must be aware,  the short supply of helium ( the US strategic
>>>> reserve acquired after WWII was largely sold off by 2021)  has already
>>>> quadrupled its cost.,  and at present , annual   global production is
>>>> below100,000 tonnes and recoverable reserves stand at around 30 million
>>>> tonnes globally.
>>>>
>>>> Using NOAA's numbers:
>>>>
>>>> https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2756/Simulated-geoengineering-evaluation-cooler-planet-but-with-side-effects
>>>>  it is clear that your scheme would  require lofting of a megatonne  or
>>>> more of SO2 a year per degree K of cooling: which is not only an order of
>>>> magnitude more that present production can bear, but enough to completely
>>>> deplete known reserves and resources by 2050.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, US helium is almost exclusively a byproduct of natural gas
>>>> production , and so entails substantial release of  methane and other
>>>> hydrocarbons that are greenhouse gases  more powerful than CO2
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 6:09:51 PM UTC-5
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Andrew, Olivier, Bala, and everyone else for diving in with
>>>>> critiques here. I'm a cofounder of Make Sunsets and want to clarify a few
>>>>> things:
>>>>>
>>>>> *Honesty: *
>>>>> We have no desire to mislead anyone. If we make a mistake (which we
>>>>> will), we'll correct it.
>>>>> *Radiative Forcing:*
>>>>> I didn't make this "gram offsets a ton" number up. It comes from David
>>>>> Keith's research:
>>>>> "a gram of aerosol in the stratosphere, delivered perhaps by
>>>>> high-flying jets, could offset the warming effect of a ton of carbon
>>>>> dioxide, a factor of 1 million to 1."
>>>>> <https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/news/whats-right-temperature-earth>
>>>>> and, again: "Geoengineering’s leverage is very high—one gram of
>>>>> particles in the stratosphere prevents the warming caused by a ton of
>>>>> carbon dioxide."
>>>>> <https://longnow.org/seminars/02015/feb/17/patient-geoengineering/>
>>>>> By stating "offsetting the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon for 1
>>>>> year," I was trying to be more conservative than Professor Keith. I am
>>>>> correcting "carbon" to read "carbon dioxide" on the cooling credit
>>>>> description right now, and I'm adding a paragraph at the start of the post
>>>>> stating that estimates vary, but a leading researcher cites a gram
>>>>> offsetting a ton.
>>>>> For the several hundred dollars of cooling credits we've already sold,
>>>>> I'll be providing evidence to each purchaser that I've delivered at least 
>>>>> 2
>>>>> grams per cooling credit.
>>>>> Olivier, or anyone else: I'd be happy to post something by you to our
>>>>> blog explaining what you estimate the radiative forcing of 1g so2 released
>>>>> at 20km altitude from in or near the tropics will be and why. I will
>>>>> include language of your choosing explaining that you in no way endorse
>>>>> what we are doing.
>>>>> I very much hope to get suggestions from this community on
>>>>> instrumentation we should fly to improve the state of the science here.
>>>>> Again, I'm happy to do this with disclaimers about how researchers we fly
>>>>> things for are not endorsing our efforts. Or even without revealing who 
>>>>> the
>>>>> researchers are: we'll fly test instruments and provide data, no questions
>>>>> asked:)
>>>>> *Telemetry: *
>>>>> My first 2 flights had no telemetry: in April, this was still in
>>>>> self-funded science project territory. After burning some sulfur and
>>>>> capturing the resultant gas, I placed this in a balloon. I then added
>>>>> helium, underinflating the balloon substantially, and let it go. There is
>>>>> technically a slim possibility that neither of these balloons reached the
>>>>> stratosphere, as I acknowledged to the Technology Review reporter. I will
>>>>> add Spot trackers to my next flights. These cut out at 18km, so I'l be 
>>>>> able
>>>>> to confirm that I achieve at least this altitude. If (and this is a big 
>>>>> if)
>>>>> I'm able to recover the balloons, I'll have a lot more data from the 
>>>>> flight
>>>>> computer
>>>>> <https://www.highaltitudescience.com/collections/electronics/products/eagle-flight-computer>.
>>>>> I will eventually switch to Swarms
>>>>> <https://www.sparkfun.com/products/19236?utm_campaign=May%206%2C%202022&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=212205037&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9EyQOQ6C-9XuSOHa7CggOC8Pf2tEow_Fppo5pXgTHO8-7gV-aHrrYpnPcliws6Ju8j2PBAX3Tkog0oVpwk8XqWX2xo0w&utm_content=212206499&utm_source=hs_email>,
>>>>> which should let me transmit more data regardless of balloon recovery.
>>>>> *Pricing: *
>>>>> Bala, you're totally right that this should be priced much lower.
>>>>> We're trying to make enough with our early flights to stay in business
>>>>> until we get meaningful traction with customers, and we plan to eventually
>>>>> drop prices to $1 per ton or less.
>>>>> *Reuse: *
>>>>> We are not yet reusing balloons, and Andrew is correct that latex UV
>>>>> degradation will limit our ability to do so with weather balloons. Given
>>>>> that balloon cost is our main expense per gram, even a few uses per 
>>>>> balloon
>>>>> will dramatically improve the economics here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect to disagree with some of you, but I hope we can do so
>>>>> politely and assuming good intentions.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/l5fmgzA34HY/unsubscribe
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> [email protected].
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e5064fb5-6850-4960-a425-e1854ddee44en%40googlegroups.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e5064fb5-6850-4960-a425-e1854ddee44en%40googlegroups.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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAASHmp6r%2B1YGvfgH8g8xjh0_mZ1RRW53KwVAhoEmri94wrOYFw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to