Doug
Do you think any of the work covered by Davidson et al in the paper, a
link
<http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/SPICE/papers/PhilTransRoySoc_LiftingOptions_Davidson_Burgoyne_Hunt_Causier.pdf>to
which was earlier circulated by Hugh Hunt (co-author)? They seemed to
conclude that the engineering realities strongly favoured tethered balloons.
Regards
Robert
On 05/11/2023 19:01, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
Broadly speaking I don’t think the direct delivery cost of material to
the stratosphere is a significant factor influencing any decision to
deploy. (Vs, for example, the expected geopolitical ramifications of
a choice, the projected impacts, or the costs associated with any fund
to compensate those who believe that they will be harmed by
deployment). Aircraft have consistently wound up as the cheapest
approach to deliver material based on today’s technology, though of
course that could change.
Also relevant in thinking about alternate delivery mechanisms though
is that aircraft engines are currently manufactured by only a few
companies all in a handful of countries, and none of these
manufacturers would sell any engine to anyone without at least tacit
approval by the country they are in… that greatly limits the number of
countries that are capable of deploying, so alternative engines or
delivery modes may be more important in thinking about governance
challenges associated with who is actually capable of initiating a
deployment that has the potential to be scaled and sustained.
*From:*[email protected]
<[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *[email protected]
*Sent:* Sunday, November 5, 2023 1:56 PM
*To:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>; Gilles de Brouwer
<[email protected]>
*Cc:* healthy-planet-action-coalition
<[email protected]>; Planetary
Restoration <[email protected]>; geoengineering
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Hansen Vs. Mann - Is Global Warming Linear Or
Exponential? - CleanTechnica
Can someone do the following calculations? How many shells? How much
material would they consume each year? What happens to the shell
casings once they've delivered their load? What environmental impact
would these discarded shell casings have and in particular would they
contain any environmentally undesirable materials? What would be
necessary for this to receive social licence?
Regards
Robert
On 05/11/2023 18:22, Andrew Lockley wrote:
I've already looked at this. The meteor missile (modern) and blood
hound (cold war) use ram rockets. Nammo make ram artillery, and
there's Chinese manufacturers, too. It's not inexpensive to start
these ramjets, considering rockets or barrel wear. Coil guns might
be viable. There's manufacturers eg velontra.com
<http://velontra.com/> making small hypersonic jets, which don't
require a hard start.
Ballistic flight makes recovery difficult.
On Sun, 5 Nov 2023, 18:15 Gilles de Brouwer,
<[email protected]> wrote:
A low cost SAI option?
Regarding the trillions or billions to do SAI geoengineering,
consider this option:
Watch "How ramjets may change the role of artillery on the
battlefield" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/0vIPNElDkns?si=9Z_mUQUXBm-4dBxF
At 4:21 you can see the 150km range parabolic trajectory goes
as high as 105km altitude!
Maybe Iowa battleship 16 inch guns with this ramjet tech could
send stuff to orbit.
Or could this be a low cost SAI geoengineering option?
1. How much would it cost to refurbish and send these old
battleships to the Arctic and Antarctic waters and deliver to
much higher altitudes? The armor plating would make the
battleships iceberg damage resistant.
2. How much longer would the particles stay at useful altitudes?
3. Would they stay in place much longer with little wind at
these very high altitudes?
4. Would it be more effective than aircraft delivered SAI?
Note from the Iowa Class Wikipedia page: "...all four are
museum ships part of non-profit maritime museums across the US."
Gilles
On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, 5:16 PM Jim Baird
<[email protected]> wrote:
From the Physics and Economics of Thermodynamics
Geoengineering, reference 77 of the Healthy Climate
Action Coalition Petition to World Leaders: The Case for
Urgent Direct Climate Cooling, The cost of removing 1139
Gt of CO2 with this technology (Negative Emissions CO2
OTEC) would therefore be $175 trillion. CDR technology for
creating synthetic fuel from atmospheric CO2 or for other
purposes currently costs about $600 per ton, with a goal
of reducing this to below $100. [48] So, a goal of
returning atmospheric CO2 levels to preindustrial from a
2054 level of 1577 Gt is likely to cost at a minimum $114
trillion.
*From:* [email protected]
*On Behalf Of *Gilles de Brouwer
*Sent:* November 4, 2023 4:21 PM
*To:* H simmens <[email protected]>
*Cc:* healthy-planet-action-coalition
<[email protected]>; via
NOAC Meetings <[email protected]>; Planetary
Restoration <[email protected]>;
geoengineering <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: Hansen Vs. Mann - Is Global Warming Linear
Or Exponential? - CleanTechnica
My comment left on the article:
Steve I like your writing, but "Trillions" is obviously
wrong. Billions is more realistic even with expensive new
high altitude aircraft, but maybe much less expensive with
a small fleet of specialty airships.
All the SAI geoengineering risks are scare mongering
without data to back it up and such dogma unscientific
opinions from "scientists" are damaging to science as an
institution. AI, for example genetic algorithms or better
could design an SAI strategy that minimizes the negatives,
as it's an optimization problem with infinite variables
which is why progress is so slow. Coupling computational
models with small scale real atmosphere experiments with
full public data access for review is critical to make a
smart decision to potentially avoid billions starving,
cooking, and/or dying of thirst, or migrating.
Thanks,
Gilles de Brouwer
On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 3:10 PM H simmens
<[email protected]> wrote:
This article provides the author an opportunity to
declare war on Geo engineering by for example claiming
that scientists estimate that Geoengineering will cost
“on the order of tens of trillions of dollars”.
Nice to know that we can count on the media to be fair
and balanced.
Herb
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/03/hansen-vs-mann-is-global-warming-linear-or-exponential/
Herb Simmens
Author of /A Climate Vocabulary of the Future/
“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition
(HPAC)" 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/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3D131483-011F-4A9A-9B2D-3BA99C9A9F05%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/3D131483-011F-4A9A-9B2D-3BA99C9A9F05%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)"
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/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAGQ2tEqsU%3Drm7ZJpo4p67O9p-HHL0f_%3Dq9Xd2Q5nj6bLUFvkqw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAGQ2tEqsU%3Drm7ZJpo4p67O9p-HHL0f_%3Dq9Xd2Q5nj6bLUFvkqw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAGQ2tEq6GP68_404MZonwgf4NZFypGLHeTzcvK0V%3DNPoZEMEWQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAGQ2tEq6GP68_404MZonwgf4NZFypGLHeTzcvK0V%3DNPoZEMEWQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "NOAC Meetings" 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/noac-meetings/CAJ3C-05sBDn1Bf5JgCiKxHeXLfaWjVQRP7T-VZK_zKTGDgnf8Q%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAJ3C-05sBDn1Bf5JgCiKxHeXLfaWjVQRP7T-VZK_zKTGDgnf8Q%40mail.gmail.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/336a4349-a5b8-4b96-b456-78d50e98f480%40gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/336a4349-a5b8-4b96-b456-78d50e98f480%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Planetary Restoration" 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/planetary-restoration/DM6PR04MB71000CD3938EE6F209560AC38FABA%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.prod.outlook.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/DM6PR04MB71000CD3938EE6F209560AC38FABA%40DM6PR04MB7100.namprd04.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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/fe88486d-c20d-4b5f-82a0-f50c181346e8%40gmail.com.
