Hugh and I already did a paper on this https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/aba944/meta
It only got 9 cites, despite addressing most of the issues raised in this thread. A On Sun, 5 Nov 2023, 22:10 [email protected], <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Hugh. I knew this had been addressed previously and you saved me > the trouble of locating the paper. Someone might want to spend a little > time updating the figures you developed for artillery shells to take > account of any advances over the last decade. It seems unlikely that this > would make them look any more feasible. Ditto for aircraft. > Regards > > Robert > > > On 05/11/2023 19:29, Hugh Hunt wrote: > > Hi Robert, > We addressed this in our 2012 paper here, for SPICE > > > http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh1/SPICE/papers/PhilTransRoySoc_LiftingOptions_Davidson_Burgoyne_Hunt_Causier.pdf > > delivery by Aircraft we get as around £100bn, and artillery is around > £1trillion - see Fig 8 > > Hugh > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> on behalf of > [email protected] <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, November 5, 2023 6:56 PM > *To:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; > Gilles de Brouwer <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *Cc:* healthy-planet-action-coalition > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>; Planetary Restoration > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>; geoengineering > <[email protected]> <[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 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 > "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/336a4349-a5b8-4b96-b456-78d50e98f480%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/336a4349-a5b8-4b96-b456-78d50e98f480%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 "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/CAJ3C-05NQg7Z%3DobYtQYfgHugFRjo0cuHu0ecnk6EgT5VUvdgtg%40mail.gmail.com.
