[geo] Re: Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere
A couple of comments on John Gorman's comments on carbon capture and storage (CCS): 1. There are extensive saline aquifers under the continental shelves of the world that can take a substantial amount of CO2. The Sleipner and Snohvit projects in Norway are currently using such formations - see http://www.statoil.com/en/technologyinnovation/protectingtheenvironment/carboncaptureandstorage/pages/carbondioxideinjectionsleipnervest.aspx and http://www.statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/NewEnergy/Co2Management/Pages/Snohvit.aspx . . These are of course remote from the vast majority of homes. 2. The releases of CO2 from lakes that killed a large number of people were in Cameroon in central Africa, not South America - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Monoun. 3. CO2 in saline aquifers will dissolve in the water over a long period - probably hundreds of years - and that water will sink to the base of the formation as it is slightly more dense than the formation water. Once this has happened for all the CO2, leakage of CO2 is significantly less likely than when in the buoyant form of supercritical CO2. See chapter 5 of the IPCC Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage for further information at http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/special-reports/special-report-on-carbon-dioxide-capture-and-storage. Chris Vivian chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk On Jul 10, 9:22 am, John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com wrote: Whatever happens with emissions we will have a lot of CO2 to remove from the atmosphere after mid centaury so it was good to hear in the recent Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society that there are saline aquifers about a mile down in the earth over much of the land mass of the planet. These could hold enough CO2. However, after what happened at that South American lake, I cant see people wanting any CO2 stored within a thousand miles of their homes. I would much rather see the CO2 locked up for good. The chemical solution exists and has been discussed here on various threads. 2 CO2 + Ca2SiO4 = SiO2 + 2 CaCO3 There is unlimited calcium silicate, (together with magnesium silicate as peridotite) in various places in the world. (eg northern Iran) because it is the main constituent of magma. Also the reaction is exothermic. So lets look at the practicalities of such a plant (facility -it could be more than one but lets look at one for now). First -how big? well if it was up and running in 2050 say, emissions might have peaked by 2035, say and be about the same as now, falling towards 2100. So if the plant balances current emissions in 2050, it will start to lower the concentration thereafter. (Concentration will then peak at about 500 ppm in 2050) So to balance the current 30 billion tons of CO2 we need to mine 90 billion tons of peridotite each year. What ! 90,000,000,000 tons -that's impossible! Well actually its only about ten times the annual world production of coal, its all on the surface and it wont have to be transported very far, so its not impossible. How much CO2 do we have to remove? Lets assume the plant removes 40 billion tons per year. If it has a life of 50 years while the emissions drop linearly to near zero in 2100. the net removal will be 1500 billion tons which is just about the excess that 500 ppm is over preindustrial at 280. So this brings us back to normal in 2100. How big would the site be to achieve this? specific gravity of the solid peridotite will be about 3 so one cubic metre weighs about 3 tons. So 2000 billion tons will have a volume of about 700 billion cubic metres which is 700 cubic kilometres. If we opencast mine to a depth of 500 metres that requires a land area of 1400 square km, which is a circle of radius only about 20 kilometres. So a combined mining and processing facility only about 25 miles across could deal with the whole of the CO2 problem for good ! It would need a nuclear power station or two for the transport, crushing etc but the reaction is exothermic so it would be self sustaining once up to temperature. The calcium/ magnesium carbonate would be dumped int the same hole that the peridotite is taken out of, working in a circle round the central processor for 50 years. This back of an envelope calculation is produced for comment. I hope I haven't lost a few factors of 10 ! Could any chemical process engineer suggest how the actual processing plant might look. john gorman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Geoengineering event at The British Library
Geoengineering Group Members invited to an upcoming event this week at The British Library. TalkScience@BL-- Geoengineering Our Climate: Fixing Earth’s Future? A discussion with Professor Tim Lenton 14 July, 2011, 18.20 – 20.30 (The British Library, 96 Euston Rd, London NW1 2DB) Professor Tim Lenton, Professor of Earth Systems Science at the University of Exeter will introduce the subject, followed by a discussion among the audience. The provocative title aims to stimulate discussion on the following questions: ** Why are scientists considering geoengineering proposals to tackle climate change? ** Geoengineering proposals that range from mirrors in space to ocean fertilisation are being considered, but what is actually feasible? ** Is there a tipping point for Earth’s climate when geoengineering will no longer be an option? ** Do we know enough about Earth Systems to implement a solution that could have lasting consequences? TalkScience@bl is a quarterly café scientifique series where an expert provides a short, yet provocative introduction, followed by a discussion amongst an informed audience. These events are for researchers from academia and industry, policymakers, research funders, publishers, and all those with a stake in science. This event is £5, booking is required - please reserve your place by visiting our box office. http://www.bl.uk/whatson/events/event122862.html Refreshments are included Please do forward on to any colleagues that you think might be interested. Please email Dr. Johanna Kieniewicz (British Library Environmental Sciences Research Officer) or talkscie...@bl.uk, with any enquires about this event. Many thanks, Johanna -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere
Since the reactions are exothermic and spontaneous, no need for external energy input if you are willing to wait around for 100’s kyrs. To speed up the process, one approach is to invest some energy in mining grinding (increase reactive silicate surface area e.g., Schuiling et al.). Then there are T, P, and chemical, biochemical, and electrochemical enhancement options (another humbly submitted variant here: http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/1698.pdf Anyway, there is plenty of stranded energy and reactants out there, so since we are starting with a proven natural global-scale air capture process (unlike many other proposals I could name), lets find out what if any enhancements of this might be desirable and cost effective. No? Regards, Greg On 7/11/11 1:50 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Surely energy is more important than tonnage. Chemical names would be a useful addition A On 10 Jul 2011 17:16, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: As for tonnage of mineral no sure if this effects your calc, but isn't the reaction: CO2 + CaSiO3 -- CaCO3 + SiO2 or more likely with silicate minerals: CO2 + MgSiO3 -- MgCO3 + SiO2. If you are really worried about mineral tonnage, why not get more bang for the buck with: 2CO2 + H2O + CaSiO3 -- Ca(HCO3)2 + SiO2 plus adding dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 to the ocean could help mitigate ocean acidification. Silicate weathering is the ultimate consumer of excess atmos CO2 over 100kyr time scales, so the capacity is indeed there. Lets see if there are safe, cost effective ways of accelerating this. -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Gorman [gorm...@waitrose.com] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 1:22 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere Whatever happens with emissions we will have a lot of CO2 to remove from the atmosphere after mid centaury so it was good to hear in the recent Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society that there are saline aquifers about a mile down in the earth over much of the land mass of the planet. These could hold enough CO2. However, after what happened at that South American lake, I cant see people wanting any CO2 stored within a thousand miles of their homes. I would much rather see the CO2 locked up for good. The chemical solution exists and has been discussed here on various threads. 2 CO2 + Ca2SiO4 = SiO2 + 2 CaCO3 There is unlimited calcium silicate, (together with magnesium silicate as peridotite) in various places in the world. (eg northern Iran) because it is the main constituent of magma. Also the reaction is exothermic. So lets look at the practicalities of such a plant (facility -it could be more than one but lets look at one for now). First -how big? well if it was up and running in 2050 say, emissions might have peaked by 2035, say and be about the same as now, falling towards 2100. So if the plant balances current emissions in 2050, it will start to lower the concentration thereafter. (Concentration will then peak at about 500 ppm in 2050) So to balance the current 30 billion tons of CO2 we need to mine 90 billion tons of peridotite each year. What ! 90,000,000,000 tons -that's impossible! Well actually its only about ten times the annual world production of coal, its all on the surface and it wont have to be transported very far, so its not impossible. How much CO2 do we have to remove? Lets assume the plant removes 40 billion tons per year. If it has a life of 50 years while the emissions drop linearly to near zero in 2100. the net removal will be 1500 billion tons which is just about the excess that 500 ppm is over preindustrial at 280. So this brings us back to normal in 2100. How big would the site be to achieve this? specific gravity of the solid peridotite will be about 3 so one cubic metre weighs about 3 tons. So 2000 billion tons will have a volume of about 700 billion cubic metres which is 700 cubic kilometres. If we opencast mine to a depth of 500 metres that requires a land area of 1400 square km, which is a circle of radius only about 20 kilometres. So a combined mining and processing facility only about 25 miles across could deal with the whole of the CO2 problem for good ! It would need a nuclear power station or two for the transport, crushing etc but the reaction is exothermic so it would be self sustaining once up to temperature. The calcium/ magnesium carbonate would be dumped int the same hole that the peridotite is taken out of, working in a circle round the central processor for 50 years. This back of an envelope calculation is produced for comment. I hope I haven't lost a few factors of 10 ! Could any chemical process engineer suggest how the actual processing plant might look. john gorman -- You received this message
Re: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere
Using silicates as cation sources? I thought your process precipitated Ca and Mg from seawater, thus removing rather than generating alkalinity in seawater, but fill us in. -G On 7/11/11 11:58 AM, Thomas Goreau gor...@bestweb.net wrote: Dear Greg, Thanks! You say below: Longer electrolysis times and/or alternative electrolyte solutions might allow formation and precipitation of Ca or Mg carbonates. Such electrochemistry might ultimately provide a safe, efficient way to harness the planet’s: i) large, off-peak or off-grid renewable electricity potential, ii) abundant basic minerals, and iii) vast natural brine electrolytes for air CO2 mitigation and carbon-negative H2 production. That is precisely what we do with the Biorock® Process! Best wishes, Tom On Jul 11, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Rau, Greg wrote: Since the reactions are exothermic and spontaneous, no need for external energy input if you are willing to wait around for 100’s kyrs. To speed up the process, one approach is to invest some energy in mining grinding (increase reactive silicate surface area e.g., Schuiling et al.). Then there are T, P, and chemical, biochemical, and electrochemical enhancement options (another humbly submitted variant here: http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/1698.pdf Anyway, there is plenty of stranded energy and reactants out there, so since we are starting with a proven natural global-scale air capture process (unlike many other proposals I could name), lets find out what if any enhancements of this might be desirable and cost effective. No? Regards, Greg On 7/11/11 1:50 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com x-msg://131/andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Surely energy is more important than tonnage. Chemical names would be a useful addition A On 10 Jul 2011 17:16, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov x-msg://131/r...@llnl.gov wrote: As for tonnage of mineral no sure if this effects your calc, but isn't the reaction: CO2 + CaSiO3 -- CaCO3 + SiO2 or more likely with silicate minerals: CO2 + MgSiO3 -- MgCO3 + SiO2. If you are really worried about mineral tonnage, why not get more bang for the buck with: 2CO2 + H2O + CaSiO3 -- Ca(HCO3)2 + SiO2 plus adding dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 to the ocean could help mitigate ocean acidification. Silicate weathering is the ultimate consumer of excess atmos CO2 over 100kyr time scales, so the capacity is indeed there. Lets see if there are safe, cost effective ways of accelerating this. -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Gorman [gorm...@waitrose.com x-msg://131/gorm...@waitrose.com ] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 1:22 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere Whatever happens with emissions we will have a lot of CO2 to remove from the atmosphere after mid centaury so it was good to hear in the recent Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society that there are saline aquifers about a mile down in the earth over much of the land mass of the planet. These could hold enough CO2. However, after what happened at that South American lake, I cant see people wanting any CO2 stored within a thousand miles of their homes. I would much rather see the CO2 locked up for good. The chemical solution exists and has been discussed here on various threads. 2 CO2 + Ca2SiO4 = SiO2 + 2 CaCO3 There is unlimited calcium silicate, (together with magnesium silicate as peridotite) in various places in the world. (eg northern Iran) because it is the main constituent of magma. Also the reaction is exothermic. So lets look at the practicalities of such a plant (facility -it could be more than one but lets look at one for now). First -how big? well if it was up and running in 2050 say, emissions might have peaked by 2035, say and be about the same as now, falling towards 2100. So if the plant balances current emissions in 2050, it will start to lower the concentration thereafter. (Concentration will then peak at about 500 ppm in 2050) So to balance the current 30 billion tons of CO2 we need to mine 90 billion tons of peridotite each year. What ! 90,000,000,000 tons -that's impossible! Well actually its only about ten times the annual world production of coal, its all on the surface and it wont have to be transported very far, so its not impossible. How much CO2 do we have to remove? Lets assume the plant removes 40 billion tons per year. If it has a life of 50 years while the emissions drop linearly to near zero in 2100. the net removal will be 1500 billion tons which is just about the excess that 500 ppm is over preindustrial at 280. So this brings us back to normal in 2100. How big would the site be to achieve this? specific gravity of the solid peridotite will be about 3 so
Re: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere
And correct me if I am wrong, but since your process forces CaCO3 and alkalinity to be lost from seawater, the process is a net source rather than a net sink of atmospheric CO2: Ca(HCO3)2(aq) -- CaCO3(s) + CO2(g) + H2O. In contrast our process starts with seawater or brine and ends up with dissolved carbon and alkalinity concentrations that (so far) can be 8X those of ambient seawater, all of the added C coming from air. Imagine the consequences to atmos CO2 if a fraction of this this was performed on a small piece of the ocean. Meantime, both of us need to figure out how to avoid Cl2 formation if NaCl is the electrolyte. Regards, Greg On 7/11/11 12:30 PM, Thomas Goreau gor...@bestweb.net wrote: Sorry if this was not clear. We do NOT use silicates, but do all the rest. On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Rau, Greg wrote: Using silicates as cation sources? I thought your process precipitated Ca and Mg from seawater, thus removing rather than generating alkalinity in seawater, but fill us in. -G On 7/11/11 11:58 AM, Thomas Goreau gor...@bestweb.net x-msg://138/gor...@bestweb.net wrote: Dear Greg, Thanks! You say below: Longer electrolysis times and/or alternative electrolyte solutions might allow formation and precipitation of Ca or Mg carbonates. Such electrochemistry might ultimately provide a safe, efficient way to harness the planet’s: i) large, off-peak or off-grid renewable electricity potential, ii) abundant basic minerals, and iii) vast natural brine electrolytes for air CO2 mitigation and carbon-negative H2 production. That is precisely what we do with the Biorock® Process! Best wishes, Tom On Jul 11, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Rau, Greg wrote: Since the reactions are exothermic and spontaneous, no need for external energy input if you are willing to wait around for 100’s kyrs. To speed up the process, one approach is to invest some energy in mining grinding (increase reactive silicate surface area e.g., Schuiling et al.). Then there are T, P, and chemical, biochemical, and electrochemical enhancement options (another humbly submitted variant here: http://www.goldschmidt2011.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/1698.pdf Anyway, there is plenty of stranded energy and reactants out there, so since we are starting with a proven natural global-scale air capture process (unlike many other proposals I could name), lets find out what if any enhancements of this might be desirable and cost effective. No? Regards, Greg On 7/11/11 1:50 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com x-msg://138/andrew.lock...@gmail.com x-msg://131/andrew.lock...@gmail.com x-msg://131/andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Surely energy is more important than tonnage. Chemical names would be a useful addition A On 10 Jul 2011 17:16, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov x-msg://138/r...@llnl.gov x-msg://131/r...@llnl.gov x-msg://131/r...@llnl.gov wrote: As for tonnage of mineral no sure if this effects your calc, but isn't the reaction: CO2 + CaSiO3 -- CaCO3 + SiO2 or more likely with silicate minerals: CO2 + MgSiO3 -- MgCO3 + SiO2. If you are really worried about mineral tonnage, why not get more bang for the buck with: 2CO2 + H2O + CaSiO3 -- Ca(HCO3)2 + SiO2 plus adding dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 to the ocean could help mitigate ocean acidification. Silicate weathering is the ultimate consumer of excess atmos CO2 over 100kyr time scales, so the capacity is indeed there. Lets see if there are safe, cost effective ways of accelerating this. -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://138/geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://138/geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com x-msg://131/geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Gorman [gorm...@waitrose.com x-msg://138/gorm...@waitrose.com x-msg://131/gorm...@waitrose.com x-msg://131/gorm...@waitrose.com ] Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 1:22 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Large scale CCO2 removal from atmosphere Whatever happens with emissions we will have a lot of CO2 to remove from the atmosphere after mid centaury so it was good to hear in the recent Bakerian lecture at the Royal Society that there are saline aquifers about a mile down in the earth over much of the land mass of the planet. These could hold enough CO2. However, after what happened at that South American lake, I cant see people wanting any CO2 stored within a thousand miles of their homes. I would much rather see the CO2 locked up for good. The chemical solution exists and has been discussed here on various threads. 2 CO2 + Ca2SiO4 = SiO2 + 2 CaCO3 There is unlimited calcium silicate, (together with magnesium silicate as peridotite) in various places in the world. (eg northern Iran) because it is the main constituent of
RE: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC: Data on public perception
Folks Earlier comments on this thread contained lots of speculation about what people think about SRM/geo. We recently submitted a paper that has some of the first results from a high-quality surveys of public perception. (Where for a survey, high-quality=that is big numbers, good demographic sampling, and well tested questions.) The paper is at http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Preprints.html. You need a username password which you can get (quickly) from the Hollie Roberts see email link on the page (and I don't change it). Yours, David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] RE: Aluminum particles as a replacement for sulfate aerosols?
David, Some (entirely speculative) disadvantages might be: 1) Particles raining out and causing respiratory problems in dry deposition, especially in Inuit communities who live pretty much at the end of the Brewer-Dobson circulation 2) Particles staying up for longer than wanted, thus reducing control. 3) Particles drifting or thermally levitating far higher than intended. 4) Particles getting entrained in precip and causing problems for water ecosystems or the human gut. 5) Surface chemistry with substances other than chlorine 6) Particles melting or clumping onto jet engines like volcanic ash 7) Particles interfering with wavelengths vital for comms or astronomy 8) Cloud seeding from descending particles Can you reassure us you've covered all these potential issues? I'm aware that most if not all items in the above list may not be problems whatsoever, but far better to include something that's not a problem than to miss something which is. A On 12 July 2011 02:30, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote: Folks Building on the work we did on the direct formation of small aerosols in the stratosphere, see paper link below, Jeff Peirce, Debra Weisenstein and I are beginning work looking at alumina aerosol. This is motivated by the fact that one could, in principle, form alumina aerosol using similar methods to the ones we examined in the previous paper. The benefits of using alumina might be: 1. Lower potential for chlorine activation per unit surface area. (Maybe, we are reviewing the old lit.) 2. Higher index of refraction à less particles needed for a given radiative forcing à smaller coalescence rate à slower growth àlonger lifetime à even less particles needed. This effect might be quite large. 3. Lower IR emissivity. 4. Smaller aerosols à less forward scattering problem. Of course this is all preliminary, but this gives us a sense that it might be that alumina aerosols would have less side effects per unit radiative forcing. Yours, David Paper: Jeffrey R. Pierce, Debra K. Weisenstein, Patricia Heckendorn, Thomas Peter and David W. Keith. (2010). Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for geoengineering by emission of condensable vapor from aircraft. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L18805, doi:10.1029/2010GL043975, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043975.shtml From: John Nissen [mailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:18 PM To: Mark Massmann Cc: Ken Caldeira; David Keith; karolyn massmann; Kevin Layton; Mike MacCracken; Andrew Lockley; P. Wadhams; John Gorman; Geoengineering Subject: Re: Aluminum particles as a replacement for sulfate aerosols? Hi Mark, You might be interested in this work [1] - I attended the presentation at the EGU 2011 geoengineering session, and they were talking about producing engineered microparticles (of titanium for example) rather than the usual sulphate aerosol. A major advantage is to be able to control the size, which is critical to SRM effectiveness [2] and ozone side-effects. I don't remember anything being said about health! I'm copying to Peter Wadhams, in case he knows about the work at Cambridge. John Gorman has also been thinking about alternatives to sulphate aerosol. We certainly need to be considering a combination of aerosols and cloud brightening techniques to cool the Arctic, try to save the Arctic sea ice and help to stop the methane - though ideally we should have started deployment years ago, because the situation is so critical now with both sea ice [3] and methane [4]. Cheers, John [1] http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-10375.pdf [2] Solar Radiation Management by reflecting solar radiation back into space [3] http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/19/arctic-sea-ice-volume-death-spiral/ [4] http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html --- On 25/05/2011 16:37, Ken Caldeira wrote: On ChemTrails, check out this site: http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-non-science/ On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Mark Massmann m2des...@cablespeed.com wrote: Dr. Caldiera- As I said before, I am not researching the existence of chemtrails here. I was mainly trying to understand if aluminum is being considered for SRM and if so, what you believe the side-effects could be. I'm not sure what data format you would require to consider the data is good or high quality. The following link includes test results for Pheonix in June 2008, where levels of aluminum were 6,400 times above the toxic limit. This is another chemtrail discussion, but in spite of that the data appears to be legit (you might have to paste this to your browser for the link to work): http://www.rense.com/general82/chemit.htm MORE IMPORTANTLY, your statement of, There is no official consideration of anything. There are just individuals thinking, talking, and
RE: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all
Responding to a VERY old thread on wind power: The only link to geoengineering here is that there is a possibility of manipulating wind turbine drag for weather control, see: At 10's TW scale extraction of wind does begin to be constrained by the generation of kinetic energy. I led the a joint NCAR-GFDL group that published the first paper on this topic see: David W. Keith et al, The influence of large-scale wind-power on global climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, p. 16115-16120. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/66.Keith.2004.WindAndClimate.e.pdf See http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/94.Kirk-Davidoff.SurfaceRoughnessJAS.p.pdf for a paper that says a bit about why it happens. The following web page gives and overview but it's now out of date: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/wind.html Alvia's comment that about kinetic energy, i.e. the motion of molecules, confuses the physics. Kinetic energy is macroscopic velocity, random motion of molecules is just heat. It is true that large scale production and dissipation of kinetic energy must balance, have a look at Peixoto and Oort's the Physics of Climate or a short encyclopedia article I one wrote on atmospheric energetics: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/15.Keith.1996.Energetics.s.pdf Bottom lines: 1. Commonly cited estimates for global wind power potential are too large. On cannot get to 100 TW in any practical scheme I know about. 2. At even a few TW large scale climate effects will begin to be important. But, this does not say we should not make a few TW of wind, just that--like any energy technology-there are tradeoffs. David From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nando Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 8:25 AM To: agask...@nc.rr.com Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all My reading of the article suggested that the authors of the study were principally claiming that wind has an impact on climate, so it is already being used. What wasn't clear from the article was what type of impact reducing the energy level of winds all over the globe through the prolific use of wind turbines might have. In a warming world, I understand we should expect stronger winds. On a simplistic generalized level that might not be relevant to local climate, slowing those stronger winds down might have an ameliorating effect on climate change. Hence the claim that The magnitude of the changes was comparable to the changes to the climate caused by doubling atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide might not be as bad as it is made to seem. As usually, I'm grasping at straws, but as a layman, that's what stood out for me. Nando On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.commailto:agask...@nc.rr.com wrote: Wind and wave energy are the result of the conversion of solar energy into kinetic energy, i.e. the motion of molecules. Once converted into kinetic energy it's a use it or lose it proposition. Extracting kinetic energy from the atmosphere or the ocean doesn't mean it won't be replaced by more energy from sunlight. Planting more trees will also intercept winds, albeit without the electricity generation. Who funded this research? The same people who want to prevent contact with alien civilizations? I note that the Royal Society was also a party to that one too. Note to Royal Society. When you actually find something under the bed I should be afraid of, wake me up. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockleymailto:and...@andrewlockley.com To: geoengineeringmailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 8:10 Subject: [geo] Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all * 30 March 2011 by Mark Buchananhttp://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=Mark+Buchanan * Magazine issue 2806http://www.newscientist.com/issue/2806. Subscribe and savehttp://www.newscientist.com/subscribe?promcode=nsarttop * For similar stories, visit the Energy and Fuelshttp://www.newscientist.com/topic/energy-fuels and Climate Changehttp://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change Topic Guides Editorial: The sun is our only truly renewable energy sourcehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028062.500-the-sun-is-our-only-truly-renewable-energy-source.html Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels and we could do as much damage to the climate as greenhouse global warming WITNESS a howling gale or an ocean storm, and it's hard to believe that humans could make a dent in the awesome natural forces that created them. Yet that is the provocative suggestion of one physicist who has done the sums. He concludes that it is a mistake to assume that energy sources like wind and waves are truly renewable. Build enough wind farms to replace fossil fuels, he
