RE: [geo] Re: Moderator / owner role

[Peter Flynn]

I agree, emphatically….a very highly valued contribution.



Peter



*From:* 'Sev Clarke' via geoengineering 
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2023 2:36 PM
*To:* geoengineering 
*Subject:* [geo] Re: Moderator / owner role



I hope that both of you will keep up the good work. It is invaluable.



On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 9:56:27 PM UTC+11 Andrew Lockley wrote:

Hi,



I've moderated this list since its inception, and now I'm also the list
"owner". Others have historically joined this moderator role, but aren't
presently active.



Being a moderator does not give any special posting privileges or posting
responsibilities. Contribution of stories to the list is separate, but many
people think the two are linked ("please post this to the list" is a
frequent request in my email).



Moderation involves the following tasks.

1) removing members from moderation, so they can post instantly. This is
presently done effectively by default for academics, and done typically for
members of the public

2) approving individual posts for anyone who's moderated. This is done by
default, as long as the content is relevant and non-trivial.

3) very occasionally reversing (1) for poor behaviour, and in extremis
issuing permanent bans (only 1 or 2 bans for humans in the entire history
of the group - eg for harvesting emails and spamming).



As you can see from recent pointed personal criticism of my research on
this list, I'm making no effort to misuse my moderator privileges to steer
debate in my personal favour. I've actually been arguably more tolerant of
ad hominem attacks on myself than I would be on others - having issued
exactly zero warnings for recent posts. I hope list members value the
service and trust its independence from my views and research.



However, some people may seek a change to the status quo - for whatever
reason. I'm happy to add more moderators, and potential also relinquish my
day-to-day engagement in moderation, if that was felt desirable. I'm
neither the world's best moderator nor the world's most respected
geoengineering expert. A new moderator could be a researcher, or an
independent administrator (eg Ayesha, who is paid to post new material to
the list).



I would also be amenable to discussing a change of list owner - essentially
permanently removing me from any oversight of the group. This would be a
big step, and could well have irreversible and very negative consequences,
eg someone shutting down the list in a Trojan Horse attack.



Feedback and volunteering offers are welcome.



Andrew Lockley



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/57599498-1db5-4e60-b069-21ccbef92805n%40googlegroups.com

.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/94323bb1ea3464fda75870edf11ec0e3%40mail.gmail.com.

[geo] RE: [CDR] Re: [HCA-list] Iron Salt Aerosol: Article in MIT Technology Review

[Peter Flynn]

I will register my disagreement: reduction of CH4 should be part of CDR;
you can count on my interest. For purists, let us refer to CH4 as CO2eq.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

1 928 451 4455

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca







*From:* carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com <
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Michael Hayes
*Sent:* Saturday, February 18, 2023 11:12 AM
*To:* Clive Elsworth 
*Cc:* Peter Fiekowsky ; rob...@rtulip.net; Planetary
Restoration ;
healthy-planet-action-coalition <
healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <
noac-meeti...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <
healthy-climate-allia...@googlegroups.com>;
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com 
; geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: [CDR] Re: [HCA-list] Iron Salt Aerosol: Article in MIT
Technology Review



Clive, I'm aware of the chemistry, yet this is a CDR list not a CH4
mitigation list. Removing CO2 has little involvement with CH4 mitigation.
Use of iron salt is not a CDR method, and it has little if any relation to
CDR policy or economics.



The many CCed groups often welcome any comment on any subject under the
Sun. This list, however, is focused on removing CO2, not second or third
order indirect subjects that can be tacked onto CO2 removal.



Getting things done requires maintaining focus, and the GE list along with
many others like it simply can not maintain focus and thus are of little
use and even less importance. Converting this list to a CC of the GE list
is not needed, yet there seems to be a core group interested in either
taking the moderators' post to do so or simply overrunning the CDR list
with non CDR posts and making the CDR list a defacto non focused GE list. I
object to the petty politics and to the non CDR posts.



Best regards







On Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 7:59 AM Clive Elsworth 
wrote:

Michael



Iron salt aerosol relates indirectly to CDR. Reduced warming from reduced
atmospheric methane would slow the temperature rise of the ocean surface,
curbing the accelerating loss of nutrient mixing owing to surface
stratification. Without nutrients, less phytoplankton are available to
raise ocean surface pH. A higher pH at the ocean surface lowers the partial
pressure of dissolved CO2, increasing the oceanic CO2 absorption rate.



Where there is chlorophyll in the ocean there tend to be marine clouds
also, which provide an additional cooling effect. Thus, a beneficial
feedback cycle is established, or at least the opposite destructive
feedback cycle is curbed.



The addition of iron to the ocean surface is of course highly
controversial, even if it’s by aerosol delivery adding less than 1 mg/m²
per day and with natural fertilisation by desert dust doing the same thing.
Huge areas of abyssal ocean are very low in iron content, so this would
also enable a slightly higher phytoplankton productivity than otherwise -
over vast areas. In areas where iron is not the limiting nutrient, the
addition of a tiny amount more would make essentially no difference.



Clive

On 18/02/2023 14:45 GMT Michael Hayes  wrote:





Again, how does this relate to CDR?



CH4 is not CO2.



The many other groups that have been CCed in this thread are wide open to
any and all chatter about any and all subjects that can pop into people's
minds. This list is about Carbon Dioxide Removal.



How does your comment relate to CDR?



On Fri, Feb 17, 2023, 12:49 PM Peter Fiekowsky  wrote:

Robert-



Good point about the scientists uniformly calling for delaying
implementation, essentially indefinitely, since they don't offer any
criteria for actually starting to restore safe methane levels and protect
against a methane burst.



Do you think this is an ethical issue? Doubling the methane oxidation rate
would result, in 5 years, in methane levels cut roughly in half--bringing
warming back to roughly 2002 levels. This would likely save a million lives
a year lost in the severe hurricanes, floods, wildfires and droughts we
have now. And if today's methane burst gets serious, it could also save a
quarter, or even all of humanity from the kind of extinction event that
happened last time our planet lost the Arctic sea ice.



Even if it's only a 1% chance that history repeats itself (warming is now
happening 10 times faster than during the previous methane burst called the
PETM), statistically that's 8 billion people divided by a 1/1000
probability, or 8 million people we could save.



Is it ethical for climate scientists to make the same claims that health
scientists made for tobacco companies and later that oil company
scientists made about climate actions--that we need undefined "more
research" before acting?



Should we establish a climate 

RE: [geo] Arctic Ice Project: We intend to brighten sea ice to make it act like older sea ice

[Peter Flynn]

I had read from the research information that in a chemical and size sense
the spheres could be thought of as sand, just shaped to be highly
reflective. But the question of whether they float is a good one.



Peter



*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com  *On
Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* Saturday, December 24, 2022 4:53 PM
*To:* Renaud de RICHTER 
*Cc:* geoengineering 
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Arctic Ice Project: We intend to brighten sea ice to
make it act like older sea ice



I am curious about the fate of these microspheres.



A skim of Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_microsphere

suggests that some can float on water. I'm unsure whether those used for
this experiment would do. Any that float may ultimately become airborne (in
sea spray or from wind blown shoreline deposition), leading to significant
terrestrial rainout - as large material volumes are surely used. Wind blown
snow is common, and lifting these spheres from the ice surface seems
plausible, also.



If they don't float, they will presumably end up at the bottom of the ocean
in layers comparably thick to that on the ice surface.



I have no special knowledge of any of these processes, and I'd like to hear
from someone who does. All my comments are curious speculating.



Andrew







On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, 07:01 Renaud de RICHTER, 
wrote:







-- Forwarded message -
From: *Arctic Ice Project* 
Date: Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 2:20 PM
Subject: Research at a Crossroads: Push us over the Edge



 If we can raise just $100K in the next two months, this research can move
forward. If not, we have to wait. Climate change can’t...

View this email in your browser




*RESEARCH AT A CROSSROADS*

WHAT'S NEXT AND HOW WE'LL GET THERE

While Arctic Ice Project has become the most researched Arctic ice
restoration project to date, we need further research to ensure the safe
and effective deployment of our solution.





DOUBLE YOUR IMPACT TODAY



Add Reminder for Giving Tuesday to your Calenda

r

.
SAFE



*AIP'S MISSION IS "FIRST, DO NO HARM"*

• To ensure this, we need to understand how our Hollow Glass Microspheres
(HGMs) interact with the environment when they are brand new and as they
age and break down.

• We must consider the entire ecosystem – from the humans that live in the
Arctic to the mud worms on the seafloor and everything in-between.

• We must understand what happens every season, under every weather
condition, every year.

H <#m_-4803203221647081319_m_81012304355871>ow are we testing this? —>



DEPLOYMENT



*LIMITED DEPLOYMENT, MAXIMUM RESULTS*

• We need to understand where and how much to safely deploy the HGMs to
achieve effectiveness.

• Our aim is to use the minimal amount of material possible to efficiently
buy time for the world to slow and reverse the effects of climate change
while we implement long-term carbon reduction solutions.

 Take a look at our modeling efforts —>

EFFECTIVE



*OUR SOLUTION MUST DO THE WORK*

• We intend to brighten sea ice to make it act like older sea ice – ice
that covers the polar cap and reflects solar energy back out to space just
as it has for millennia.

• Arctic sea ice aids the stabilization of the jet stream and weather
patterns south of the north pole.

• We need to understand exactly how the HGMs perform in the environment for
reflectivity under real conditions.


T <#m_-4803203221647081319_m_81012304355871>ake a look at how we are making
this happen –>



HOW YOU CAN HELP


Our scientific plans are robust and we are confident  in our proof of
concept. As you can imagine, our work requires funding.  We need to
generate more than $9M over the next two years to fund this critical
research.  We are actively pursuing partners, corporate gifts and
foundation grants – but we need your help too!  Together we can resist the
worst effects of climate change and give the earth a chance!



Make A Donation Today —>




*A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE*

Along with our world-renowned research partners at SINTEF in Norway, we are
preparing to study the effects of our solution on a small fish's
reproductive cycle in the spring. This natural occurrence happens only in
the spring, so timing is critical. We are c

[geo] RE: [CDR] World Cooling Map

[Peter Flynn]

Robert et al.



At the risk of cross posting, an email I sent today in response to Ron
Larson is below, in case this is of help.



Peter







Ron et al.,



Some comments on ice:



1. Important to realize that making ice from both fresh and sea water are
well proven “ancient” technologies. It is a standard practice in the north
to make an ice road by pumping water onto the surface of the ice,
thickening the ice. The supply road to Leningrad over Lake Ladoga is a
historical example, but there are places in Canada where this is done
annually to allow truck access part of the year to remote communities. Sea
water was used to make thick ice islands for drilling platforms in the
Beaufort Sea in the 70’s. It works.



2. Why pump the water to the surface? To get around the self insulating
feature of natural ice formation. The “cold” is in the winter atmosphere.
Natural ice forms at the bottom of the ice sheet, ice is an insulator,
moreso as it thickens.



3. Spray vs. low lift: for rapid ice formation, spray into the air to get a
higher overall rate of heat transfer. Ski hills do this for two reasons:
quicker, and one forms small ice particles that are like snow, not ice
sheets. But spray is energy intensive, and low lift (just get the liquid
water on the surface) moves far more water, and is perfectly ok on a cold
night, as evidenced by the ample history of ice road construction. If one
wanted to start an ice sheet in open ocean: spray. But wherever there is a
sufficient existing ice sheet, switch to low lift.



4. Ron, a minor correction. The goal would be two fold: both create new
ice, perhaps annual, but also strive to get incremental multi year ice, 2+
meters. If albedo is the primary goal (I think it should be), then
restoring multi year ice is the goal.



5. In the overall picture, making incremental sea ice transfers heat from
the ocean to the atmosphere. The expectation is that the heat is
incrementally radiated into space.



6. There is a curiosity question: what happens to the salt. When natural
ice forms at the bottom of the sheet, the formed ice is low in salt and a
brine sinks from the bottom of the sheet. There is a question if ice is
formed on the surface: does a brine migrate through microchannels in the
ice, or stay trapped in the ice. It is important to say: so what, make ice
anyway. But I have thought of a simple experiment to test this, attached
(I’m retired and don’t have the lab to do this, but for those in the
“publish or perish” world, this is an easy project and relevant paper).



7. In a 2005 paper we did costs estimates of a barge fleet to make ice, the
reference is in the Word document attached. If anyone is interested I’ll
send the paper.



8. A personal opinion: start simple. There are many tweaks people look at,
channels, breaking up ice to create new areas of freezing, anchoring ice
blocks. All good as build ons, but there is no reason not to get started on
the first effort: either make incremental new ice (spray), or thicken
existing ice (low lift), or best of all: both.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

1 928 451 4455

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca





*From:* 'Robert Tulip' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>
*Sent:* Sunday, November 21, 2021 4:58 AM
*To:* 'Anderson, Paul' ; 'Ronal Larson' <
rongretlar...@comcast.net>; rob...@rtulip.net; 'John Nissen' <
johnnissen2...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* 'Arctic Methane Google Group' ;
'Healthy Climate Alliance' ;
'Planetary Restoration' ; 'via
geoengineering' ; 'Carbon Dioxide Removal'
; 'Biochar.groups.io' <
m...@biochar.groups.io>
*Subject:* RE: [CDR] World Cooling Map



This reply to all the threads copies replies which only went to the CDR
thread.  The discussion relates to both CDR using algae farms and albedo
increase by polar freezing.



*CDR using Algae Farms*

Hi Ronal and Paul, thanks so much for these considered expert comments.  In
his first reply, Paul put the algae discussion into the biochar context,
saying “My 20 years of work in retirement have been about pyrolysis for
energy and biochar.   I assure you that the intended large-scale
ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents is quite
compatible with biochar production.”



The mention of pyrolysis prompts me to explain my view of how oceanic algae
can be processed.  Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) can transform a wet
algae slurry into a hydrocarbon stream and an aqueous fertilizer stream.
Therefore, feeding algae with Deep Ocean Water high in nitrates and
phosphates can constantly recycle new nutrients into the algae farm via the
aqueous HTL stream, while carbon is drawn from both air and sea for
hydrocarbon production.



Pyrolysis to prod

RE: [geo] Arctic Wind Pump

[Peter Flynn]

Some thoughts.



1. The work Songjian Zhou and I did envisioned unmanned barges equipped
with high lift/spray and low lift pump capability, the former to help form
new ice (as was done in making ice islands for drilling platforms in the
Beaufort Sea), the latter moving a far higher volume of water onto the ice
surface. Both technologies are well proven.



2. We envisioned summer retrieval of barges for annual maintenance. This
would involve cutting them out of ice. The alternative is servicing by
helicopter. Some maintenance program will be required.



3. Heuristic arguments that the project is too big or the Arctic too cold
frustrate me. Neither are true. I have found far too many unsupported “that
won’t work” comments in the field of geoengineering. I have personal
experience with work on a northern project (-40 in the winter) with a
capital value in excess of $15 billion. As was already noted: this can be
engineered.



4. Salt disposition (does it stay in the surface formed ice or migrate
through microchannels, as brine, through the ice) remains an interesting
question, but no reason not to do a physical experiment.



5. Ron, thanks for observing that our 2005 work seemed to fall off the map
as far as references go. I’m retired and long past the annual faculty
review process.



Best,



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

1 928 451 4455

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca







*From:* Ronal Larson 
*Sent:* Sunday, August 22, 2021 9:58 PM
*To:* rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; steve.de...@asu.edu; Peter Flynn <
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca>; John Nissen 
*Cc:* Kevin Lister ; via geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; sevcla...@me.com;
br...@climatefoundation.org; Planetary Restoration <
planetary-restorat...@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Arctic Wind Pump



Robert, Steven, Peter, John - with ccs:



1.   Thanks to Robert for this additional information below on
Prof. Desch and others.  The following is to keep this dialog alive for a
bit longer.



2.  The topic of added arctic ice formation was on this list
some years ago.  Much of the expertise was then coming from Prof. Peter
Flynn - based on his 2005 paper with S. Zhou - no-fee download possible at:



http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs/Climatechange/Carbon%20sequestration/Zhou%20anf%20Flynn.pdf



   3.  Some of us made (via a home freezer) and discussed the
visual appearance of a salty layer on top of the normal
relatively-salt-free ocean ice layer.  But this Arctic ice  topic was
dropped on this list.  Good to see its return.



4.   I have now read and followed-up on the 2017 Prof. Desch
paper noted below by Robert Tulip. I was pleased to see a great deal more
valuable data on arctic ice loss and gain.  This paper did not mention the
earlier Peter Flynn material.



5.  Using Wiki,  I found five more papers referencing the Desch
paper

(which is cited at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_geoengineering)

 along with the Zhou - Flynn cite.  The next two papers are similar in
brief follow-ups to Desch - but nothing on the hardware topic of this note.

 I don’t sense any great concerns.

  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001230

https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/77851/1/Accepted_Manuscript.pdf

`

6.  Getting to my main point - I think (along with Prof.
Flynn) that it should be more economical to have the ice-making machinery
be mobile - rather than fixed to a buoy.  Flynn was thinking a barge.  I
agree with that for some ice-making,  but I am also thinking something with
a strong similarity to what is described at


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceboat  as

*"An iceboat (occasionally spelled ice boat or traditionally called an ice
yacht) is a recreational or competition sailing craft supported on metal
runners for traveling over ice."*



Other from Wiki:

 -   This “yacht” at one time held the world speed record - and
practical business use goes back hundreds of years



-   The end of the second Wiki paragraph under “Venues” gives
encouragement on being

able to drop the Desch system weight and cost by more than an order of
magnitude.

  *"This type of craft was accessible to sportsmen of modest means.
 **(Emphasis added)*



-  I guess that such an ice-thickening machine could also be
made or assembled close to the Arctic (or on a large ice-making boat?),
therefore  with minimal cost for transport.  Also using mostly carbon -
neutral materials (wood and carbon fiber - stronger than steel),



-Many topics need further discussion - such as tie-downs,
adding solar PV,  ratio of self vs central control,  escape from a
"freeze-in”, etc.



Thoughts on mobil

RE: [geo] THE COOLING CONUNDRUM REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE TO REFREEZE THE ARCTIC

[Peter Flynn]

I think that one way to get heat into space is to get it into the
atmosphere from the ocean. Creating incremental ice by putting water on the
surface of existing ice, or “seeding” ice formation by a spray during cold
periods in the Arctic, transfer heat from water to air. (Both these ice
formation technologies have a long history in the north. A warmer
atmosphere radiates more heat into space, with a temperature dependence of
T^4, where T is the absolute temperature.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

1 928 451 4455

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com  *On
Behalf Of *Douglas MacMartin
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:51 AM
*To:* adrian.hin...@anu.edu.au; geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* RE: [geo] THE COOLING CONUNDRUM REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE TO
REFREEZE THE ARCTIC



Adrian – your list of ostensibly viable should include SAI too, as was
pointed out earlier on this same thread.  In principle one could inject SO2
or other in the spring at high latitude (and indeed, that may be the most
economically viable, technologically achievable near-term approach – and to
be clear I wouldn’t advocate doing anything simply because it’s cheap,
simply pointing it out).  Re MCB, I don’t know if there are sufficient
susceptible clouds at high latitudes to do something focused on the Arctic,
vs using it to cool lower latitudes and thus cool the Arctic by reducing
heat transport – which, of course, if your sole metric is freezing the
Arctic, would work.   For any of these things one has to look at all of the
impacts, and the science is still pretty immature beyond recognizing the
overall ability to cool.



*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com  *On
Behalf Of *Adrian Hindes
*Sent:* Monday, February 8, 2021 6:37 PM
*To:* geoengineering 
*Subject:* Re: [geo] THE COOLING CONUNDRUM REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE TO
REFREEZE THE ARCTIC



Ah of course, the straightforward thermodynamics of it aren't favourable to
direct cooling through refrigeration.



I suppose the only way to make it work would be to transfer the heat to
outer space or deep underground. I don't know too much about how heat
exchangers or thermal transport works, but having a read of the basal
freezing section of your paper, Andrew, I can't imagine anything
thermosyphon related would be appropriate for the Arctic.



Aside from glass microspheres then, maybe only marine cloud brightening
remains as an ostensibly viable Arctic refreeze technology? It'll be
interesting to see what they discuss in the Climate Emergency Summit talk.
-A

On Sunday, 7 February 2021 at 7:43:10 am UTC+11 Andrew Lockley wrote:

I'm unclear on the proposed mechanism, but any artificial refrigeration
simply moves heat around. There is obviously an energy penalty for doing
this - and for generating the electricity, in the first place. In short,
all the additional thermal energy from the nuclear power plant will
ultimately end up as waste heat, in the system you're trying to cool. You
can't make a sealed room colder by locking a generator and refrigerator in
it - even if that room is the size of a planet. Only by using energy to
Accelerate hear transfer to space can anything be achieved. Pumping water
through the ice can do this, as can freezing glacier bases to preserve them
and their ice-albedo feedback. .



I address some of these issues in my recent paper.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927820300940



On Sat, 6 Feb 2021, 07:54 Adrian Hindes,  wrote:

@Oliver although that's quite a few nuclear power plants, that's actually
not so far out of the realm of possibility.

On Friday, 5 February 2021 at 11:48:12 am UTC+11 Oliver Wingenter wrote:

It would take 20 nuclear power plants running conventional refrigeration
to cool the Arctic Ocean.and refreeze it.



<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>

Virus-free. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>



On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:10 PM Andrew Lockley  wrote:


https://climateemergencysummit.org/the-cooling-conundrum-event-profile/



THE COOLING CONUNDRUM

REVERSING CLIMATE CHANGE TO REFREEZE THE ARCTIC

With rapidly rising global temperatures, the harm to people and nature is
already too great. Signs that we are on the brink of triggering runaway
global warming are increasing by the day, as the strain on major ecosystems
reaches a new level of stress. Analysis shows that even a zero-emission
pathway will not be enough alone to slow warming and avoid further
devastation. This points to an urgent need to consider establi

RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Peter Flynn]

If "the dynamics of capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies",
how does one explain the following:

-the requirement that vehicles be equipped with catalytic converters, at
considerable expense to the buyer, in "capitalist" (in fact, market
regulated) economies.

- ditto re the clean up of rivers, in my lifetime. Staggering cleanup
compared to 60 years ago, when the Delaware river had no oxygen.

- ditto re the removal of sulfur from power plant stacks and vehicle
fuels.

And so oneven in less developed countries. India, as one step to deal
with horrible urban air, banned two cycle jitneys (that went over the
border to Bangladesh, where the debate on banning them was active when I
was there, many years ago).

All of the above are protective actions aimed at the ecology.

Start with the wrong statement and you can run anywhere with it.
Capitalism isn't an unchained monster: it is regulated, by society.
Sometimes more, sometimes less, but regulated. The issue isn't overturning
capitalism, or even attacking it; the issue is building a social consensus
to regulate.

I continue to believe that attacks on capitalism as a discussion of the
dangers of climate change is a dangerous distraction: dangerous in that it
diverts attention, needlessly, from a very important issue.

Peter

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455



-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Marshall [mailto:jonathan.marsh...@uts.edu.au]
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 6:10 PM
To: Peter Flynn ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering 
Subject: Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
Technological Rationality in Social Context


Ok, launched before ready but that's life... here's the second part.

The primary question of this article is a simple one. If the dynamics of
capitalism are inherently destructive of ecologies, then GE is unlikely to
prevent that destruction, nor give a breathing space for new developments.

GE, like everything else that depends on humans, is unlikely to be immune
to its social bases. If it is applied within the current capitalist
system, then we can suspect it will continue the destructive dynamics of
that system, unless another case is properly made. Demonstrating otherwise
may be possible, and it may need to be done, rather than just asserted. GE
could be the equivalent of encouraging smoking to preserve corporate
profits, while trying to do research in the hope of  some day being able
to postpone the increasing cancer toll.

The paper also suggests that if GE becomes the main way of dealing with
problems of Climate change, then we live in a society in which
'instrumental reason' does not function very well as there are cheaper and
possibly better options, but those options require us to challenge
established corporate power, and we are unlikely to do that successfully.
I think the last 20 to 30 years of politics in the English Speaking world
demonstrates that is very likely to be the case.

There are plenty of people on this list who think that SRM is problematic,
and that is what this paper is primarily about, so its position is hardly
unusual, even among those who are interested in the field. The governing
idea of SRM seems that it is easier to change the whole ecological system
than to change a political arrangement of economic power and profit. I'm
not sure it is, but it is comfortable to think it is not - if we are going
to spread accusations that people think things because it is comfortable
for them.

The author's referencing on risk, seems reasonably up to date to me.
However, I would suggest that the author minimizes the risks, because, in
their framework, they cannot deal with complex maladaptive systems which
are likely to destroy themselves completely. That is probably the result
of Marxist optimism, which I think is unjustified, and has been shown to
be unjustified by history.

All of the points the author makes involve reasonable questions. The
correct answers to them, may well involve disagreement, but not dismissal.
Personally I think the problem is a version of developmentalist ideology,
which could be magnified by capitalism, and that we both need to challenge
corporate power and investigate GE, particularly CDR.

jon
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any
accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or
copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the
views of the University 

RE: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Peter Flynn]

Andrew,



Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the
abstract is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I put this in the academic
realm of “I need to publish”, and even better, “if I say stupid stuff I’ll
get lots of citations from the refutation”.



I am reminded of the phrase that perfect is the enemy of the good. Linking
dealing with the risk of climate change to reversing capitalism would doom
any effective effort. Gunderson et al. can rest assured that any real
action will take place within the various economies as they exist and
evolve, slowly; thinking that climate change is the Trojan Horse that will
overturn existing choices about economies is both tedious and damaging
nonsense.



We have a serious problem to deal with, and distractions like this reduce
rather than enhance the ability to deal with it. I think all will agree
that perfection would be an instantaneous decarbonization that didn’t ruin
economies. But perfect won’t happen; we search for the good, the practical.
My personal guess is that a mix of decarbonization and geoengineering is
the likely future scenario, given the difficulty of mounting the will to
decarbonize quickly, in both capitalist and planned economies. I look at
catalytic converters added to cars: society found the will to spend more
for an existing technology to deal with an emission, but only in some
regions of the world, and only when the problem was evident and severe.



There is a broad range of thinking on the challenge of climate change.
Trying to end capitalism, or perhaps more accurately regulated market
economies, is beyond the improbability of rapid decarbonization.



Thanks again for calling this out.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455











*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* Saturday, January 20, 2018 5:07 PM
*To:* geoengineering 
*Subject:* Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and
Technological Rationality in Social Context



I'm probably putting myself at risk of getting shouted at, but...



This paper, from my brief skim,

A) is a total straw man argument - at least as far as geoengineering
research community's attitude towards the technology

B) reads like parody of postmodern/neo-Marxist/critical theory academic
writing (admittedly, lots of comparable papers also read like parody)

C) Misrepresents or misunderstands the current state of scientific
knowledge, especially vis-a-vis risk



I'd welcome other views, but I personally think it's important to call out
claptrap when we see it in the literature (even if that risks us getting
shouted at).



A





On 20 Jan 2018 18:17, "CE News"  wrote:

http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/269



Gunderson, Ryan; Petersen, Brian; Stuart, Diana (2018): A Critical
Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in
Social Context (Sustainability, 10).


Abstract

Geoengineering—specifically stratospheric aerosol injection—is not only
risky, but supports powerful economic interests, protects an inherently
ecologically harmful social formation, relegates the fundamental
social-structural changes needed to address climate change, and is rooted
in a vision of a nature as a set of passive resources that can be fully
controlled in line with the demands of capital. The case for geoengineering
is incomprehensible without analyzing the social context that gave birth to
it: capitalism’s inability to overcome a contradiction between the need to
accumulate capital, on the one hand, and the need to maintain a stable
climate system on the other. Substantial emissions reductions, unlike
geoengineering, are costly, rely more on social-structural than technical
changes, and are at odds with the current social order. Because of this,
geoengineering will increasingly be considered a core response to climate
change. In light of Herbert Marcuse’s critical theory, the promotion of
geoengineering as a market-friendly and high-tech strategy is shown to
reflect a society that cannot set substantive aims through reason and
transforms what should be considered means (technology and economic
production) into ends themselves. Such a condition echoes the
first-generation Frankfurt School’s central thesis: instrumental
rationality remains irrational. View Full-Text
<http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/269/htm>

*Keywords: *climate engineering
<http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=climate%20engineering>; environmental
sociology <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=environmental%20sociology>; critical
theory <http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=critical%20theory>; science and
technology studies
<http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=science%20and%20technology%20studies>; solar
radiatio

RE: [geo] Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

[Peter Flynn]

Dealing with  anthropogenic impacts on climate is profoundly complex, as
well evidenced by contributions to this group. Any attempt to move to total
organic agriculture (which I don’t support) is similarly profoundly
complex. To try to link these two is, to me, a huge and pointless addition
of complexity that would set back the progress of climate change.



Of geoengineering as a means of mitigating climate change, my supportive
views and minor research contribution are well documented.



Of organic farming as a goal: humans overwhelmingly live in cities, in
which sanitary considerations have led to sewage treatment that effectively
puts nutrients such as nitrogen (as nitrates) into the ocean. I see no
practical way in which 9 billion people can have sufficient nitrogen in
soil in the absence of manmade fertilizer. And really: why even try? Does
the plant recognize the difference between nitrate from a legume and from a
fertilizer plant? When I read of organic farming goals that include the
collection and distribution of urban human waste, I think it is far easier
to mitigate the GHG contribution from fertilizer manufacture.



But regardless of one’s personal view of the merit of organic agriculture,
let us not confound the challenge of climate change with it.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Smith, Professor Pete
*Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 12:38 AM
*To:* dave@sustainability.works; jha...@berkeley.edu
*Cc:* peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering

*Subject:* RE: [geo] Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and
grazing on global vegetation biomass.



Dear Dave & John,



We could feed the world organically if we chose to do that – but it will
require radical dietary change (less meat) and food system change - see
attached recent paper from Nature Communications. These are all choices we
will need to make as a society. I am not advocating organic agriculture as
a global panacea – just saying that it could be done and that 100%
industrialised agriculture is not inevitable – we can chose to do things
differently to feed 9-10 billion in 2050 and 12 billion in 2100.



Cheers,



Pete



---


Prof. Pete Smith, FRS, FRSE, FNA, FRSB
Professor of Soils & Global Change (
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/ibes/people/profiles/pete.smith),

Science Director of Scotland's ClimateXChange (www.climatexchange.org.uk),
Editor, Global Change Biology
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10./%28ISSN%291365-2486>

Editor, Global Change Biology
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10./%28ISSN%291757-1707>*
Bioenergy*



Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences,
School of Biological Sciences,
University of Aberdeen,
23 St Machar Drive, Room G45
Aberdeen,
AB24 3UU, Scotland, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1224 272702
Fax: +44 (0)1224 272703
E-mail: pete.sm...@abdn.ac.uk

Highly Cited Researcher: *http://hcr.stateofinnovation.com/
<http://hcr.stateofinnovation.com/>*

Researcher ID:* http://www.researcherid.com/rid/G-1041-2010
<http://www.researcherid.com/rid/G-1041-2010>*

Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=7P9W6pYJ&hl=en



*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] *On
Behalf Of *Dave Stanley
*Sent:* 29 December 2017 18:52
*To:* jha...@berkeley.edu
*Cc:* peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering

*Subject:* Re: [geo] Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and
grazing on global vegetation biomass.



Re: I think it is becoming clear that reducing the footprint of 9 million
members of a dominant species is not a feasible task .  But there are still
major efforts to use natural solutions with Organic farming being the
poster child - great to  make some people feel good but cannot feed 9
billion people which will require industrial scale agriculture.



Suggest a few numbers might be helpful here? With 40 percent of all the
worlds grain being fed to livestock, and around 40 percent of the food
produced being wasted – we have not got a problem feeding 9 billion. We
have a food distribution problem.

Industrial agriculture – laughingly called the Green Revolution – arguably
produced 100 percent increase in crop yields.  Now plateaued. But this was
at the massive cost of the input of fossil fuels to produce nitrate
fertilisers (N2O, CO2) and pesticides, and the mining of phosphates.
Importantly it also resulted in at least the halving of soil organic carbon
in arable soils, and a similar impact on the soil fauna and aboveground
ecosystem. The soil fauna is conveniently ignored by IPCC.

Organic systems, when the soil has reestablished itself in its natural
state, wil

RE: Re[2]: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate Change - Scientific American

[Peter Flynn]

I am occasionally disturbed by sweeping statements of “that’s not
practical” that are not backed up by a rigorous comparative cost analysis.
These kinds of heuristic comments discourage what I believe is the right
approach: investigate the economics and technical feasibility of many
approaches. Who knows: we may find surprises that were not obvious, which
indeed is the history of much science.



In the spirit of “we owe future generations a livable planet and a
functioning economy”, the issue is “what works, at what cost”. Statements
that “that will never work” or “that’s not practical” only have meaning
when linked to a cost and scale analysis.



I have learned much from this group over the years, including approaches I
would not otherwise have thought of.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Franz Dietrich Oeste
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 5, 2017 2:48 AM
*To:* mmacc...@comcast.net; Peter Eisenberger ;
Douglas MacMartin 
*Cc:* Michael Hayes ; geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; David Keith 
*Subject:* Re[2]: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb
Climate Change - Scientific American



Often climate problem solutions become discussed within the google group
that seem to me definitly outside of practicability as means to dissolve
the climate problem. Restraint in the discussion without opposing to such
climate engineering proposals should be avoided because it might be
interpreted as a kind of acceptance. DAC seems to me just to be an example
for this. Independent if the DAC-captured CO2 would become stored as liquid
CO2 at the ocean bottom, as solid gas hydrate or liquid CO2 within empty
former oil or natural gas storages or as carbonate rock within hot or
alkaline fissured porous volcanic or magmatic rock, or even by using the
captured CO2 as a basic chemical to synthesize special organic chemicals or
as a carbon source to grow tomatoes or oil-producing algae - will face the
problem, that thousands of giga tons should become captured by such DAC
methods until the end of the century. Such unbelievable huge CO2 mass has
to become extracted from the atmosphere in the aim to gain a restriction of
the climate warming between 1 to 2 °C. Summing up all these methods and
even further methods like BECCS or char-coal burial to improve agricultural
soils and to minimize fertilizer consumption by Terra Preta soil production
will not be enough to sequester even one of said thousands of CO2 parts.



What to do? Where is the way out of this dilemma? Yes, of course: the only
way out is the activation and restauration of the globes well known natural
mechanisms of carbon sequestration. During the many past geological epoches
these natural mechanisms had been experienced their ability to transform
the huge gaseous CO2 carbon mass out of the atmosphere into rock layers and
sediments by efficient precipitation - mainly as carbonate and to a small
part as organic carbon. Until today mankind acts without care within these
multiple and komplex net of natural CO2 carbon extraction and sequestration
mechanism: On the one hand these actions damaged the mechanism network, on
the other hand mankind simultaneous expanded the gasification of carbon to
CO2, and to the third mankind failed to adequate activate the step of the
carbon transfer between atmosphere and sequestration in parallel during
carbon gasification increase. Result is the recent CO2 level increase. To
open a good outcome from this bad situation at first said activation of the
carbon transfer between atmosphere and burial localities has to become in
action (1) and in second line or in parallel the restoration of the well
known natural carbon extraction and transport means must become restored
(2) and (3):

   1. Oceans, continents and tropospheric boundary layer: Activation of
   greenhouse gas depletion, cloud albedo increase, biotic and abiotic CO2
   absorption by ocean water and phytoplankton, and activation of the vertical
   cycling ocean currents
   2. Continents: Restoration of deforested areas by ecosystem restoration
   of the former forests. Such measures will not only restore the CO2 capture
   on the continents by generation of organic carbon it will even restore the
   root-catalyzed CO2 capture by weathering
   3. Coasts and shelfes: Restoration of the ecosystems within the habitats
   of mangroves, tidal marshes, coral reefs, seaweeds, and seegrass

According to the natural CO2 capture systems the first global initiatives
to coordinate their restoration have come into action: according to (2) the
International Blue Carbon Initiative has been founded. According to (1) an
equivalent method mimicking the natural method has been presented 

RE: [geo] Warming Permafrost+microbes+sunlight = Co2

[Peter Flynn]

Some years back Emad Ghafoori and I looked at the life cycle emissions of
anaerobic digestion of cattle manure, part of our techno-economic study of
AD. We had to assess the emissions of cow patties, and we had assumed that
they would be a significant source of methane. We found a study that
reported that methane emissions dropped sharply after the first day, and we
hypothesized that this was because aerobic bacteria quickly developed on
the cow patty and perhaps processed the methane from anaerobic bacteria in
the patty, or its precursors.



I have wondered if the same would occur in the arctic, reducing the very
scary methane risk to a still substantial CO2 risk. It would make an
interesting research project, much as measuring emissions from a cow patty
was.



As a general comment: anaerobic digestion of manure to produce a gas that
is ~60% methane and 40% CO2 works, but is lousy economics if solely done to
address GHG mitigation: there are far cheaper ways (measured by dollars per
ton of avoided CO2 equivalent) to mitigate. Anaerobic digestion can deal
with excessive phosphate in soil (by precipitating it prior to land
spreading the digestate), and vastly reduces pathogens and odor. So if one
has a phosphate, odor or pathogen problem, it may make sense, but if one is
simply trying to mitigate atmospheric GHG components, one gets more benefit
for the expense from other approaches.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Klaus Lackner
*Sent:* Thursday, October 5, 2017 5:15 PM
*To:* durb...@gmail.com; geoengineering 
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Warming Permafrost+microbes+sunlight = Co2



I would be afraid that your alternative is methane.  Which would not be
much of an improvement

Klaus



*From: * on behalf of Eric Durbrow <
durb...@gmail.com>
*Reply-To: *"durb...@gmail.com" 
*Date: *Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:36 AM
*To: *geoengineering 
*Subject: *[geo] Warming Permafrost+microbes+sunlight = Co2



Although indirectly related to climate engineering, I thought people would
find this interesting as the topic of warming permafrost has come up many
times. Nature abstract of study showing how certain microbes are activated
by sunlight to release CO2 from warming permafrost. But the study also
hints how natural processes might interrupt or slow this down. I wonder if
we could also inhibit these particular microbes.



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00759-2
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nature.com_articles_s41467-2D017-2D00759-2D2&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=llMkAj_-4USXhO1tjCJa2n3LEg5ADgcT7HLYb5X_7c0&s=QacywPiGcwzMbq0GX5sL3Y6HImyP6aVBLgTMol2JwV0&e=>



Summary/interview:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171004163800.htm
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sciencedaily.com_releases_2017_10_171004163800.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=llMkAj_-4USXhO1tjCJa2n3LEg5ADgcT7HLYb5X_7c0&s=njHAqq5oNkSOAgu3pPsEA1TZLJvZ5HUozwHgHb-fA7Y&e=>







-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_group_geoengineering&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=llMkAj_-4USXhO1tjCJa2n3LEg5ADgcT7HLYb5X_7c0&s=a4U9ojlVMofnLNqoKG1Ci64jJy90DHE_iLkCzM83fc0&e=>
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwMFaQ&c=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ&r=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ&m=llMkAj_-4USXhO1tjCJa2n3LEg5ADgcT7HLYb5X_7c0&s=8zn2hHXgD_UvKng6ZIFxzZnk-VM44532iU77oCBZyRs&e=>
.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message 

RE: [geo] Swanson's law

[Peter Flynn]

A brief comment re DC. The big cost is the AC to DC and DC to AC converters
at each end, which tends to make DC a point to point system without
interconnections along the way. In practice this has limited DC to long
distance transmission, typically from remote generators (hydro power in
northern Manitoba is an example). DC has also been used for under ocean
lines (e.g. a connection between the north and south New Zealand islands)
and for interchange between disconnected grids (between western and eastern
North America).



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael MacCracken
*Sent:* Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:15 AM
*To:* dhawk...@nrdc.org; andrew.lock...@gmail.com
*Cc:* geoengineering 
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Swanson's law



A problem at present is that present high-voltage/alternating current
distribution lines mean that low-cost transmission of electricity is
limited to a few hundred miles, so one would have to disperse DAC. If
instead there were large-scale high-voltage/direct current distribution
lines (see MacDonald et al., Nature, January 2016), then there could be
long distance, low-cost transmission over large distances and one would
have a much better likelihood of having access to any stranded energy (from
wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, etc.), all while having DAC located where
it would be optimally able to store the captured carbon. Just another
reason, among many, for having large-scale HV/DC networks across the
world's continents.

Mike MacCracken



On 9/17/17 10:50 AM, Hawkins, Dave wrote:

Using stranded renewable energy for DAC is an interesting idea.  Question
is what energy resource will be used during periods when there is no
surplus RE? If DAC does not run 24/7 its costs go up. If DAC uses RE to run
24/7, that requires a larger RE system with associated stranding. If DAC
uses something other than RE, what is it? Ideally, we would have an
economically dispatchable zero-carbon resource.

This is not an argument against DAC, just an observation on system
complexity.


Sent from my iPad


On Sep 17, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

Does anyone have a breakdown of projected input costs for Direct Air
Capture? I'm interested in quantifying the energy component.



Swanson's law predicts reliable falls in the cost of solar. Without
storage, much peak-time solar could be wasted, unless it's used for
time-insensitive applications like DAC or desalination.



(I understand Keith's process needs electricity, but Lackner's instead
needs heat.)



My hypothesis is that DAC could become vastly cheaper, if energy costs
trended down as expected due to Swanson's law, and cheaper still if it
became a way to use this stranded energy.



I'd welcome thoughts, data, projections and comments.



Thanks



Andrew Lockley



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Peter Flynn]

Andrew,



I’m not sure I understand your comment that deep water isn’t that deep.
Typical numbers for the shallow ocean are a depth of 200 meter, with a
thermocline between 200 and 1000 meters and a very consistent temperature
and salinity below 1000 meters. See, for example:



https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/thermocline.html



One could bring the deep ocean from 1000 meters to surface in a sealed
tube; it would take energy. I don’t know the permanent salt fountain well
enough to comment on it.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 11:54 AM
*To:* Peter Flynn 
*Cc:* Jason Zhou ; geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; kcalde...@stanford.edu
*Subject:* RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies



Thanks Peter. However, you don't address whether pumping water into sealed
tubes or greenhouses would be viable.



Deep water isn't that deep - water for my toilet is pumped much further.



As long as the water lifted was kept away from the atmosphere and surface
ocean, it should be effective at fertilization of algae without releasing
CO2



A



On 15 Sep 2017 18:15, "Peter Flynn"  wrote:

This prompts several comments, and apologies for the delay and to those for
whom this is too basic:



1. The ocean can be thought of as two relatively independent bodies of
water, the shallow and deep ocean. There is a fairly sharp boundary between
the two, called the thermocline. Transfer between the two is limited, as
discussed below. Once something in solution is in the deep ocean, on
average its residence time before getting to the shallow ocean is 600 to
1000 years. This is an average; there are regions of the ocean where
circulation between the deep and shallow ocean is very limited, and the
site specific residence time is longer.



The deep ocean is cold and dense. Mixing with the shallow ocean is
energetically difficult because of the energy required to move a dense
element up against gravity across the thermocline into a less dense zone.



2. The interaction between shallow and deep is limited to downwelling and
upwelling currents. There are two major zones of downwelling current, a
zone in the north Atlantic called the GIN (named for its proximity to
Greenland, Iceland, and Norway) and a zone in the Antarctic by the Weddell
Sea. The GIN downwelling current is called the North Atlantic Deep Water
(NADW), and is the countervailing flow to the Gulf Stream. Downwelling is
driven by a combination of temperature and high salinity (the high salinity
is in part driven by evaporation in the Mediterranean Sea, a current from
which joins the Gulf Stream). NADW and the companion Gulf Stream were
interrupted for about 1200 years when Lake Agassiz, a glacial fresh water
lake in North America, flowed into the Atlantic after an ice dam melted.
The result was a 1200 year European cold period known as the Younger Dryas.



Europe has centers of high population at latitudes higher than any other
region on the globe; the Gulf Stream is credited for enabling this. One
concern cited about global warming is that melting of Greenland ice could
interrupt the NADW / Gulf Stream again: the irony is that an early product
of global warming could be a European “ice age”.



3. Songjian Zhou and I looked at whether one could move CO2 from the
atmosphere into the deep ocean by increasing the concentration of CO2 in
NADW. Our answer was no: the surface water descending into the NADW was
saturated in CO2. But the deep ocean is not saturated in CO2, because of
its higher pressure.



4. Hence discussion of moving deep ocean water into the shallow ocean
baffles me. Yes: it contains nutrients. But it also contains CO2, which
would flash as the pressure dropped and temperature increased. It strikes
me that we should think of the deep ocean as the sink for CO2, not a source
of a “fix”. Any plan to use the nutrients in the deep ocean to grow marine
biomass to be sunk into the deep ocean (or utilized as biofuel) would have
to be carefully tested against the CO2 release.



5. Glen Tichkowsky and I looked at a scheme in which ocean side pools of
sea water would be used to grow algae. Evaporation would increase the
salinity  of the pond to a point where the water could be moved as a batch
into the deep ocean without pumping. The rate limiting step, by an order of
magnitude, was the rate of transfer of CO2 from atmosphere to ocean; it was
sufficiently slow to make the cost of carbon sequestration by this scheme
prohibitive. I understood after this work why commercial algae growing
operations often include agitation (to enhance mass transfer) or CO2
injection. Transfe

RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Peter Flynn]

I’m having a problem replying to Greg Rau’s e mail, so I’m trying to do
this via a response to Klaus’ e mail.



One concern about using the deep ocean as a heat sink is the increased
volume / reduced density as temperature rises, causing sea level rise. I
have done no calculations, so I have no idea if this is a 50 year problem
or a 50,000 year problem.



There is a way to radiate heat to space from the ocean: pump sea water on
top of existing ice. Ice formation at the bottom of an ice sheet is
insulated by the thickness of the existing ice. Moving water onto the top
of the ice increases heat transfer substantially: this is the basis of
making ice roads, bridges and islands (drilling platforms) in the Arctic.
Some of the heat lost to the atmosphere will be kept in the atmosphere, but
some will radiate into space in the long Arctic night. Songjian Zhou and I
looked at forming incremental sea ice in the Arctic, although our
motivation was the potential stimulation of the NADW in the event that
Greenland ice melt weakened it. Regardless: one can “use” the higher heat
transfer rate at the top of existing sea ice to get heat out of the ocean,
and some of that into space.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* Klaus Lackner [mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu]
*Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 11:56 AM
*To:* pcfl...@ualberta.ca; kcalde...@stanford.edu; Geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Cc:* Jason Zhou ; Anna Hammond <
ahamm...@educatedc.com>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies



I agree with all of that. The shallow ocean has neither the storage
capacity nor the residence time to be a good site for storing CO2.   While
ocean currents may not make it possible to push CO2 down into the deep
ocean, you have technical options. For example, you literally could pump
liquid CO2 to the ocean floor.  However, as Peter points out the residence
time is still short compared to the time CO2 impacts the environment.  I
don’t think it is appropriate to solve our climate problem now and leave it
for future generations to figure out how to manage the CO2 release from
upwelling.  If we think of solutions to the problem they need to be
permanent.  This is not entirely an academic perspective.  I would like to
point out that a large part of the antipathy to nuclear power came from the
observation that engineers are loath to guarantee storage times of 100,000
years. People asked, what will happen to future generations. There seems to
be part of the human psyche that reacts to such long-term messes.   If you
want public buy in, you better be able to make the case that the action
which put the carbon in storage, actually solved the problem.



There is a different problem with overshoot management, here you could
convince people that we first and foremost have to buy ourselves 50 years,
and at the end of this period we have to have figured out how to do it
right.  For that reason, I am supportive of growing trees and do other
things that hide carbon for a few decades, with the understanding that it
will have to be cleaned up a second time, and this time for good.



Klaus







*From: * on behalf of Peter Flynn <
pcfl...@ualberta.ca>
*Reply-To: *"pcfl...@ualberta.ca" 
*Date: *Friday, September 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM
*To: *"kcalde...@stanford.edu" , Geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Cc: *Jason Zhou 
*Subject: *RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies



This prompts several comments, and apologies for the delay and to those for
whom this is too basic:



1. The ocean can be thought of as two relatively independent bodies of
water, the shallow and deep ocean. There is a fairly sharp boundary between
the two, called the thermocline. Transfer between the two is limited, as
discussed below. Once something in solution is in the deep ocean, on
average its residence time before getting to the shallow ocean is 600 to
1000 years. This is an average; there are regions of the ocean where
circulation between the deep and shallow ocean is very limited, and the
site specific residence time is longer.



The deep ocean is cold and dense. Mixing with the shallow ocean is
energetically difficult because of the energy required to move a dense
element up against gravity across the thermocline into a less dense zone.



2. The interaction between shallow and deep is limited to downwelling and
upwelling currents. There are two major zones of downwelling current, a
zone in the north Atlantic called the GIN (named for its proximity to
Greenland, Iceland, and Norway) and a zone in the Antarctic by the Weddell
Sea. The GIN down

RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Peter Flynn]

This prompts several comments, and apologies for the delay and to those for
whom this is too basic:



1. The ocean can be thought of as two relatively independent bodies of
water, the shallow and deep ocean. There is a fairly sharp boundary between
the two, called the thermocline. Transfer between the two is limited, as
discussed below. Once something in solution is in the deep ocean, on
average its residence time before getting to the shallow ocean is 600 to
1000 years. This is an average; there are regions of the ocean where
circulation between the deep and shallow ocean is very limited, and the
site specific residence time is longer.



The deep ocean is cold and dense. Mixing with the shallow ocean is
energetically difficult because of the energy required to move a dense
element up against gravity across the thermocline into a less dense zone.



2. The interaction between shallow and deep is limited to downwelling and
upwelling currents. There are two major zones of downwelling current, a
zone in the north Atlantic called the GIN (named for its proximity to
Greenland, Iceland, and Norway) and a zone in the Antarctic by the Weddell
Sea. The GIN downwelling current is called the North Atlantic Deep Water
(NADW), and is the countervailing flow to the Gulf Stream. Downwelling is
driven by a combination of temperature and high salinity (the high salinity
is in part driven by evaporation in the Mediterranean Sea, a current from
which joins the Gulf Stream). NADW and the companion Gulf Stream were
interrupted for about 1200 years when Lake Agassiz, a glacial fresh water
lake in North America, flowed into the Atlantic after an ice dam melted.
The result was a 1200 year European cold period known as the Younger Dryas.



Europe has centers of high population at latitudes higher than any other
region on the globe; the Gulf Stream is credited for enabling this. One
concern cited about global warming is that melting of Greenland ice could
interrupt the NADW / Gulf Stream again: the irony is that an early product
of global warming could be a European “ice age”.



3. Songjian Zhou and I looked at whether one could move CO2 from the
atmosphere into the deep ocean by increasing the concentration of CO2 in
NADW. Our answer was no: the surface water descending into the NADW was
saturated in CO2. But the deep ocean is not saturated in CO2, because of
its higher pressure.



4. Hence discussion of moving deep ocean water into the shallow ocean
baffles me. Yes: it contains nutrients. But it also contains CO2, which
would flash as the pressure dropped and temperature increased. It strikes
me that we should think of the deep ocean as the sink for CO2, not a source
of a “fix”. Any plan to use the nutrients in the deep ocean to grow marine
biomass to be sunk into the deep ocean (or utilized as biofuel) would have
to be carefully tested against the CO2 release.



5. Glen Tichkowsky and I looked at a scheme in which ocean side pools of
sea water would be used to grow algae. Evaporation would increase the
salinity  of the pond to a point where the water could be moved as a batch
into the deep ocean without pumping. The rate limiting step, by an order of
magnitude, was the rate of transfer of CO2 from atmosphere to ocean; it was
sufficiently slow to make the cost of carbon sequestration by this scheme
prohibitive. I understood after this work why commercial algae growing
operations often include agitation (to enhance mass transfer) or CO2
injection. Transferring CO2 into solution is well served by a higher
concentration, e.g. flue gas.



I hope this is helpful.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455















*From:* kcalde...@gmail.com [mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken
Caldeira
*Sent:* Monday, September 11, 2017 7:03 AM
*To:* Geoengineering 
*Subject:* [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies



fyi



[image:
http://sable.madmimi.com/view?id=37127.2887543.1.7549b994549320031d05f495dbf42a2e]

Sustainable Ocean Summit 2017 SESSION SPOTLIGHT Ocean NETs: CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) The
Internatio



[image: SOS2017 bannerRegistrationOpen 600x150px]
<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/37127?id=2887543.2303.1.c94303a2dc2c5c07d90790b5f2ba98d4>


Sustainable Ocean Summit 2017 SESSION SPOTLIGHT
<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/37127?id=2887543.2304.1.a0bb2736e6402dc798ad4baa8e92c3d4>



[image: ***]


Ocean NETs: CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions
Technologies (NETs)



[image: Screen Shot 2017-09-08 at 21.10.24]
<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/37127?id=2887543.2305.1.93a67d8d56ade51b064a6de73b758487>



The International Climate Agreement (Paris 2015) requires negative emission
technologies (NETs) to rem

RE: [geo] CLIMEWORKS

[Peter Flynn]

A few thoughts.



The question “is it economic” is, for me, the wrong question. Of course it
isn’t; if it were, we would be doing it already. To me, the more relevant
question is what is the cost per tonne of CO2 equivalent removed from the
atmosphere, either by avoided “business as usual” emissions or direct
capture. Strive for a program of mitigation that has the least social cost.



$600 per tonne isn’t a low cost relative to other choices, but as noted by
others, the key question is whether successive implementation might reduce
the cost, as occurred with wind, solar and electrical batteries (and
computer chips).



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2017 12:20 PM
*To:* David Sevier ;
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [geo] CLIMEWORKS



A personal view :



Even if this,scaling works, and it can be done for 60/to, that's still
roughly 60 trillion USD that needs to be found. (Roughly the entire UK
government sector since the second World War) There won't be a business
model for most of that -  except by public mandate or subsidy, which is
tantamount to a tax.



That doesn't seem even slightly realistic to me.



A



On 28 Jul 2017 19:08, "David Sevier" 
wrote:

Time I chimed in on this discussion. I agree with Klaus on this one.
Climeworks faces a lot of headwind and should be encouraged  not picked at.
Klaus and I know a lot about many of the issues faced by these guys because
we both have worked on commercializing this technology. The issue of moving
air through the equipment is a relatively minor issue when you get down to
it. We spent a lot of time on this and have good solutions for this. There
are a number of solutions to either cut down the pressure drop through the
equipment or induce the air flow through the equipment. A solar chimney is
one solution but it would not be my first or even third choice.



The core problem is the lack of market to pay enough for the CO2 capture to
start this industry off. Overcoming this beyond quite small and somewhat
difficult niche markets is the problem. What is needed is a political
framework to create some sort of air based carbon credit that has a higher
price than a standard carbon credit. There has been some discussion of how
this could be done so I won’t go into here. Our company put our work in
this area on hold until the commercial situation evolves to something that
makes better commercial sense.



I commend Climeworks for their continued push.





David Sevier

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

Tel 44 (0)208 288 0128

Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129



This email is private and confidential













-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School

[Peter Flynn]

The fear of leakage strikes me as one of those “ghosts in the night”, a
goblin that leads to yet more delay. Natural gas reservoirs have held
methane at very high pressure for ~100 million years or more. Sealing
technology for wells tapping and producing that natural gas is outstanding:
the producers of the gas can’t afford to lose the methane. Why do we think
that carbon dioxide in such a formation, stored as a gas, would behave
differently than the natural gas? Ditto re CO2 disposal in saline aquifers.



I am occasionally disheartened by the number of what appears to me to be
side issues that arise to complicate and delay progress in removing carbon.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Rau
*Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2016 10:04 AM
*To:* macma...@cds.caltech.edu; myles.al...@ouce.ox.ac.uk; 'Stephen Salter'
; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 'Oxford Martin Info' <
i...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising
temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School



Just to "inject" a comment on this point:

"Large-scale CO2 disposal (CDD), on the other hand, will necessarily take
decades to ramp up, because it’ll take that long to establish leakage rates
from geological reservoirs, monitor the impact on ocean biology or
circulation if an ocean storage route is taken, reassure the public the CO2
isn’t going to leak out and poison them all in their beds, build the
necessary plant etc."



Unclear why CDD is the weak, risky link if we spontaneously convert excess
CO2 to other stable, benign and potentially beneficial compounds such as
biomass or (bi)carbonates. Leakage problem (and seismic events) solved (or
greatly reduced) and the very expensive CO2 concentration step is
completely avoided(?)



Greg



--

*From:* Douglas MacMartin 
*To:* myles.al...@ouce.ox.ac.uk; 'Stephen Salter' ;
geoengineering@googlegroups.com; 'Oxford Martin Info' <
i...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk>
*Sent:* Monday, November 21, 2016 6:23 AM
*Subject:* RE: [geo] CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising
temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School



Hi Myles,



Broadly agree that because of the scale issue, it necessarily takes longer
to ramp up CDD.  Just two comments:



1.  I think that with some amount of money (probably a few billion) we
could technically get some stratospheric aerosol injection in of order 3-5
years, but it would be pretty insane (or desperate) absent more research.
I think that while there will always be things we don’t know, that there is
still quite a bit we can learn from modeling and small scale
experimentation/monitoring, so that if we eventually started a deployment
we could do it more intelligently (e.g., what set of latitudes, altitudes
to inject, what do we think will happen, better quantify uncertainties in
key processes, measure them where possible,…).  Ben, Phil, Jane & I
recently tried to summarize what we don’t know:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000418/full.  My guess is
that a properly-funded strategic research program aimed at developing
reasonable risk reduction would be at least 20 years, probably a fair bit
longer than that, so if we want to know whether this is a viable option or
not before we cross the 2C threshold, we need serious research starting
now.  And for marine cloud brightening the situation is worse insofar as we
don’t understand really basic physics (like how well it works, where it
works,…)  So part of our difference in perspective is simply that the
longer you stare at a problem the more you realize you don’t know.  And
just like CCS, any technology development program will take a long time.

2.  In principle one could start SRM and ask for a lot of cooling right
away, but that’s not likely to be a good idea unless one is desperate
(e.g., trying to reverse a tipping point).  Much more likely (to me) is to
ramp it up gradually (e.g. hold temperatures constant at 2C or something
like that if mitigation is heading for a 3C stabilization before long term
CO2 removal).  Reason for ramp up is (a) reduces risks associated with
unknowns (i.e., if you get anything wrong, it will be at a lower amplitude
where it has less impact) and (b) there are dynamic response issues
associated with rapid changes in forcing.  So it may well be that the
time-scales for detection of side-effects are not short, and driven by
one’s choices of how slowly to ramp up.



doug



*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] *On
Behalf Of *M

RE: [geo] Re: CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School

[Peter Flynn]

High concentration CO2 is available from any oxygen gasification process;
the problem, of course, is that air separation (oxygen from nitrogen) is
expensive.



As Nilay notes, hydrogen plants (of which there are vast numbers around the
globe, for oil refining) produce a concentrated CO2 stream. The reaction is
methane plus steam to CO2 plus hydrogen, with the separation of CO2 from
hydrogen; today the separation is done through pressure swing adsorption. I
have always thought of hydrogen plant off gas as “low hanging fruit” in
terms of being a highly concentrated source of CO2, in significant
quantities at any large refinery dealing with a high sulfur or heavy crude.



I am aware of one large scale CO2 recovery project (more than one million
tonnes per year of CO2) from a hydrogen plant, at a Shell heavy oil
upgrader and refinery in Scotford, Alberta, Canada: the Quest project. The
capital cost for the first project was ~1.35 billion $Cdn, about $1 billion
US$. Because of substantial government grants, the information from the
project is in the public domain, but I have not seen any cost calculations
($/tonne of CO2). Numerous links are available on line.



And a separate comment on Nilay’s observation about the diffusion rate of
CO2. Years ago a graduate student and I did a conceptual study of growing
algae in sea water and transporting the algae into the deep ocean via a
density pump (increased salinity through evaporation). The rate limiting
step, by an order of magnitude, relative to photosynthesis was the
diffusion of CO2 from the atmosphere into the sea water. One can note that
commercial plants growing algae for food or nutrition very often include
agitation to enhance the transfer of CO2. Carbon Engineering’s removal
process (David Keith) uses a commercial contactor and high alkalinity to
enhance the transfer from air to liquid.



Peter Flynn



*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Shah, Nilay
*Sent:* Sunday, November 20, 2016 3:00 PM
*To:* Robert Chris ; geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Cc:* Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising
temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School



Dear Chris,



It depends on the source. The largest sources will be coal and gas power
plants which mean nitrogen (by far the largest constituent) some residual
oxygen, water and ‎low level impurities would be vented to the atmosphere
after carbon capture. Some sources eg hydrogen and ethanol plants don't
have much left over once CO2 is removed.



Regards,



Nilay



*From: *Robert Chris

*Sent: *Sunday, 20 November 2016 20:56

*To: *geoengineering

*Reply To: *robert.ch...@open.ac.uk

*Cc: *Geoengineering@googlegroups.com

*Subject: *[geo] Re: CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising
temperatures - we need to find out the costs, fast | Oxford Martin School



Hi Nilay

Can you tell me what else there is in most industrial flue gases besides
the CO2 and what happens to it when the CO2 is captured?

Regards

Robert

On Saturday, 19 November 2016 14:49:27 UTC, Andrew Lockley wrote:

http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/opinion/view/346

CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising temperatures - we need
to find out the costs, fast
15 Sep 2016

Professor Myles Allen, Co-Director of the Oxford Martin Net Zero Carbon
Initiative, gives his views on a new report on carbon capture and storage
(CCS), and asks whether this technology could deliver “net zero CO2 fossil
fuels”.

The UK government has so many things to worry about right now that
combatting climate change appears to have slipped a long way down the
priority list. But ensuring that Big Business pays its way and doesn’t get
away with dumping costs on long-suffering taxpayers and consumers is at the
heart of Theresa May’s agenda. So the report of the Parliamentary Advisory
Group on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), chaired by Lord Oxburgh, should
be at the top of her in-tray this week.

The report recognises that we need a completely new approach to CCS,
because relying on subsidies and various forms of carbon pricing clearly
isn’t working. Everyone agrees that we need to get net global emissions of
carbon dioxide to zero to stabilise climate. There are only two ways to
achieve this: a watertight global ban on the extraction and use of fossil
fuels, or the deployment of technologies to ensure that, if CO2 is
generated by the burning of fossil fuels, it is safely captured at source
or re-captured from the atmosphere and disposed of out of harm’s way.

A global ban on fossil fuels is neither affordable nor enforceable, so
capture and disposal of CO2 is the only option. Assuming we don’t want to
turn the world over to cultivating biofuels and resort to eating insects,
then there will always be some uses of fossil fuels for which there is no
effective non-fossil substitu

RE: [geo] Does 20% increase in photosynthesis in crops = huge carbon removal?

[Peter Flynn]

It is only a removal of carbon is you sequester the residue, or use it as
an energy source to displace fossil fuel usage. Otherwise the extra biomass
is simply degraded to CO2 by the multitude of organisms that do so,
routinely.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Durbrow
*Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2016 10:40 AM
*To:* geoengineering 
*Subject:* [geo] Does 20% increase in photosynthesis in crops = huge carbon
removal?







A recent Science article at
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/857 indicates that
photosynthesis in some crops may be improved by up to 20% resulting in
15-20% larger plants. So I assume this means more carbon dioxide removal.
This is a significant improvement for agriculture but is it a significant
improvement in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? Can any climate
modelers chime in?

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] The trouble with negative emissions

[Peter Flynn]

Ron,



You are correct that we did not analyze the option of biochar or BECCS in
that particular study.



I have been, and remain, a fan of biochar. But at the time of our study,
neither biochar nor carbon capture from flue gas technology was advanced
enough to have reasonable estimates of cost and efficiency. Our goal was to
illustrate an approach to “picking winners” in renewable energy: the lowest
cost per unit of CO2 equivalent removed from “business as usual”. That was
my feeble protest against the mindset of “let’s do a bit of everything”,
which I think will quickly drain the public resources and public will to
tackle renewable energy in a serious way. We recognized that additional
options such as biochar would arise, and could be added in future analyses.



Re biochar, I have read conflicting reports on the soil benefits. Further
research or a meta analysis might be helpful.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

*peter.fl...@ualberta.ca* 

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net]
*Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 7:24 PM
*To:* Peter Flynn 
*Cc:* RAU greg ; olivermor...@economist.com;
Geoengineering ; Michael Hayes <
voglerl...@gmail.com>; Johannes Lehmann ; Erin M Searcy <
erin.sea...@inl.gov>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] The trouble with negative emissions



Peter and ccs



1.  Thanks for the added input.  Please send me whatever you
can along these lines.



2.  But it appears that Erin/you did not analyze either BECCS
or biochar/BEBCS - so I hope she you can comment on the WLL paper, which
does.  I agree that important differences may occur as one adds liquid
biofuels into the mix.  A few biochar companies are doing fuels, but the
majority are either still thinking electricity, thermal or no energy
recovery.



3.  I did have a chance yesterday to talk about this with Prof.
Lehmann.  He concurred that they had not included all the positive benefits
that may occur after pacing the biochar in the soil.  I  personally believe
this will push biochar/BEBCS to the top position at all carbon prices.

The WLL paper was much more directed at a cost analysis than a
carbon analysis - the topic of this list.  I believe the difference in
carbon terms will be large - based on what happens in out years.  And this
seems to happen fast - microbe and fungi responses are fast.



Ron





On Oct 22, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Peter Flynn  wrote:



If one views biomass as the resource, it raises the question, what is the
best end use of that resource? Seven years back a graduate student (Erin
Searcy, now in the US DOE Biomass program, at Idaho National Laboratory)
and I looked at corn stover / cereal straw as the resource, and evaluated
two end uses (power and transportation fuel (ethanol or diesel), via four
processes: power from direct combustion, power from air gasification and
combined cycle (BIGCC), ethanol from fermentation, and diesel from oxygen
gasification and Fischer Tropsch.



In essence: if you owned the biomass resource, what would you do with it?
If carbon had a fixed price, what process would give you the highest
return? If one were in an auction situation (what carbon price do I need to
compete), which process would have the lowest bid?



We developed our economic analysis at different scales for each process,
reflecting that the optimum size of a biomass project depends on a tradeoff
between transportation cost and capital efficiency (economy of scale), and
more capital intense processes such as FT have an optimum size that is
larger. To put this another way, the capital savings per unit output from a
larger scale process are higher for a process with a higher capital cost,
and justify a longer transportation distance for biomass.



The criteria we used for rating the processes was the minimum subsidy per
unit of avoided CO2 equivalent to enable the output achieve a given power
or fuel pricing.



Direct combustion of biomass was more economical (required a lower carbon
subsidy) than BIGCC: the higher cost of BIGCC didn’t justify its higher
efficiency of power production per unit of biomass. Fermentation of
cellulose was more economic than oxygen gasification and Fischer Tropsch.



Since the two end uses (transportation fuel vs. electrical power) are
different, one needed a “map” to identify where power would be the
preferred product relative to ethanol. (One can imagine that in a lower
power cost environment, ethanol would be the preferred product, and vice
versa.) We developed such a map.



The work is based on very preliminary cost estimates, and much has been
learned in the last seven years about the cost of ethanol production from
cellulose. Hence it is not the specific numbers we thought would endure,
but rather the concept of how to approach “what is the best

RE: [geo] Anti biofuels letter

[Peter Flynn]

The thought that harvesting biomass removes carbon from the soil needs
careful checking. I can cite one study in which the recovery of straw from
black prairie soils in Saskatchewan did not reduce soil carbon.



And my reaction is “of course”: half the wheat plant is below the ground,
and regrown every year. Further, nature has evolved a host of bacteria and
fungi that turn the straw on top of the soil into energy and CO2. Hence in
this case whether the straw rots (is digested) or collected on the surface,
the soil carbon is unchanged.



There is no doubt that plowing of soil has reduced soil carbon, and I am
aware of some studies that suggest that in some localities forest
harvesting has reduced soil carbon. But to cite this as a reason to back
away from bioenergy is poor science, or rather non-science.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Ronal W. Larson
*Sent:* Saturday, May 14, 2016 10:26 PM
*To:* Hawkins, Dave ; Geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Cc:* RAU greg ; Andrew Lockley <
andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Anti biofuels letter



Dave, list and ccs



See inserts below.



On May 14, 2016, at 5:50 PM, Hawkins, Dave  wrote:



​Ron,

I you look up the publications of a number of the signers of this letter
you will see that many of them have published papers emphasizing the value
of carbon uptake in forests and soils.

*RWL1:   It would be impossible I think to argue the converse.
I’d appreciate the signer names I should look up who have emphasized
biomass for CDR purposes (i.e. biochar).  I recognize none of the 65 as
having written positively on biochar.*



A major reason many of them oppose this amendment is the language requiring
the adoption of policies that “reflect the carbon-neutrality of forest
bioenergy.

*[RWL2:  The full quote (from below) is:*

*“**reffect the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy and*



*recognize biomass as a renewable energy source, provided theuse of
forest biomass for energy production does not causeconversion of
forests to non-forest use.”*



*I agree that one can utilize biomass in a manner that will not
provide carbon neutrality.  But I argue that biochar can be legitimately
carbon negative (and easier to prove if the pyrolysis gases are utilized to
displace fossil energy - instead of vented or flared).  My best proof are
the Terra Preta soils.  If those soils are evidence of carbon negativity,
 then carbon neutrality is guaranteed as well.  Much biochar is being made
with no energy co-product value - and is still carbon negative -  wot when
placed in the soil, but in a “ hort" time.  I’ll bet most (Congressional
staff?) authors of this amendment never heard of biochar - but biochar’s
rapidly growing acceptance nevertheless makes this above quote correct - in
my opinion.  If not - why not?*





 Their justified fear is that this language will be interpreted as
requiring policies to *assume* that all *or most* forms of forest bioenergy
are carbon neutral.

*[RWL3: I hope that your “most” (highlighted above) is a
concession that one should not “assume” when one has evidence (Terra Preta)
that the assumption is untrue.  Because terra preta exists,
carbon negativity from biomass should not be in question - and therefore
carbon neutrality (less difficult) should not be either.*





 Since such an assumption cannot be justified by science, they oppose this
language.

*[RWL4:   There might have been 1000 papers in the last year in
respected science journals about biochar’s impacts on soils - not all - but
mostly positive impacts;  carbon negativity is rarely disputed in this
biochar literature.  I don’t know of one that suggests carbon negativity is
not possible.  A list of about 1500 cites are given for 2015 in the
bibliography at www.biochar-international.org
<http://www.biochar-international.org>  (about 4500 cites I recall for all
years).  So I am claiming this group of 65 is analyzing biomass and energy
- not biomass and carbon negativity - the subject matter of this list - and
they have come up with an incorrect conclusion on biomass and carbon
neutrality - because their “net” was too small.*





*Ron*


David


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on
behalf of Ronal W.Larson 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 7:09 PM
To: RAU greg
Cc: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Anti biofuels letter

List,  cc Dr. Rau


This is to comment on both the Senate Amendment 3140 and Greg’s reaction,
both received today..

1..   The actual amendment is near the end of the Senate discussion on the
amen

RE: [geo] Fuel switching for carbon negative electric power

[Peter Flynn]

One needs to be careful to avoid early negativity on any technology or
approach to renewable energy, so on the positive side, this will almost
certainly work.



A further question is whether processing biomass is economic relative to
simply letting nature dry the biomass, and then burning it. Answering this
will take a techno-economic evaluation.



Finland processes large amounts of a variety of forest based biomass.
Thinnings, branches and tops are hauled to roadside and bundled, with time
to dry before or after bundling. Stumps are removed from cutting areas,
typically split in three to aid drying for over a year at the roadside,
then hauled to a power plant, chipped and burned. Sawdust and bark from
lumber operations are burned. The point of all of this is that the biomass
is burned, typically in bubbling bed boilers, without chemical modification
other than the evaporation of some of the contained moisture.



The power plants do not pelletize the feedstocks, because the cost of
pelletizing isn’t worth it: better to design solid fuel handling systems
for the fuel as is. The Alholmens 240 MW power plant, which I have visited,
has a feed system that can handle chips, sawdust, and even coal in the
event that biomass is not available.



Torrefaction produces a fuel with a higher energy density; the key question
is whether, like pelletizing, the extra cost is worth it vs. feeding
biomass to a boiler specifically designed for it. The answer is in the
economics, and I look forward to an analysis.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2016 11:32 PM
*To:* geoengineering 
*Subject:* [geo] Fuel switching for carbon negative electric power



Attached presentation

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] Re: Carbon negative energy

[Peter Flynn]

Nutrient balance is an important and interesting question, but not simple.



Imagine collecting straw or corn stover for power generation, vs. letting
it rot on the field. If left, then of the three major nutrients, K, P and
N: phosphorus can be expected to stay in place. However, many soils have an
excess of phosphate, enough in some areas to pose a health issue if it
impacts drinking water supply. Potassium may return to the soil, but might
be transported in runoff, depending on local precipitation patterns and
very local topography. Nitrates are subject to runoff, and can be reduced
back to nitrogen by bacterial action on surface biomass, notably in the
spring (which is why in some agricultural areas grass seed is aerially
sprayed in the fall, to move the nitrate in the grass, above the soil
level, until spring plowing buries the grass). Hence the loss of nutrients
from biomass collection is subject to local analysis.



Biomass processing moves the nutrients away from the field. Ash can be
recycled, at a cost, although not if char is buried (assuming the ash
remains in the char). Nitrogen would have to be made up. If a dollar value
is placed on carbon emission avoidance or negative carbon, it will
overwhelm the cost of the incremental nitrogen requirement, since for
agricultural crops there is already a fertilizer application, only the
dosage is increased: the sole cost is the nitrogen itself.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Rau
*Sent:* Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:11 PM
*To:* briancady...@gmail.com; geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Carbon negative energy



More specifically, from the website:

"While today’s APL Power Pallets produce a relatively small amount of
biochar byproduct (around 5% of input mass), it is still enough for modest
carbon negativity in the fuel cycle. The round rule of thumb numbers are as
follows:

1 tonne of dry biomass in produces about 1Mw/hr of electricity and 50kg of
carbon byproduct.



50kg of raw carbon once recombined with O2 is the equivalent of 185kg of
CO2 in the atmosphere. (mass C x 3.67 = mass CO2)



1 tonne of biomass input to the gasifier can soil-sequester the equivalent
of 0.185 CO2 tonnes in the atmosphere.



Avoided CO2 emissions from not burning fossil fuel in the process are added
to the wins above."



Question: How much of the nutrients in the biomass are returned to the soil
and how much are sequestered/volatilized/lost, i.e is this sustainable?



Greg





--

*From:* Brian Cady 
*To:* geoengineering 
*Sent:* Sunday, January 17, 2016 4:34 AM
*Subject:* [geo] Re: Carbon negative energy



An example of carbon-negative energy sources becoming available:
http://www.allpowerlabs.com/products/20kw-power-pallets

Brian



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] Climeworks - About the Pilot and Demonstration Project

[Peter Flynn]

Does anyone know the adsorbent/absorbent? At the University of Alberta we
did a techno-economic analysis of thermal swing adsorbtion on zeolites. The
problem was that water competed for adsorbtion on the same sites as CO2, so
the only place it was feasible was the driest spot on earth, Antarctica (the
Atacama desert in Chile has too much humidity, or more accurately water in
the atmosphere). For this thermal swing adsorption process to work in
Switzerland it must have an adsorbent that does not attract water relative
to CO2.

Peter

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455



-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 4:10 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Climeworks - About the Pilot and Demonstration Project

http://www.climeworks.com/about-project.html?utm_content=buffera7496&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

About the Pilot and Demonstration Project

The overall goal is to design, build and continuously operate an industrial
scale CO2 capture plant and sell atmospheric CO2 to a customer. The plant
will be operational by mid-2016 and annually capture 900 tons of CO2 from
the atmosphere, enhancing the growth of vegetables and lettuce in a nearby
greenhouse of Gebrüder Meier by up to 20 percent. The plant is constructed
as part of a three-year pilot and demonstration project with Gebrüder Meier
and Zweckverband Kehrichtverwertung Zürcher Oberland KEZO (a municipal waste
disposal
company) as project partners. The project is supported by the Swiss Federal
Office of Energy (SFOE).

Scope & Objective

The main goal of the project is to industrialize Climeworks’ unique Direct
Air Capture (DAC) technology and to build and continuously operate an
industrial scale plant that captures CO2 from ambient air.
Another goal is to determine the plants’ operational costs, which is
currently controversially discussed in the research community. This is an
important finding in order to define business models for implementing the
technology internationally. More about the scope & objective...

Facts & Figures

The DAC plant built in this project has a capacity of supplying up to
900 metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere per year, which is a sufficient
amount for the 4-hectare greenhouse. The energy demand for operating the DAC
plant is expected to be in the order of 1'800 -
2’500 kWh of thermal energy at a temperature of 100°C plus 350 - 450 kWh of
electricity per ton of CO2captured from air. More about the facts & figures…

Partners

Climeworks AG (DAC plant design and operation) Zweckverband
Kehrichtverwertung Zürcher Oberland - KEZO (Energy supplier) Gebrüder Meier
(CO2 customer) Swiss Federal Office of Energy - SFOE (Supporter)

More about the project partners…

--
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] Pathways of processing of wet microalgae for liquid fuel production: A critical review

[Peter Flynn]

Years ago a student and I analyzed a concept of growing algae (batch) in
shallow ponds of seawater; the idea was that as the algae grew, the
salinity of the water would increase until the algae laden water would flow
into the deep ocean without pumping.



We never published this work other than as a thesis. We found that the rate
limiting step, by an order of magnitude, was the transfer of CO2 from
atmosphere to water; photosynthesis and evaporation/densification had far
higher rates. This helped me understand why all commercial algal operations
(e.g. for nutrients) use agitation to increase the gas to liquid transfer
rate.



The slow rate of CO2 uptake made the cost of carbon capture excessive
compared to alternatives.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:24 PM
*To:* geoengineering
*Subject:* [geo] Pathways of processing of wet microalgae for liquid fuel
production: A critical review



Poster's note : relevant to BECCS. Algal schemes have repeatedly been
raised on this list

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115008473

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

December 2015, Vol.52:1240–1250, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.005

Pathways of processing of wet microalgae for liquid fuel production: A
critical review

Sofia Chaudry
Parisa A. Bahri
Navid R. Moheimani

Abstract
Microalgae have tremendous potential for producing liquid renewable fuel.
Many methods for converting microalgae to biofuel have been proposed;
however, an economical and energetically feasible route for algal fuel
production is yet to be found. This paper presents a review on the
comparison of the most promising conversion pathways of microalgae to
liquid fuel: hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), wet extraction and
non-destructive extraction. The comparison is based on important assessment
parameters of product quality and yield, nutrient recovery, GHG emissions,
energy and the cost associated with the production of fuel from microalgae,
in order to better understand the pros and cons of each method. It was
found that the HTL pathway produces more oil than the wet extraction
pathway; however, higher concentrations of unwanted components are present
in the HTL oil produced. Less nutrients (N and P) can be recovered in HTL
compared to wet extraction. HTL consumes more fossil energy and generates
higher GHG emissions than wet extraction, while the production cost of fuel
from HTL pathway is lower than wet extraction pathway. There is
considerable uncertainty in the comparison of the energy consumption and
economics of the HTL pathway and the wet extraction pathway due to
different scenarios analysed in the assessment studies. To be able to
appropriately compare methodologies, the conversion methods should be
analysed from growth to upgradation of oil utilising sufficiently similar
assumptions and scenarios. Based on the data in available literature, wet
oil extraction is the more appropriate system for biofuel production than
HTL. However, the potential of alternative extraction/conversion
technologies, such as, non-destructive extraction, need to be further
assessed.

Abbreviations
HTL, hydrothermal liquefactionCHG, catalytic hydrothermal gasificationHT,
hydrotreatmentAD, anaerobic digestionSCWG, supercritical water
gasificationECR, energy consumption ratioH&P, heat and power

Keywords
Conversion
Hydrothermal liquefaction
Wet extraction
Non-destructive extraction
Bioenergy

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] biofuelwatch | Tell your MP: No subsidies for forest-destroying biomass power

[Peter Flynn]

The use of subsidies to move wood, as pellets, across 1/3 of the globe has
always struck me as flawed in two regards. First, it is one atmosphere: why
not pay a subsidy to burn the wood at its point of origin. Second,
pelletizing wood is costly: I know of no wood burning power plant that
pelletizes a local source of woody biomass. The Alholmens 240 MW plant at
Pietersaari, Finland, burns a mix of sawdust and chips from stumps, forest
harvest residues (limbs and tops), and thinnings: none of that supply is
pelletized.



Hence on economics alone, regardless of any forest impact issue, I think
transporting pellets to Europe is flawed.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3:14 PM
*To:* geoengineering
*Subject:* [geo] biofuelwatch | Tell your MP: No subsidies for
forest-destroying biomass power



Poster's note : shared for info only. The campaign shows that BECCS isn't
just scientifically controversial, but is attracting public protest - even
at its current, tiny scale. One can only expect this to grow, should the
process scale.

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2015/mp-lobby/

TELL YOUR MP: NO SUBSIDIES FOR FOREST-DESTROYING BIOMASS POWER

Posted on July 17, 2015 by Sophie

The UK burns more wood in power stations than any other country in Europe.
Companies like Drax, who lobbied hard for generous subsidies, are importing
millions of tonnes of wood pellets, many of them made from whole trees from
clear-cut wetland forests in the southern US. Those are forests teeming
with plant and animal species, many of them endangered and some of them –
such as the Venus flytrap – found nowhere else in the wild.  Cutting down
such forest ecosystems fuels climate change, too.  Many peer-reviewed
studies confirm that burning wood pellets sourced in this way can be even
worse for the climate than burning coal.

Without public subsidies, companies would not be shipping wood pellets
across the Atlantic and burning them in power stations.  Whilst the
Government has slashed subsidies for onshore wind and solar power, Drax is
on course to pocketing nearly £2 million in subsidies every single day.

Please help us persuade the new government to change its energy policy:
Support needs to go towards energy efficiency, home insulation and truly
climate-friendly renewable such as sustainable wind and solar power – not
to dirty, destructive and high-carbon biomass electricity.

We are asking you to ask your MP to lobby the new government do this.

Many MP’s may not themselves have heard about the impacts of large-scale
bioenergy. And if an MP gets more than one letter on an issue it really
moves it up the agenda!

Please read, and if you can, personalise, the letter below and we will send
it to your MP, asking them to join us in calling for an end to subsidies
for biomass electricity.

We would also like to get questions asked in the House of Commons on a more
regular basis, so if you would be able to ask your MP to do that (we
would/can supply the questions) please email biofuelwa...@ymail.com to let
us know!

If you or your MP would like more background information, please read our
“UK Election 2015 Briefing”.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate - ERL

[Peter Flynn]

If the object is restoration of sea ice, I continue to believe that a
direct approach of thickening sea ice by pumping sea water onto it, thereby
circumventing the self insulating feature of natural formation of sea ice,
is the quickest, most direct, and most proven approach, easily terminated
if any unintended consequence is observed.



Thickening ice by putting water onto the surface of existing ice is well
proven for both fresh water and sea water. Ice roads throughout the north,
including the supply road to Leningrad during WWII, are built this way. Sea
water was used in the Beaufort Sea to quickly build ice islands to support
drilling platforms, with maximum thicknesses greater than eight meters.



To the extent that the ocean can be brightened without ice, it would
perhaps make more sense to do this at lower latitude, to reflect more light
per square meter of brightened surface.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Caldeira
*Sent:* April-30-15 8:07 AM
*To:* Andrew Lockley
*Cc:* Cvijanovic, Ivana; geoengineering; Doug MacMartin
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice
restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate - ERL



I agree that it would be good to investigate Arctic cloud brightening.



We studied Arctic Ocean brightening because it has been proposed by
ice911.org, among others, and has not yet been subject to scrutiny in a
peer-reviewed context.



Also, note that ocean surface whitening has a long pedigree, being proposed
by none other than the President's Science Advisory Committee in 1965.



http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf



Furthermore, we have previously analyzed effects of reducing Arctic
insolation at the top of atmosphere.



http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4039



The analyses of ocean surface albedo whitening and top-of-atmosphere solar
insolation reduction should provide useful context for studies of effects
of changes in Arctic cloud properties.



Best,

Ken





On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

Ken

I appreciate that this is an idealised experiment, but I'm still puzzled by
the design.

Surely any serious attempt to cool the land down, or to reduce global
temperatures, would be based on generalised ocean cooling, in the manner of
MCB.

Could you explain why you chose to investigate the pattern of ocean albedo
alteration prescribed in your paper?

A

On 29 Apr 2015 23:05, "Ken Caldeira" > wrote:

Folks,



Please find attached the paper cited.



The paper has attracted some press attention.



Also, here are simplified forms of two figures from the paper.



Best,



Ken






[image: Inline image 1]
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150428171402.htm>
Whitening the *Arctic* Ocean: May restore *sea ice*, but not climate
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150428171402.htm>

Science Daily - Apr 28, 2015

Ivana Cvijanovic, Ken *Caldeira*, Douglas G MacMartin. Impacts of ocean
*albedo* alteration on *Arctic sea ice* restoration and Northern Hemisphere
climate. Environmental Research Letters, 2015; 10 (4): 044020 DOI:
10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044020 ...
Geoengineering *Arctic* Ocean *albedo* will not mitigate climate change
<http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/61045>

environmentalresearchweb - 12 hours ago

But a bigger question is whether the approaches would even reduce warming
as they intend, which is why Ivana Cvijanovic and Ken *Caldeira* at the
Carnegie Institution for Science, US, together with Douglas MacMartin at
the California Institute of Technology, addressed this puzzle for ocean-
*albedo* modification. ... Some of the results were positive: an extreme
*albedo* boost could recover 40% of the *sea ice* that existed
pre-industrialization and cool the surface of the *Arctic* by some two
degrees. However, the ...
Study: *Arctic* Whitening Might Help *Ice* But Not Climate
<http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/study-arctic-whitening-might-help-ice-but-not-climate.html>

reportingclimatescience.com - 15 hours ago

New research from Carnegie's Ivana Cvijanovic (now at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory) and Ken *Caldeira*, as well as Douglas MacMartin of
Caltech, shows that while an incredibly large effort could, in principle,
restore vast amounts of *sea ice* by this method, it would not result in
substantial cooling. As a result, it ... Imposed *albedo* changes and *sea
ice* recovery alter climate outside the *Arctic* region too, affecting
precipitation distribution over parts of the continental United Stat

RE: [geo] Keystone pipeline veto importance?

[Peter Flynn]

Ron and group,



I see the Keystone decision, as occurs with so many decisions, as a
tradeoff of conflicting values. All heavy oils (Venezuelan, Mexican, and
Canadian) have a higher carbon output than light crudes, and there is no
question that the oil/tar sands are heavy. There is also no question that
the likelihood of a Canadian interruption of supply to the US is lower than
from the Middle East, Nigeria, Venezuela or Mexico.



For me, and I think independent of the disclaimer below, the US oil
security question would trump the incremental carbon contribution that is,
as Ron notes, quite small incrementally; if I were the US president I would
bring the oil into the US and pay for /require offsets. “Dirty oil” from a
source with a long history of shared values and a 4000 mile undefended
border, and with non-state ownership of resource development projects,
trumps both “dirty oil” from scary countries, and for me “cleaner oil” from
scary countries.



In a perfect world we would wave a magic wand and get off fossil fuels
quickly. This just isn’t going to happen, sad to say. The most recent US
election points, in my mind, to a future where the likelihood of an
absolute denial of carbon’s impact on climate change is heightened. Coal
usage in the US for power generation, which is at least one order of
magnitude higher in carbon emissions than the oil sands, has a strong
protector in the majority leader of the US Senate. Hence I think of the
energy security issues that face the US. I would love to trust in a stable
Saudi Arabia, Middle East, Venezuela and Mexico, but I wouldn’t bet my
country’s economy on it.



The point is made that the Canadian oil would be exported from the US Gulf
Coast to offshore markets. That might be true in 2018, but will it be true
in 2028, 2038? The point is made that Venezuela is a key supplier of heavy
oil to meet current US needs. In terms of energy security, my reaction is
QED.



So for me economic security issues trump the incremental carbon impact,
which as Ron notes, is small and can be offset. Regrettably, there is
little near and mid-term prospect of the US weaning itself from oil, so for
me buying oil from a safe source has value. Add to this two other
observations. The US State Department concluded, I think correctly, that if
the oil doesn’t go to/through the US it will get to international markets
by other routes. Further, the response to a lack of pipeline capacity has
been a huge increase in the shipment of oil by rail, less efficient and
safe than pipelines.



Now the disclaimers. I live in Alberta, Canada. I have worked in the energy
industry. I have a son in the US military who received a minor wound while
stationed in the Middle East, and I consider that one major function of the
US military is securing a safe world for the transport and usage of oil.



A final comment. People on both sides of this discussion have claimed that
their position is a “no brainer”. I think this is a wrong claim on both
sides. Trading economic security against an admittedly more carbon intense
fuel source is a difficult tradeoff.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Ronal W. Larson
*Sent:* January-10-15 4:33 PM
*To:* Geoengineering
*Subject:* [geo] Keystone pipeline veto importance?



List:



Because moderator Andrew is in London, he may feel it
inappropriate to report on what many US environmentalists see as an
important likely near-term climate victory - President Obama’s promised
veto of the Keystone pipeline.



A bill has passed the US House and soon likely the same in the
US Senate.  The White House Press Office has said President Obama will veto
this - despite a majority of the US electorate wanting the pipeline built.
Is an Obama veto important?



Here are two recent articles saying his veto is important:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-point-of-the-keystone-fight/

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/the_keystone_xl_pipeline_debate_is_right_where_we_want_it

Probably most US pundits say no - too little actual carbon involved.



I suggest this veto is important for future geoengineering
discussions as well as climate discussions.  There is still hope that the
US can be both a climate and geoengineering (especially CDR/NET) leader -
in Paris talks this year.



Other thoughts?



Ron

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit thi

RE: [geo] Watch "Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals…" on YouTube

[Peter Flynn]

A few thoughts:



1. This is not novel technology. Ice bridges, roads and islands have been
built with both salt and freshwater. Thickened sea ice from ocean water has
been used to make roads and both floating drilling platforms and platforms
thick enough to anchor on the seabed in the shallow Beaufort Sea. For a
sample reference, one of many, see



http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpubs.aina.ucalgary.ca%2Farctic%2FArctic33-1-168.pdf&ei=ehaoVJicAoKmNq2VhNgG&usg=AFQjCNH9gFxqWhBtkVOQIQ-c6lm23Q7daw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.eXY



2. Rapid formation of ice is enhanced by spraying a fine mist into the air
(many who ski will have seen this done at ski hills). This is energy
intensive, but could be used to accelerate the creation of sea ice in open
water in the winter.



3. Simple low lift pumping of water onto the surface is the technique used
in making ice bridges and road in the north. Very thick structures are made
in weeks.



4. Andrew has expressed a concern about the formation of brine “lakes” on
the top of ice if the concentrated brine does not find its way through the
ice. (Brine is rejected into the ocean as natural sea ice forms at the
bottom of an ice sheet, and sea ice tends to have many micro-channels.) Two
thoughts. Any attempt to enhance the formation of sea ice would start with
a small scale demonstration, and the brine question could be easily
resolved. Second, what if brine does form on the surface? If the ice is
going to melt anyway, one is left with sea water either way.



5. I think that adding anything to ice (like sawdust or straw) vastly
complicates. First, it raises ecological questions, and second, as Andrew
points out, the logistics are terrible. In this case I personally lean to
“keep it simple”: just pump the water to surface to enhance heat transfer
to the air during the cold winter.



6. Many years ago a graduate student and I did a conceptual evaluation of
enhancing sea ice for a different purpose, to sustain the North Atlantic
Deep Water (NADW) current that is the offset of the gulf stream. We
envisioned that both spray and low lift pumping would be used on a massive
scale to create one Sverdrup (10^6 m^3 per second) of downward current. The
spray would hasten the formation of new sea ice, which would then be
thickened by low lift pumping. The melting of this ice in the spring would
enhance NADW, since a downflowing current in the North Atlantic requires
both salinity and temperature. Hence we presumed that the surface ice
created retained the brine/salt, but we noted that this was a key research
question. Our work is in Zhou and Flynn, Climatic Change (2005) 71 203-220.
I would be happy to forward a copy to anyone interested.



7. Either way, as Andrew notes, experimentation on a small demonstration
scale would be helpful in resolving questions. I think it is important to
note that such a demonstration would be using well proven past technologies
that have been used in both salt and fresh water in order to answer
questions specific to a sea ice enhancement project.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* January-03-15 3:42 AM
*To:* John Nissen; geoengineering
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Watch "Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering
Proposals…" on YouTube



It's not so simple

1 the Arctic is basically a small continent, so scales are enormous
2 adding straw, etc is a great idea, but logistics are horrific
3 brine rejection is a big issue. It needs to either drain through the ice
(needing drilling or pumping) or it will pond on the surface or as
inclusions (probably both) the resulting ice is unnatural and unstable, as
it's darker and more prone to fracture.
4 it may be far easier to use icebreakers, which expose a lot of clear,
dark water. They also don't have a brine rejection issue.
5 thickening key areas of ice may be far more effective than general
thickening, as most ice loss is ultimately wind driven. You need only stop
the wind clearance, and you stop the loss (to a point)

Experiments are needed before advocacy.

A

On 3 Jan 2015 10:35, "John Nissen"  wrote:

Hi Peter,



Thanks for this important contribution to the discussion on cooling the
Arctic.  We need to throw as many practical techniques as we can at this
problem, since saving the sea ice is so vital.  And speed is vital - so we
should start pumping this winter!



But there are some questions about the method.  Does one need to use fresh
water, or will sea water suffice?  Should one spray the water to produce
snow for wider cover, or can one simply pour the water onto the ic

RE: [geo] Watch "Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals…" on YouTube

[Peter Flynn]

Cooling the Arctic will drop the temperature and get to the fundamental
cause of shrinking ice: rising temperature.



In the meantime, the formation of ice can be vastly accelerated by a simple
and well demonstrated technology: pump water on top of ice during the
winter. The fundamental concept is that there is plenty of “cold” in the
winter, one simply gets around the insulating impact of the ice itself (in
nature, incremental sea ice forms at the bottom of the sheet).



Spray technologies, energy intensive, have built ice islands for drilling
platforms in one season that are 8 meters plus in thickness; this is much
like making “snow” on ski hills. Ice bridges are typically built with low
energy intensity: just pump water on top of existing ice.



One merit of this approach is that it can be instantly stopped if any
unanticipated negative impact arises, reducing the fear factor in the
uninformed.



Making sea ice doesn’t address the rising temperature itself other than by
restoring the albedo of the ice cover itself, but it does sustain the ice.
I think it is a good companion to temperature/insolation modification
schemes.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Nissen
*Sent:* January-02-15 8:50 AM
*To:* bobbywood2...@gmail.com
*Cc:* Alan Gadian; Stephen Salter; geoengineering
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Watch "Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering
Proposals…" on YouTube



Dear Rob,

This is an extremely relevant discussion for any attempt to cool the Arctic
in order to halt sea ice retreat.  (There is strong evidence that the
retreat is already having an effect on N Hemisphere climate due to jet
stream disruption, so a strong argument to try cooling the Arctic ASAP.)

The two main approaches being considered are (i) to produce a reflecting
stratospheric haze at mid to high latitude and (ii) to brighten marine
clouds (MCB) in the troposphere over the North Atlantic and North Pacific.
In both cases the aim is to cool surface water flowing into the Arctic and
thereby slow sea ice melt and allow it to reform more easily.  Much of the
surface water at higher latitudes (between about 50N and 70N) finds its way
into the Arctic.  About 10% of the world's freshwater flows in the Arctic
Ocean.

Most of your discussion has involved consideration of MCB, creating the
cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) from ships.  Since there are so many
unknowns about the effectiveness, couldn't we have some useful experiments
from aircraft, or has this been done already?  For example, you point out
that turbulence changes could reduce or enhance the initial enhancement -
and if it is a reduction this could be showstopper.

Two further approaches for cooling the Arctic involve clouds: (iii) cloud
removal to increase outgoing thermal radiation, and (iv) cloud seeding to
produce fresh snow and thereby increase surface albedo on a regional
scale.  In both these cases, we need to test the production of CCN from
aircraft and monitor effectiveness.

Could you envisage a crash programme for testing of these various
approaches, to see which is most appropriate and effective in different
locations, at different times of year and under different circumstances
(existing cloud conditions, etc)?  Has anything like this been done already?



Cheers, John





On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Rob Wood  wrote:

A straightforward way to prevent plume sinking (if indeed it turns out
to be undesirable for particle dispersion), is to heat the stack. This
happens already on all cargo ships.



I don't believe that coagulation will be a showstopper although
experiments will be necessary to confirm this because coagulation
depends on the exact size distribution and charging and this cannot be
predicted from modeling alone. Some degree of charging may well occur
(not my expertise) but this will likely depend on the spray method.
Effervescent spray atomization (see Cooper et al. article in Phil
Trans 2014 special issue), does not seem to make a lot of charged
particles.



Observations show that shiptracks are rarely observed in boundary
layers deeper than 1km. Globally, most stratocumulus occurs in PBLs
deeper than this. But shiptracks themselves (although highly visible)
are not necessary for MCB to work. Greater dispersion in the subcloud
layer prior to ascent into the stratocumulus deck in the
intermittently coupled layer above, might increase efficacy by
producing a more evenly distributed droplet concentration enhancement
(Stephen alluded to this).



That said, I disagree that the albedo enhancement required (e.g., to
offset CO2 doubling globally, i.e., about 4 W/m2) is small. Only 20%
of the planet has clouds that may be seedable, so the solar re

RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich

[Peter Flynn]

I find it discouraging that so much commentary on climate change and its
subset, geoengineering, is focused on “that won’t work”, with its subset,
“how will we govern that”. I think of World War II, where humans found ways
to take action with a smaller chorus of negativity.



One constant element in such commentary is that any action (sometimes even
research) will decrease the incentive for emissions reduction, and hence
such action should be not taken. I reflect on King Canute who, when wanting
to convince subjects of the limitations of his power, went to the surf and
ordered the tide not to come in. Let those convinced of the reliable
efficacy of CDR travel to China and India to convince the masses that they
shouldn’t buy a car, and report back. I hope we can reduce worldwide
emissions, but saying we shouldn’t have research and demonstration of
thoughtful contingency options strikes me as reckless.



I would love to see a demonstration scale direct capture program in any
country; it would add to the body of knowledge about the numerous choices
that lie in the future. Ditto re a biochar demonstration scale project.
Ditto re many others. And I would love to see some of the energy that goes
into seemingly endless discussions of governance shift into populating our
knowledge of options.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455





*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* December-20-14 9:44 AM
*To:* geoengineering
*Subject:* [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture
programs to prevent climate change | Deich



Poster's note : view online for useful graphs.

https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/the-flawed-appeal-of-unilateral-action-to/

The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent
climate change

DECEMBER 20, 2014
For the past 20 years, UN-led climate change negotiations have failed to
produce an accord that halts the rise of global GHG emissions. Given this
track record, it’s easy to see the appeal of the idea proposed in
a recent New Republic article: that the US alone could prevent climate
change by investing heavily in large-scale carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”)
deployments.

The idea in the article goes something like this: the US (and/or some of
its developed country allies) would fund a “Manhattan Project” for Direct
Air Capture (“DAC”) systems. DAC systems scrub CO2 from ambient air; the
resulting CO2 can then be buried deep underground, where it would be
trapped in impermeable rock formations. If DAC system costs fell
substantially, the US alone could fund massive “artificial” forests that
offset large portions of global GHG emissions.

Unfortunately, there are three major problems with this plan:

Problem #1: The hypothetical costs of the “mature” DAC systems described in
the article are likely an order of magnitude too low. The article claims
that:“If $30/ton were indeed possible, the U.S. government could construct
huge forests of “artificial trees” in American deserts and absorb 30
percent of 2013’s carbon emissions for about $90 billion per year…”

The problem here is that the author is quoting figures in $/t Carbon (and
not $/t CO2) as is done in the rest of the article: 30/t Carbon translates
to a price of less than $10/t CO2 (as a CO2 molecule weighs over three
times as much as a molecule of pure C). Today, simply injecting CO2
underground and making sure it doesn’t come back up — a relatively mature
process thanks to decades of enhanced oil recovery efforts — costs around
$10/t CO2. Even the biggest proponents of the field say that DAC systems
are unlikely to cost less than $50-$100/t CO2 even when mass produced.
Asking the US to pursue a $0.5-$1T unilateral DAC program seems
significantly less feasible than the <$100B program outlined in the article…

Problem #2: The reliance on the “silver bullet” of DAC systems. There are
numerous proposals for CDR systems, nearly all of which are expected to
cost less than DAC systems

This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t invest in developing cost-effective DAC
systems, but rather that we should invest in a broad portfolio of CDR
approaches alongside other GHG mitigation techniques such as renewable
energy and energy efficiency. Instead of a Manhattan Project for DAC
systems, a better recommendation would be to scale up ARPA-E, SunShot, and
other existing applied research programs in a way that incorporates CDR
approaches and can find the most cost-effective portfolio of solutions to
mitigating climate change. Which all leads to…

Problem #3: The biggest problem of all with the article is the the framing
that a CDR research program would be a “hedge” against international
climate negotiations not working. Instead, a robust CDR research agen

RE: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere | Zee News

[Peter Flynn]

Re: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere |
Zee News

North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) is thought to primarily form in the open
ocean and does not originate from the brine coming off the bottom of sea
ice.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike MacCracken
*Sent:* September-23-14 6:32 PM
*To:* Ken Caldeira; Greg Rau
*Cc:* Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering; soeren.rysga...@ad.umanitoba.ca
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in
atmosphere | Zee News



In my reading, the wording was very confusing. Reading more carefully, it
seemed to me that they were saying that there will be less CO2 in the ocean
as a result of melting back of the sea ice. An open Arctic with no sea ice
formation would imply less down-welling due to not forming dense brine
pockets, so one mechanism would be a consequence of that, and another might
be due to the greater stability of the ocean in the warm season. I did not
read the paper, but, once I got past some unclear wording, the sign sort of
made sense.

Mike


On 9/23/14 1:52 PM, "Ken Caldeira"  wrote:

Agree with Greg.

If there is any net effect of this process at all (relative to the no-ice
situation) then quantitatively it must be tiny tiny tiny.

If the alkalinity represented by the Ca2+ in the CaCO3 was in the surface
ocean with no ice, that would tend to draw CO2 into the ocean.


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira

Assistant:  Dawn Ross 


On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Rau, Greg  wrote:

"A new study has revealed that Arctic Sea ice helps remove carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere and its depletion would result in an increase of
atmospheric concentration of the gas." [?!]

How does removing CO2 from air increase air CO2 concentrations? Anyway, can
believe that CaCO3 precipitates and CO2 is generated as seawater freezes
and brine is formed: Ca(HCO3)2aq ---> CaCO3s + CO2g + H2O.  But whether the
CO2 is then subducted with the sinking brine or degasses to the atmosphere
would seem critical to the air/ocean CO2 budget. That some CaCO3s is
entrained in the the ice seems logical, but how the preceding reaction is
reversed to consume this carbonate and CO2 is unclear. There would need to
be a way to concentrate CO2 to generate H2CO3 to then consume the CaCO3s to
(re)make Ca(HCO3)2aq.  How does that happen? Anyway, if it does happen this
would seem to offer a new explanation for glacial/ interglacial CO2
variations, not to mention a new method of modern day CDR - bomb sea ice
sheets with limestone particles.  Beneficial "chemtrails on ice" ;-)
Greg

--

*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
on behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:56 AM
*To:* geoengineering
*Subject:* [geo] Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in
atmosphere | Zee News

http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/arctic-sea-ice-depletion-to-result-in-rise-of-co2-in-atmosphere_1474406.html

Arctic sea ice depletion to result in rise of CO2 in atmosphere Last
Updated: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 12:38

Washington: A new study has revealed that Arctic Sea ice helps remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and its depletion would result in an
increase of atmospheric concentration of the gas.

Dorte Haubjerg Sogaard, PhD Fellow, Nordic Center for Earth Evolution,
University of Southern Denmark and the Greenland Institute of Natural
Resources, Nuuk, said that if their results are representative, then sea
ice plays a greater role than expected, and we should take this into
account in future global CO2 budgets.

The researchers said that they have long known that the Earth's oceans are
able to absorb huge amounts of CO2. But they also thought that this did not
apply to ocean areas covered by ice, because the ice was considered
impenetrable. However, this is not true, as the new research shows that sea
ice in the Arctic draws large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere into the
ocean.

Sogaard said that the chemical removal of CO2 in sea ice occurs in two
phases. First crystals of calcium carbonate are formed in sea ice in
winter. During this formation CO2 splits off and is dissolved in a heavy
cold brine, which gets squeezed out of the ice and sinks into the deeper
parts of the ocean. Calcium carbonate cannot move as freely as CO2 and
therefore it stays in the sea ice. In summer, when the sea ice melts,
calcium carb

RE: [geo] More Naomi Klein

[Peter Flynn]

Naomi Klein’s long term focus has been an attack on capitalism, and this
latest inclusion of GE and climate change in her repertoire sits, as I see
it, over her underlying theme. I personally have found her, in the little
contact I have had with her work, to be both shallow and tendentious. This
leads me to focus on more productive uses of my time than plowing through
her work to find the point at which capitalism will be the real enemy.



I find an irony here in that epidemiologists looking for the progress of
emission caused illnesses went into eastern Europe after the fall of the
iron curtain, because failure to shut down or control polluting industries
created large numbers of cases of illnesses not experienced in the west,
which had avoided them by more effective regulation.



My brief encounter with this thread about NK has reinforced my prior view.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Rau
*Sent:* September-20-14 11:44 AM
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Cc:* jm...@earthisland.org; klp...@gmail.com
*Subject:* [geo] More Naomi Klein



http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/16/whether-we-engage-or-do-nothing-changes-everything



NK - "A great many of us engage in this kind of climate change denial. We
look for a split second and then we look away. Or we look but then turn it
into a joke (“more signs of the Apocalypse!”). Which is another way of
looking away.

Or we look but tell ourselves comforting stories about how humans are
clever and will come up with a technological miracle that will safely suck
the carbon out of the skies or magically turn down the heat of the sun.
Which, I was to discover while researching this book*, is yet another way
of looking away."

* *http://thischangeseverything.org/book/
<http://thischangeseverything.org/book/>*



GR -  GE = looking away = climate denial? What fantasy world is she talking
about, and for what purpose, entertainment or propaganda?



In an earlier interview:
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/05/naomi_klein_big_green_groups_are_crippling_the_environmental_movement_partner/



Salon -

"You were talking about the Clean Development Mechanism as a sort of
disaster capitalism. Isn’t geoengineering the ultimate disaster capitalism?"



NK  - "I certainly think it’s the ultimate expression of a desire to avoid
doing the hard work of reducing emissions, and I think that’s the appeal of
it. I think we will see this trajectory the more and more climate change
becomes impossible to deny. A lot of people will skip right to
geoengineering. The appeal of geoengineering is that it doesn’t threaten
our worldview. It leaves us in a dominant position. It says that there is
an escape hatch. So all the stories that got us to this point, that flatter
ourselves for our power, will just be scaled up."



[There is a] willingness to sacrifice large numbers of people in the way we
respond to climate change – we are already showing a brutality in the face
of climate change that I find really chilling. I don’t think we have the
language to even describe [geoengineering], because we are with full
knowledge deciding to allow cultures to die, to allow peoples to disappear.
We have the ability to stop and we’re choosing not to. So I think the
profound immorality and violence of that decision is not reflected in the
language that we have. You see that we have these climate conventions where
the African delegates are using words like “genocide,” and the European and
North American delegates get very upset and defensive about this. The truth
is that the UN definition of genocide is that it is the deliberate act to
disappear and displace people. What the delegates representing the North
are saying is that we are not doing this because we want you to disappear;
we are doing this because we don’t care essentially. We don’t care if you
disappear if we continue business-as-usual. That’s a side effect of
collateral damage. Well, to the people that are actually facing the
disappearance it doesn’t make a difference whether there is malice to it
because it still could be prevented. And we’re choosing not to prevent it.
I feel one of the crises that we’re facing is a crisis of language. We are
not speaking about this with the language of urgency or mortality that the
issue deserves."



GR So if failure of emissions reduction is genocide and GE has a chance of
mitigating that genocide why is considering and evaluating GE a bad thing?
It is precisely because we are failing to do the hard work of emissions
reduction and genocide avoidance that makes considering alternative actions
essential. Contrary to her statement otherwise, geoengineering clearly does
threaten her w

RE: [geo] Enough of govern-nonsense

[Peter Flynn]

Andrew et al.,



Thanks for your comments. I share the view that endless discussions of how
to regulate geoengineering consume effort and postpone action.



Many years ago I was working on a major project, multi-billions of dollars,
in the early conceptual stage. We had a schedule of eight to ten years to
startup. The then quite old project manager made a comment that stuck with
me my whole life: “If this was World War II, we would do this project in 30
months. So the question is, how much longer do we need because it isn’t
World War II.”



I have the same sense of addressing climate change, both by emission
reduction and by geoengineering of impact: it isn’t yet “World War II”
urgency. But as Andrew notes, we get closer to the waterfall….



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Salter
*Sent:* August-03-14 10:56 AM
*To:* kcalde...@gmail.com; Ronal Larson
*Cc:* Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Enough of govern-nonsense



Hi All

Please excuse any query marks which Thunderbird thinks should be added to
my emails without troubling to inform me.

I foolishly started saving papers on 'geo-politics' some time ago.?
Sometimes there were several a day, many very similar.? Some were even
about the number of papers.? The folder now has 3400 files.?

There are about 30 really useful papers on climate models.? I know of? 5 on
engineering hardware to actually do something unless people can tell me
about any more.? Perhaps someone should write a paper about the balance of
effort.

Stephen


Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering. University
of Edinburgh. Mayfield Road. Edinburgh EH9 3JL. Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs YouTube
Jamie Taylor Power for Change


On 03/08/2014 17:42, Ken Caldeira wrote:

>From the perception of a physical scientist,h it seems that to publish a
new physical science paper you need new facts, but to publish a new
"governance" or "ethics" paper you just need opinions, and it seems like
they don't even have to be new opinions.



Much of the low-hanging fruit that could be picked by climate modeling has
already been picked, so in the absence of physical experiments, it is
becoming harder and harder to generate new empirical facts. ?On the
contrary, the number of people who feel a need to express their opinions on
governance and ethics issues appears to be growing daily.



As a consequence, it seems as if the ratio of governance/ethics papers to
papers reporting new empirical facts is increasing without bound.?






___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science?

Dept of Global Ecology

260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

+1 650 704 7212?kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab??

https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira



Assistant: ?Dawn Ross 





On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Ronal W. Larson 
wrote:

Andrew ? ?cc list

? ? ? ? Can we assume that your use of the term "geoengineering" below is
meant to ONLY include the term "Solar Radiation Management " (or SRM) or
"Solar geoengineering"? ? You do not mean to include the terms "Carbon
Dioxide Removal" (CDR) and "Negative Emissions Technologies" ?(NETs)?

Ron



On Aug 3, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:

> Just a personal opinion, but one that's been brewing for a while. ?I
> am definitely NOT writing this in my capacity as list moderator!
>
> I'm concerned that governance and social policy research is not always
> entirely what it seems. ?My suspicion is that it's potentially a
> delaying tactic. ?This work is advocated by funders and politicians to
> avoid grasping the nettle of seemingly-odious experimentation. ?I'm
> not saying that anyone who works in the field is acting in bad faith,
> but there's a risk that social/governance work is supported because
> there's a need to 'do something' about geoengineering, but not
> actually to do anything that would possibly upset anyone. ?The risk is
> that such lily-livered prevarication stops us learning crucial lessons
> about the science - lessons which would help us better answer the
> governance questions (which we delay the science in order to seek
> answers to).
>
> To make genuine, effective policy decisions, we need accurate
> information about the science and engineering. ?Governance research in
> a 'fact-vacuum' achieves little. ?Governance decision-making without
> the friction of urgency lacks realism. ?The problem with the
> 'governance firs

RE: [geo] Ocean waves influence sea ice extent

[Peter Flynn]

My thought: thicken the ice by pumping water from under the ice to the top
during the winter, using barge mounted pumps powered by wind generated
electricity. Stronger, more mass, hence slower to melt.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* May-29-14 12:53 PM
*To:* geoengineering
*Subject:* [geo] Ocean waves influence sea ice extent



Any ideas on this? Some possibilities:
Drill holes in ice to allow water to slosh through.
Binding ice together with straw, etc.
Inject air under the ice

Ocean waves influence sea ice extent
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27591369

Ocean waves influence sea ice extent
29 May 2014 11:51
By Jonathan Amos

Science correspondent, BBC News

The team placed sensors on the floes to track the disturbance caused by
ocean waves
Large ocean waves can travel through sea ice for hundreds of kilometres
before their oscillations are finally dampened, scientists have shown.

The up and down motion can fracture the ice, potentially aiding its
break-up and melting, the researchers told Nature magazine.

They say storm swells may have a much bigger influence on the extent of
polar sea ice than previously recognised.

The New Zealand-led team ran its experiments off Antarctica.

They placed sensors at various distances from the edge of the pack ice, and
then recorded what happened when bad weather whipped up the ocean surface.

For smaller waves, less than 3m in height, the bobbing induced in the floes
quickly decayed. But for waves over 3m, the disturbance sent propagating
through the pack ice was sustained for up to 350km.

"At the ice edge, it's quite noisy," explained study lead author Alison
Kohout, from New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
Research in Christchurch.

"You have lots of waves coming from all directions with a full spectrum of
frequencies. But as the waves move into the ice, this all gets cleaned up
to produce one beautiful, smooth wave of constant frequency," she told BBC
News.

"The ice floes bend with the waves, and over time you can imagine that this
creates fatigue and eventually the ice will fracture. Interestingly, the
fractures tend to be perpendicular to the direction of the waves, and to be
of even widths."

"The fractures tend to be perpendicular to the direction of the waves, and
to be of even widths"
Computer modellers have been trying to simulate the recent trends in polar
sea ice - without a great deal of success.

They have failed to capture both the very rapid decline in summer ice cover
in the Arctic and the small, but nonetheless significant, growth in winter
ice in the Antarctic.

Dr Kohout and colleagues say their experiments offer some clues - certainly
in the south.

When they compared observed Antarctic marine-ice edge positions from 1997
to 2009 with likely wave heights generated by the weather during that
period, they found a strong link.

For example, where storminess was increased, in regions like the
Amundsen-Bellingshausen Sea, ice extent was curtailed.

In contrast, where wave heights were smaller, such as in the Western Ross
Sea, marine ice was seen to expand.

One very noticeable aspect of the recent growth in Antarctic winter sea ice
has been its high regional variability.

The team says that if models take more account of wave heights then they
may better capture some of this behaviour.

The recent growth in Antarctic sea ice has been a highly regional phenomenon
The group did try to look for a similar relationship in storminess and ice
extent in the Arctic but found there to be insufficient data to draw any
firm conclusions.

The geography at the poles is quite different. The Arctic is in large part
an ocean enclosed by land, whereas the Antarctic is a land mass totally
surrounded by ocean. Many of the ice behaviours and responses are different
as a result.

"I think what's interesting for us in the Arctic is that the 'fetch' is
increasing - the distance from the shores to the ice edge is increasing,"
commented Prof Julienne Stroeve from University College London and the US
National Snow and Ice Data Center.

"That would allow the wind to work more on the ocean to produce larger
waves that can then propagate further into the ice pack.

"[Another recent paper has already suggested] that wave heights are going
to change with increasing distance from the ice edge to the land, and that
could have more of an impact on ice break-up."

jonathan.amos-inter...@bbc.co.uk and follow me on Twitter: @BBCAmos

BBC © 2014

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" grou

RE: [geo] Re: Sea Ice

[Peter Flynn]

 Re: [geo] Re: Sea Ice

Stephen is right on three counts: water flows a great distance before
freezing even at very cold ambient temperatures, northerners have long
experience of both keeping water flowing and dealing with frozen pipes, and
frozen pipes are readily thawed in the presence of electric power, by
direct (if metal pipe) or indirect (by heat tracing) heating of the pipe.
Wind turbine power is the source we envisioned in unstaffed pumping
stations. We did not envision long pipe runs, rather long water flow paths.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Salter
*Sent:* May-22-14 10:40 AM
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Sea Ice



Mike

During winter if you suck the water up fast from a bit below the surface
you should be able to pump it some distance before it is frozen especially
if we can use insulted pipes.  You would not be able to stop but you could
back away from the edge of the extending ice.  We need to do the sums about
latent heat and heat transfer from air to a moving jet.  The ideal would be
freezing shortly after landing but, if the ice is fairly flat, the rate of
draining will be quite slow.

If there is any chance of a break in energy supply we would need to warm up
frozen pumping equipment but I understand that Canadians have to do this
every winter morning to start their cars so it is not a show stopper.

Stephen

On 22/05/2014 15:46, Mike MacCracken wrote:

I’m a bit baffled (and late in responding. The sea water temperatures are
typically very near freezing. The idea might work in the fall but I don’t
see how it works the rest of the year (ocean temperatures too near freezing
in the winter; air temperatures too high in spring and summer).

Mike


On 5/17/14 5:57 PM, "ecologist"  wrote:

Greg, Ron, Peter, Geo-group


The technology proposed by Zhou and Flynn [1] <
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226572639_Geoengineering_Downwelling_Ocean_Currents_A_Cost_Assessment/file/60b7d51ae05c2c75ae.pdf>
 to “*re-ice the Arctic*” during the winter uses snow cannons powered by
wind turbines floating on barges.

In his doctoral thesis of Dr. Denis Bonnelle proposed a similar technology
called “*Polar air and water freezing towers*” for Polar Regions like in
northern Norway or Alaska, where high mountains are close to the sea.
The scheme of the thermal device proposed by Bonnelle (pages 120-125 <
http://data.solar-tower.org.uk/thesis/2004-Denis-BONNELLE_Solar-chimneys_Energy-towers_etc.pdf>
) consist in transporting sea water till the top of northern mountains
where the air is very cold, have a heat exchange between the cold air and
the water which is carried back downhill to the ocean just before freezing,
where floating ice and saltier water are released. The water is transported
up and down in an open conveyor, cooled at the top of the mountain under a
tall chimney, where the air that cooled the water has been warmed up and
rises. The buoyancy of this hotter air than ambient warms drives turbines
at the bottom of the chimney, producing renewable energy.
There are multiple benefits provided by this thermal device: at the tower
output moist air is released, which can favor snow falls, and thus increase
the polar albedo *replacing old ice on glaciers, probably polluted with
soot and black carbon by whiter and fresher snow with high albedo*. The ice
released in the sea increases sea ice content, and increases Earth albedo.
The saltier water released helps to the preservation of downwelling ocean
currents and, last but not least, carbon-free electricity is produced.
The capacity of these “*Polar air and water freezing towers*” and
“*ice-producing
barges*” to *re-ice the Arctic, increase Earth albedo and to prevent
methane hydrates destabilization* deserves more scientific studies to prove
the concept, which is worth being evaluated in light of the potential
multiple benefits.
Many other similar concepts are proposed in
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.032 <
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.032>
 <
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-736FYU1t7Xc/U3falM8NXvI/ACA/XW0kZ4G3FeA/s1600/snow-cannons+for+Refreezing+the+Arctic.jpg>



*Scheme of the “snow-cannons to re-ice the Arctic” proposed by P. Flynn [1]
<http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226572639_Geoengineering_Downwelling_Ocean_Currents_A_Cost_Assessment/file/60b7d51ae05c2c75ae.pdf
<http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226572639_Geoengineering_Downwelling_Ocean_Currents_A_Cost_Assessment/file/60b7d51ae05c2c75ae.pdf>>
*Image: A.Naeg/AFP/Scanpix. The “*ice-producing barges” *are powered by
wind turbines.
 <
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Bmz8Oj_8bLE/

[geo] RE: Sea Ice

[Peter Flynn]

Ron,



Thanks for these comments.



I’ll start with sea ice extent. It is important to realize that there are
two effects going on when one makes sea ice. The first is the transfer of
heat the atmosphere, which would lead to increased radiation into space,
all other things being equal. This takes place wherever incremental ice is
made. The second effect is related to albedo, and is less certain. As
Andrew Lockley pointed out, this depends on whether the upper layer of ice
is salty and melts early.



If the salt remains in the surface ice, any program should focus on
restoration of the extent (area coverage) of ice, recognizing that the
albedo impact will be less significant. If the salt migrates through
microchannels into the sea water below the ice, one could thicken ice to
historical levels as well as extending its area. However, the double
benefit would come from extending the area of ice coverage.



Next, I’ll comment on fresh water ice formation. A researcher at the
University of Alberta has studied the endangerment of polar bears around
Hudson’s Bay due to ice melting two to three weeks earlier than historical
records. This limits the polar bears’ access to baby seals, which are
critical to them building up sufficient fat (and yikes, doesn’t nature
offer tough choices, save a bear and kill a baby seal). Thickening the ice
on Hudson’s Bay would have the benefit of heat transfer to the atmosphere,
longer ice for polar bears, and perhaps longer albedo (again, depending on
salt disposition). If one were to go past historical ice cover it might
impact the ecosystem in ways we don’t understand (a merit of ice making is
that one can control the extent to restoration rather than incremental
coverage, in time or area). However, one could also flood land in the north
with fresh water, retarding the time of melt and increasing the duration of
high albedo.



Finally, I did not see any coverage of the concept of making ice in the
recent documents, although I did not do an extensive search. I think the
concept of making ice has far less traction than aerosols, despite the fact
that making ice is a common practice in the north with well documented
processes.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net]
*Sent:* May-13-14 10:53 AM
*To:* Peter Flynn
*Cc:* Geoengineering
*Subject:* Re: Sea Ice



Peter and list:



Two questions:



a.  Was there anything on your ideas below in either AR5 or the
NCA?   I have not yet read all of either, but have read all I could find in
each on geoengineering.  Your concepts below don’t fit nicely into the SRM
and CDR camps, but would still seem safe to be called geoengineering.
 Since not even mentioned, the going will be hard unless some government
agency gets interested.



b.  You say in last sentence> *“…..**restoration of ice cover
to historical levels**…**.**”* Am I correct
that we only need to add enough ice to get through September?   That means
adding little near the north pole and progressively more ice as one moves
south (ignoring ice gyres).  Maybe reaching a maximum of 2 meters of
man-made ice, but an average added thickness of (a guess) a meter?   This
seems likely to be (another guess) 10% as hard as reaching “historical”
levels, which must be an added  3-4 meters everywhere.

I just watched a short 32-year month by month video display on
arctic ice thickness in the last graph at the site given previously:

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas

(running at 1/4 speed or twice speed is also interesting to
follow)
One thought from watching this video is that there may be some
inland, freshwater ice in Canada that already has disappeared in June or
July - that may be easier to reverse - and get an equivalent albedo effect.
 Another is that northern-most Canada is the last place to try to reverse -
very thick there now.



Below the video are some other Arctic-ice-disappearance plots I
had missed before, that support the concept that the NCA and AR5 are not
accurately reporting how fast Arctic ice is disappearing.





Ron







On May 13, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Peter Flynn  wrote:



Ron et al.,



Some thoughts re geoengineering sea ice:



Sea ice can be made; it has been done in the past, through two methods,
pumping water on top of existing ice, and spraying water in the air. The
spray technique is much like making artificial snow at a ski resort.
Pumping sea water on top of ice is a low energy application: “low lift”
pumping of high volumes of water is a current practice, for example moving
river water into settling basins prior to water treatment. This kind of
application could be easily powered by w

RE: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase carbon storage options

[Peter Flynn]

Deep ocean injection is one option. I think the critical depth is 3000 m;
below that the CO2 remains a separate phase and would sink to the bottom.
Deep ocean residence time on average is 600 to 1000 years, but zones of the
ocean are more isolated from currents and would have a longer residence
time. The pool of CO2 on the ocean floor would impact biota.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Rau
*Sent:* February-04-14 12:20 PM
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase
carbon storage options



Happy to help you tilt at the DOE windmill, but the problem is much larger
than this FOA. The problem is the assumption that supercritical CO2 can be
affordably produced from waste sources in the first place.  Until (if) that
is solved, what to do with such CO2 seems rather secondary (also scary
considering the volatility of conc CO2 at ambient T and P).

What needs to happen is R&D on reacting CO2 out of waste streams to make
stable/useful compounds other than conc CO2,  the standard approach in
mitigating all other gaseous pollutants. How/why DOE has avoided doing this
for CO2 mitigation is the "burning" question  ;-)

Greg


--

*From:* "markcap...@podenergy.org" 
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Greg Rau 
*Sent:* Monday, February 3, 2014 8:04 PM
*Subject:* [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase carbon
storage options



Greg and Group,



The U.S. Department of Energy plans another $6million to check out
deep-earth supercritical CO2 storage.  If you have the ear of a State
Governor or Senator, you could send them the attached.



State interests come in two flavors:

1.  Coastal states and territories without oil and gas wells (and therefore
not likely to have locations for deep-earth supercritical gas storage)
including: Hawaii, Florida, Maine, southeastern Alaska, Puerto Rico, etc.



2.  Coastal states with fracking produced oil because the oil industry will
employ CO2 enhanced oil production to keep the wells flowing longer while
"storing" CO2.  The DOE funded research would reduce the risk of CO2
leaking, so California might want DOE covering 80% of the research cost.
 States in this boat include: California and Gulf Coast states.

The logic for extending the definition of "geologic storage" is in the
sample letter.



Mark



Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: [geo] Making ice (change of thread title)

[Peter Flynn]

A few comments.

First, I think it is important to be cautious about concluding that
anything is unworkable when it is in the early conceptual stage; important
not to discourage idea building that sometimes leads to novel places.

That said: I think of the thermal diode as a means of enhancing heat
transfer to the atmosphere, and eventually to space.

One application of this is to simply increase the rate of cooling of ocean
water, independent of ice formation. Some years back a student and I
pondered what humans might do if ice melting reduced the strength of the
Gulf Stream. (The Gulf Stream is the replacement current for sinking North
Atlantic Deep Water, NADW, a 15 Sverdrup downwelling of cold salty water
in the Greenland/ Iceland/ Norway (GIN) area. The irony is that the
consequence of excessive fresh melt water in the North Atlantic during
warm periods is that northern Europe plunges into a deep freeze because
NADW, a density driven current, slows or stops. This occurred about 12,000
years ago, for 1300 years, in a period known as the Younger Dryas when
glacial Lake Agassiz flowed into the North Atlantic.) Our conceptual
scheme for enhancing NADW was supplementing ice formation in the winter by
pumping water to surface (we noted that this would only work if salt was
trapped in the ice formed on the surface). It would be interesting to see
if long thermal diodes might be an alternate scheme for generating cold
downwelling water. But this need not focus on NADW: if the goal is to cool
the earth or stop the thermal expansion of the ocean, get more heat out of
it. The key engineering question would be, I think, the magnitude of heat
transfer from diodes compared to that from the ocean surface itself: how
much enhancement takes place.

I think it is harder to conceptualize thickening sea ice with a thermal
diode. If the diode is in the ice itself it will subcool the ice
substantially, getting around the self-insulating property of ice.
However, the diode gets farther away from sea water as ice forms at the
bottom of the sheet. If the diode is below the ice sheet one wonders if
the chilled water would sink away from the bottom of the ice sheet. This
is not a problem for a thick glacier, which is riding on a lubricating
layer of water: could one pin the glacier in place by freezing the bottom
layer in winter, subcooling it enough to last through the summer season,
since the insulating property of ice would now work in the opposite
direction?

Andrew's observation that open ice behind ice breakers quickly freezes
over in cold weather is intriguing. Might one herd ice south from the
Arctic Ice sheet, time and again, to increase the area of annual ice
formation?

The question of salt disposition if one thickens ice by pumping water on
top of it is a persistent unknown. How I would love to see a test of this;
as Ron points out, a submarine could easily be equipped to do a small
scale test. Does the salt stay in the ice on the surface, or does brine
find a way down to the sea, through microchannels. If the salt does stay,
what is the impact in the spring.

Peter Flynn

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455





-Original Message-
From: Doug MacMartin [mailto:macma...@cds.caltech.edu]
Sent: January-15-14 5:36 PM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; 'Ronal Larson'
Cc: 'Keith Henson'; 'Geoengineering'; 'John Nissen'; 'Peter Flynn'; 'RAU
greg'
Subject: RE: [geo] Making ice (change of thread title)

The only advantage is the disposition of the salt - making ice thicker at
the bottom ensures that the salt stays in the water, not the ice.  As has
been pointed out before, we don't know what happens with the salt if you
flood the ice from the top, nor whether higher-salinity ice creates a
problem by melting earlier.

However, given that the oil industry seems to use this approach regularly,
it seems like it ought to be relatively straightforward for the right
person to actually collect some data rather than simply trading
hypotheses.  (The right person almost certainly isn't me, much though I'd
love the excuse to head up to the Beaufort sea.)

-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:24 PM
To: Ronal Larson
Cc: Keith Henson; Geoengineering; John Nissen; Peter Flynn; RAU greg
Subject: Re: [geo] Making ice (change of thread title)

Personally, I can't see these thermal diodes being at all practical.
Far cheaper and simpler to just break up the ice, or pump water on top of
it.  The maths is pretty simple.  The thermal diode can only be at a
temperature of the water, at a maximum.  It's heat transfer is a function
of the surface area exposed to the air. 

RE: [geo] Meanwhile: 'Irreversible' Melting Threatens 'Considerable Increase' to Sea Level Rise

[Peter Flynn]

This is a marvelous concept that is new to me.



Envision a large number of such pipes installed in polar ice sheets. One
might focus on two goals.



The first would be to lower the temperature of the bottom of the ice sheet
in order to promote its growth from the bottom. This has the merit of
avoiding the issue of salt in ice: when ice forms at the bottom of an ice
sheet the ice itself is low in salt and a brine sinks away from the ice.
Would one have to keep sinking the pipe into the ice sheet as the ice
thickens.



But alternatively, one might simply have a long pipe with the goal of just
getting more heat above the ice, to be ultimately radiated away, with a
goal of countering deep ocean temperature rise.



Interesting technical concept.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455









*From:* Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net]
*Sent:* January-14-14 6:04 PM
*To:* Keith Henson; John Nissen; Peter Flynn
*Cc:* RAU greg; Geoengineering
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Meanwhile: 'Irreversible' Melting Threatens
'Considerable Increase' to Sea Level Rise



Keith etal  (adding in John Nissen and Peter Flynn )



1.  Most interesting.   I own a solar thermal system with the same heat
pipe theory at work - and would have never carried it over to your Pine
Island example.  This to answer your first question on my part.  Thanks.



2.   Adding John and Peter because of their interest in the northern
equivalent.  I think there we are talking of possibly being able also to
add ice just below the existing surface layer, so as to maybe add months to
the ice area/extent lifetime.  Maybe especially to be located where there
is known methane below.



3.  One beauty is that this is a closed system.  Any cites on the liquids
used for the Alaska pipeline?  Should be able to design something that
floats; totally passive. Has potential multi-year usage even if nothing
possible during part of the summer.  Maybe a gang could be tied together
underwater.



4.  Answering your second and final question,  I would guess that the idea
does qualify as “geoengineering” - but not under the SRM or CDR categories.
  The Oxford dictionary says:

·*the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental
process that affects the earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the
effects of global warming.*



5.  Since you “obviously" need a three-letter acronym, a few possibilities
(has to work at both poles, with both long and short pipes) are:  “PIM=
Polar Ice Making”, “PPI = Polar Passive Ice-Making”,  “PHP = Polar Heat
Pipe”,  “PHI = Polar Heatpipe Ice-making” .

These are maybe not inclusive enough terms.  Maybe “TET = Thermal
Energy Transfer”  or “PET=Passive Energy Transfer”  or “POC  - Passive
Ocean Cooling”



Best stop until we hear more about past pipeline economics, and more
knowledgable feasibility responses than mine.  Again thanks.



Ron





On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Keith Henson  wrote:



I wonder if anyone has thought about stopping the Pine Island Glacier
by freezing it to bedrock?

What it would take is a number of thermal diodes.  They were used on
the Alaskan pipeline to keep it from sinking over areas of permafrost.

All they are is a hole drilled to the bottom of the glacier, lined
with a closed end pipe, a heat radiator on the top and a few gallons
of propane or ammonia.

The way they work is that when the air is colder than the bottom of
the pipe, the liquid boils at the bottom, sucking out heat, vapors go
up and liquid runs back down.  The process stops when it is warmer on
top than at the bottom.

They are not very expensive, each one (over time) freezes a large area
of the glacier to the underlying rock.

A floating version can freeze a substantial block of ice out of
seawater in the winter.

I wonder if this would be considered geoengineering?

Keith


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Ronal W. Larson
 wrote:

Greg etal

  Because this paper is behind a paywall,  I can barely glean from their
figures that they may be looking at a fifty year time horizon.  Did they
look at all at either SRM or CDR when using the term “irreversibility?
(quotes in the original - why?)

Ron


On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/13-2
Antarctic Glacier's 'Irreversible' Melting Threatens 'Considerable Increase'
to Sea Level Rise
New study on Pine Island Glacier shows 'striking vision of the near future,'
says co-author
- Andrea Germanos, staff writer
An Antarctic glacier is melting "irreversibly," offering "a striking vision
of the near future," a new study shows.
The study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at
Pine Island Glacier, the largest single contributor to sea-level 

RE: [geo] NOAA's Arctic 2013 report

[Peter Flynn]

Andrew and group,



There are two sea ice processes that could be of interest: inducing ice
sheets where they would otherwise not occur, and thickening sea ice where
it has occurred. The former would be achieved by spraying ocean water into
cold air, the latter by pumping water onto the surface of ice.



Both of these processes are well demonstrated. Thick ice islands in the
Beaufort Sea were made by spraying; numerous ice roads and bridges are made
every winter by flooding, not spraying.



The disposition of salt is of interest in both cases. The bottom of natural
sea ice is full of microchannels where brine exits as ice forms; to my
knowledge no one is sure whether these would provide a brine path from the
top of ice. Of equal interest is the impact in the spring if salt does
accumulate in artificially thickened ice. As Ron Larson has pointed out,
these questions could easily be assessed in both laboratory and small field
experiments rather than being deemed as insoluble barriers.



As regards pumps freezing in: people in northern climates routinely pump
water, including routinely pumping water to surface. The perception of
pumps encasing themselves in ice blocks is not observed; slope/flow issues
are routinely managed.



I have some concern with any concept related to geoengineering being
dismissed on hunch rather than evidence. All schemes, perhaps especially
atmospheric aerosols, have those who “just know” it won’t work.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455











*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
*Sent:* January-06-14 6:44 PM
*Cc:* geoengineering
*Subject:* RE: [geo] NOAA's Arctic 2013 report



I've had extensive discussions with PC Flynn offline, and I thought the
discussion would merit a brief summary here.

Here's what I personally have learned about pumping water on top of sea ice
(much of this might be wrong!)

1. Loading up sea ice with more sea ice results in deformation of the ice
below. That might seem obvious, but the fact you don't get much of a hill
when you load ice on ice surprised me. I thought thick sea ice would be
stiffer.

2. When ice bridges and Islands are made, it's not completely clear what
happens to the salt. Briny water probably runs into the sea if there's open
water. But if there's none, it's not clear whether you'd get ponds, slush
puppie, or ice with Briny inclusions.

3. The effect of 2 on albedo isn't clear.

4. Making ice bridges and Islands is relatively established technology, but
it's surprisingly expensive. Radical cost saving may be possible, but the
technology currently relies on spraying droplets high into the air, not
pumping flowing water onto ice.

5. It's possible to pour water onto the sea ice. This uses less energy than
squirting it in a massive fountain. But it's not clear whether the pump
would just get buried under a plug of ice if left for any time.

6. To prevent a low head pump sealing itself into an icy tomb, you'd have
to extend the exit pipe as the ice sheet bent. It will inevitably move the
pump further and further under water (see 1). It's unclear if this process
of pipe extension could be automated in any way.

7. It's not clear how far water flooding onto the ice would flow. It might
freeze quickly, giving a small area of thick ice, or it might flow a long
way (far more useful). The deformation of the ice means there won't be much
of a slope.

In summary, it seems to me that pumping water over ice has a number of
fairly serious practicality issues, and it's by no means clear that it
could ever be made affordable.

As I say, the above is purely my personal view. It's not been agreed with
anyone else.

A

On Dec 27, 2013 8:29 PM, "Peter Flynn"  wrote:

Ron,



Thanks for these thoughts; I’ll share mine, and comment on Mike
MacCracken’s and Emily Lewis-Brown’s thoughts as well.



1. Accelerating the formation of ice by either making snow or simply moving
water on top of existing ice is an old and well proven simple technology.
Fresh water ice thickening is used annually in many northern locations to
make ice roads and ice bridges, and design standards are well established: (
http://www.dot.gov.nt.ca/_live/documents/content/Ice%20Construction%20Field%20Guide%20web.pdf)
.



An artificially made thick ice island grounded on the ocean floor was used
in the Beaufort Sea as a drilling platform: the island was made by
artificial snow formation by spraying sea water into the air. There are
many references, including
ftp://ftp2.chc.nrc.ca/CRTreports/PERD/IAHR_04_Sliding.pdf .



Spraying is more energy intensive than flooding. Flooding requires minimal
energy: as Ron notes, ~90% of 

RE: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach

[Peter Flynn]

My chemistry is as or more rusty, but isn’t HCO3- in a second equilibrium,
with CO2 and water? Does increasing the HCO3- concentration push CO2 out of
the ocean?



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Caldeira
*Sent:* December-13-13 12:06 PM
*To:* Keith Henson
*Cc:* Elton Sherwin; tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk; geoengineering;
Andrew Lockley
*Subject:* Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate
weathering as a CCS approach



The basic idea is:



CO2 (gas) + CaCO3 (solid) + H2O (liquid) -->  Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- (dissolved in
the ocean)






___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science

Dept of Global Ecology

260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab

https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira





On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Keith Henson 
wrote:

Elton, could you real quickly go through the chemistry involved?

I miss seeing how CaCO3 absorbs more CO2, but my chemistry is rusty by
many decades.

Keith


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Elton Sherwin
 wrote:
>
>
> I am very interested in using limestone to sequester CO2 in power plants.
> This approach--and related limestone based approaches--seem to have
promise.
> And as Ken says they look more affordable than competing technologies.
>
>
>
> Not sure how our little underfund institute can help, but let me know if I
> can.
>
>
>
> Elton Sherwin
>
> Executive Director, Carbon Zero Institute
>
> Cell: 650.823.9221
>
> www.CarbonZeroInstitute.org
>
>
>
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:30 AM
> To: tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk
> Cc: geoengineering; Andrew Lockley
>
>
> Subject: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate
> weathering as a CCS approach
>
>
>
> Tim,
>
>
>
> As per your request to Andrew, attached is an analysis of using
accelerated
> limestone weathering to sequester CO2 from power plant flue gases and
> dispose of it in the ocean, with the carbon acidity neutralized by the
> alkalinity provided by the calcium in the calcium carbonate.
>
>
>
> They concluded that this approach was both economically viable and had
much
> lower energy overheads than did "conventional" CCS with amine scrubbers
and
> suchlike.
>
>
>
> This is an area in which Greg Rau has done a lot of work, and in which I
> have done some work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau/
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> PS.  McDermott Technologies, Inc, used to own Babcock and Wilcox, the
> nuclear engineering company, but spun this off in 2010:
>
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-McDermott_to_spin_off_BandW-0707104.html
>
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
>
> Dept of Global Ecology
>
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
>
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
>
> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>
>
>
> --
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups

RE: [geo] Re: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences

[Peter Flynn]

I think that there is a gradation of risk in various geoengineering
methods, and it troubles me that all geoengineering schemes are sometimes
lumped together as uniform in discussions of risk.



Spraying particles into the atmosphere is not the same thing as regrowing
forest in a place where it once existed. Or to use my favorite example: one
can thicken sea ice by a known and already used technique of pumping or
spraying sea water on the top surface of ice. Thickening ice could restore
permanent ice pack ice to previously existing boundaries. The risk of this
is low for several reasons: the technology is already demonstrated (for
example, in making ice islands for Arctic drilling), the procedure can be
interrupted at any time, and the impact is restorative, i.e. returning to a
prior known condition. Ice could also be created on land to delay time of
thaw to previous values.



The point of this isn’t to plug any specific project but rather to
illustrate that risk is project specific. Hence I think that discussions of
risk would be improved if it were focused on projects rather than a general
discussion of “geoengineering”.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Russell Seitz
*Sent:* August-05-13 3:30 PM
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* [geo] Re: Geoengineering carries unknown consequences



Simon, would you agree that model grid resolution is a metric for
 distinguising between 'local' phenomena manifest within the model grid
pixels , and 'global' phenomena manifest in the dynamics of the extended
grid ?

On Thursday, August 1, 2013 2:06:19 PM UTC-4, Simon Driscoll wrote:

The physicists out there may have already seen this short article:
http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i8/p8_s3 (also copied
down below) which may be of interest to group members.

Best wishes,

Simon

+++

I read with interest David Kramer’s piece on geoengineering (*Physics Today*,
February 2013, page 17 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.1878>). I must say,
I am more alarmed by what the geoengineers in his report are proposing than
by the climate changes that are taking place. I believe geoengineers are
removed from scientific reality. They ignore the fact that the climate
system and its components—clouds, hurricanes, and so forth—are highly
nonlinear and thus very sensitive to the initial conditions and to changes
in the parameters. Nevertheless, one could study the system’s response in a
probabilistic way when certain parameters are changed or when we introduce
fluctuations, if the relationships among all the components are known
exactly.

And here lies the whole problem with geoengineering. The formulation of the
climate system and its components is only approximately known. More than 30
climate models are floating around in the climate community, and their
predictions about general dynamics simply don’t agree with each other. In a
recent 
publication,1<http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i8/p8_s3#c1>we
considered 98 control and forced climate simulations from 23 climate
models and examined their similarity in four different fields (upper-level
flow, sea-level pressure, surface air temperature, and precipitation). We
found that except for the upper-level flow, the agreement between the
models is not good. Moreover, none of the models compares well with actual
observations.

One person in the *Physics Today* story said that geoengineering may result
in changes in various weather patterns, but nobody knows what the changes
are going to be and how they will affect the climate system. If the warming
in the Arctic is a big event to mitigate, then it will require a
significant “geoengineering” effort. To me, that means significant changes
will occur elsewhere. Who can say whether those changes will be less
serious than those taking place now? How can geoengineers talk about
modifying clouds and albedo when clouds are represented in the climate
models as mostly linear parameterizations?

Kramer’s report did not mention hurricanes, but geoengineers also propose
to dissipate them. Hurricanes are unique in the climate system because they
represent major self-organization. As physicists well know,
self-organization occurs in dissipative systems in which energy is not
conserved but instead is exchanged with the environment. Hurricanes involve
huge amounts of energy. Scientists have little idea how the atmosphere and
the ocean will be affected if that energy is not allowed to be exchanged.

I would not have a problem with geoengineering if the physics and dynamics
of the climate system were well known. Climate scientists have a good idea
of the large-scale flow of ocean currents, but detaile

RE: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation

[Peter Flynn]

Fred,



I think forest sequestration has less certainty than deep ocean disposal
over a 500 year framework. However, cost needs to be factored in as well:
if it is an affordable choice, a low cost per ton might offset the lower
certainty.



Further, suppose future climate makes the forest unsustainable. As long as
the wood doesn’t rot, the carbon remains sequestered. If the lack of
sustainability is due to low rainfall, the trees might remain. Otherwise,
they might be harvested for biomass fuel or sunk in the ocean.



Hence I end up in the same place: I would not write this off until I saw a
further honing of costs and technological soundness.



Best,



Peter



*From:* Fred Zimmerman [mailto:geoengineerin...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* July-31-13 5:35 PM
*To:* Peter Flynn; geoengineering
*Subject:* Re: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an
option for climate change mitigation



 Do forests sequester carbon with the same physical security and long time
span as the deep ocean or geologic structures?  My impression from what
I've read is that forests can come and go on centennial scales.




---

Fred Zimmerman

Geoengineering IT!

Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology

GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080



On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Peter Flynn 
wrote:

Fred,



Once a forest is mature it is in equilibrium, and no incremental carbon is
sequestered. However, the growth to maturity takes carbon out of the
atmosphere. Hence this is a one time sequestration effort that lasts as
long as the forest. If  a forest fire came, and the forest were
subsequently regrown, one would still have removed the amount of carbon
contained in the forest. (I’m ignoring any secondary effect of char). Hence
I think this alternative can be compared to any other one time means of
sequestering carbon.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Fred Zimmerman
*Sent:* July-31-13 1:58 PM
*To:* Andrew Lockley; geoengineering
*Subject:* Re: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an
option for climate change mitigation



I am trying to understand the CDR logic with regard to biomass
"sequestration."  Let's say we run these jatorpha carbon farms for 40
years.  The resulting "woody biomass" will release its CO2 back into the
atmosphere after X years or a big fire, whichever occurs first,  in a dry
coastal area... Essentially, we would be paying 42-63 EUR/tonne CO2 to push
the CO2 X years into the future, where X is not that big a number (compared
to oceanic or geologic sequestration).  I don't see our descendants
thanking us profusely for this particular effort, am I missing something?




---

Fred Zimmerman

Geoengineering IT!

Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology

GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080



On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/237/2013/esd-4-237-2013.html

Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change
mitigation

K. Beckermet et al

Abstract

We present a comprehensive, interdisciplinary project which demonstrates
that large-scale plantations of Jatropha curcas – if established in hot,
dry coastal areas around the world – could capture 17–25 t of carbon
dioxide per hectare per year from the atmosphere (over a 20 yr period).
Based on recent farming results it is confirmed that the Jatropha
curcas plant is well adapted to harsh environments and is capable of
growing alone or in combination with other tree and shrub species with
minimal irrigation in hot deserts where rain occurs only sporadically. Our
investigations indicate that there is sufficient unused and marginal land
for the widespread cultivation of Jatropha curcas to have a significant
impact on atmospheric CO2 levels at least for several decades. In a system
in which desalinated seawater is used for irrigation and for delivery of
mineral nutrients, the sequestration costs were estimated to range from
42–63 EUR per tonne CO2. This result makes carbon farming a technology that
is competitive with carbon capture and storage (CCS). In addition,
high-resolution simulations using an advanced land-surface–atmosphere model
indicate that a 10 000 km2 plantation could produce a reduction in mean
surface temperature and an onset or increase in rain and dew fall at a
regional level. In such areas, plant growth and CO2 storage could continue
until permanent woodland or forest had been established. In other areas,
salinization of the soil may limit plant growth to 2–3 decades whereupon
irrigation could be ceased and the captured carbon stored as woody biomass.

Citation:

RE: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation

[Peter Flynn]

Fred,



Once a forest is mature it is in equilibrium, and no incremental carbon is
sequestered. However, the growth to maturity takes carbon out of the
atmosphere. Hence this is a one time sequestration effort that lasts as
long as the forest. If  a forest fire came, and the forest were
subsequently regrown, one would still have removed the amount of carbon
contained in the forest. (I’m ignoring any secondary effect of char). Hence
I think this alternative can be compared to any other one time means of
sequestering carbon.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Fred Zimmerman
*Sent:* July-31-13 1:58 PM
*To:* Andrew Lockley; geoengineering
*Subject:* Re: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an
option for climate change mitigation



I am trying to understand the CDR logic with regard to biomass
"sequestration."  Let's say we run these jatorpha carbon farms for 40
years.  The resulting "woody biomass" will release its CO2 back into the
atmosphere after X years or a big fire, whichever occurs first,  in a dry
coastal area... Essentially, we would be paying 42-63 EUR/tonne CO2 to push
the CO2 X years into the future, where X is not that big a number (compared
to oceanic or geologic sequestration).  I don't see our descendants
thanking us profusely for this particular effort, am I missing something?




---

Fred Zimmerman

Geoengineering IT!

Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology

GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080



On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/237/2013/esd-4-237-2013.html

Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change
mitigation

K. Beckermet et al

Abstract

We present a comprehensive, interdisciplinary project which demonstrates
that large-scale plantations of Jatropha curcas – if established in hot,
dry coastal areas around the world – could capture 17–25 t of carbon
dioxide per hectare per year from the atmosphere (over a 20 yr period).
Based on recent farming results it is confirmed that the Jatropha
curcas plant is well adapted to harsh environments and is capable of
growing alone or in combination with other tree and shrub species with
minimal irrigation in hot deserts where rain occurs only sporadically. Our
investigations indicate that there is sufficient unused and marginal land
for the widespread cultivation of Jatropha curcas to have a significant
impact on atmospheric CO2 levels at least for several decades. In a system
in which desalinated seawater is used for irrigation and for delivery of
mineral nutrients, the sequestration costs were estimated to range from
42–63 EUR per tonne CO2. This result makes carbon farming a technology that
is competitive with carbon capture and storage (CCS). In addition,
high-resolution simulations using an advanced land-surface–atmosphere model
indicate that a 10 000 km2 plantation could produce a reduction in mean
surface temperature and an onset or increase in rain and dew fall at a
regional level. In such areas, plant growth and CO2 storage could continue
until permanent woodland or forest had been established. In other areas,
salinization of the soil may limit plant growth to 2–3 decades whereupon
irrigation could be ceased and the captured carbon stored as woody biomass.

Citation:

Becker, K., Wulfmeyer, V., Berger, T., Gebel, J., and Münch, W.: Carbon
farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation,
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 237-251, doi:10.5194/esd-4-237-2013, 2013.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.





-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegro

RE: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still alive at the MIT geoengineering competition

[Peter Flynn]

William,



A question: even if biomass is converted to CO2 in the deep ocean (>1000 m)
would it not stay there? My understanding is that the deep ocean is not
supersaturated, due to the high pressure; it is the reduction of pressure
in a rising deep water column that causes degassing of CO2.



Not sure this is correct, I would welcome your comments.



Peter Flynn



*From:* William Calvin [mailto:wcal...@uw.edu]
*Sent:* July-13-13 5:34 PM
*To:* Peter Flynn
*Cc:* markcap...@podenergy.org; andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering
*Subject:* Re: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still
alive at the MIT geoengineering competition



Circulation time for the water is about a thousand years but the
radiocarbon age for DOC in the depths is more like 4,000 years. It's not a
regional effect but widespread. I discussed it in the cleanup book:

Estimates for the delay until the flushed surface water resurfaces range
from 400 to 1,600 years. Excess carbon sunk to just below the winter
thermocline is likely to resurface sooner. It may take a sinking depth of
more than 1,000 m to achieve millennial-scale storage.

In the cold depths, about half of the new dissolved organic carbon from the
upper ocean is promptly converted into total CO2. But it has recently been
shown that the rest has a 6,000 year residence time. Since the reason for
this postponed oxidation into CO2 is not yet clear, one cannot say that
half of the carbon debt, if sunk within twenty years, would also stay out
of the atmospheric circulation for an extra 5,000 years. But it seems a
good bet, one we should take.



The major ref is

McNichol, A and Aluwihare, L. I. “The Power of Radiocarbon in
Biogeochemical Studies of the Marine Carbon Cycle: Insights from Studies of
Dissolved and Particulate Organic Carbon (DOC and POC)" Luther III, G. W.
and Boyle, E. A. Chemical Reviews (thematic issue on "Chemical
Oceanography.) 107, 2007, pp.443-466.



On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Peter Flynn 
wrote:

Mark,



The residence time for exchange between the deep ocean and the shallow
ocean is on the order of 600 to 1000 years. This is an average; there are
ocean locations where the exchange is far slower (negligible downwelling
and upwelling currents). Hence conversion of biomass to CO2 in the deep
ocean would not liberate it to the atmosphere for a very long time, perhaps
past the age of fossil fuels.



I don’t know enough about the behavior of methane, i.e. whether it is
soluble or would form gas bubbles. If it is soluble the same long storage
would apply.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *markcap...@podenergy.org
*Sent:* July-12-13 9:40 PM
*To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com; william.cal...@gmail.com
*Cc:* geoengineering
*Subject:* RE: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still
alive at the MIT geoengineering competition



Bill,



At a quick glance:



1.  I did not detect your nutrient cycling or nutrient mass balancing.
 There may be sufficient N, P, K, iron, etc. in deep water below the
themocline.  But what fraction are you extracting?



2.  I am a wastewater engineer with some landfill and dairy waste
experience.  Do you know what fraction of the "sunk or pumped to bottom"
carbon is available to anaerobic bacteria?  Years ago, we used to think
anaerobic bacteria required fresh water and mammal body temperatures to
convert biomass to CH4 and CO2.  Now we can buy anaerobic bacteria that
produce at 5C for use in unheated temperate climate dairy digesters.  The
bacteria exist or evolve to work in all ocean conditions.  The gas
production at seafloor temperatures in seawater will be slower, but not
that much.  Perhaps 80% of volatile solids (aka ash-free biomass) hitting
the deep seafloor should be converted to CH4 and CO2 within a decade, if
not sooner.



Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org



 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still
alive at the MIT geoengineering competition
From: Andrew Lockley 
Date: Fri, July 12, 2013 7:15 pm
To: william.cal...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering 

I looked through it in detail earlier. Where's the evidence you can get
anywhere near the numbers you need?

A

On Jul 13, 2013 4:13 AM, "William H. Calvin" 
wrote:

I seem to be one of the three finalists in this geoengineering competition,
despite both judges remaining dubious and dismissive. You can judge for
yourself, as it is all at

 http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1302501

My detailed response is in the Comment following the judges’ report. (Note
that the revised proposal you see is not the original prop

RE: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still alive at the MIT geoengineering competition

[Peter Flynn]

Mark,



The residence time for exchange between the deep ocean and the shallow
ocean is on the order of 600 to 1000 years. This is an average; there are
ocean locations where the exchange is far slower (negligible downwelling
and upwelling currents). Hence conversion of biomass to CO2 in the deep
ocean would not liberate it to the atmosphere for a very long time, perhaps
past the age of fossil fuels.



I don’t know enough about the behavior of methane, i.e. whether it is
soluble or would form gas bubbles. If it is soluble the same long storage
would apply.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *markcap...@podenergy.org
*Sent:* July-12-13 9:40 PM
*To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com; william.cal...@gmail.com
*Cc:* geoengineering
*Subject:* RE: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still
alive at the MIT geoengineering competition



Bill,



At a quick glance:



1.  I did not detect your nutrient cycling or nutrient mass balancing.
 There may be sufficient N, P, K, iron, etc. in deep water below the
themocline.  But what fraction are you extracting?



2.  I am a wastewater engineer with some landfill and dairy waste
experience.  Do you know what fraction of the "sunk or pumped to bottom"
carbon is available to anaerobic bacteria?  Years ago, we used to think
anaerobic bacteria required fresh water and mammal body temperatures to
convert biomass to CH4 and CO2.  Now we can buy anaerobic bacteria that
produce at 5C for use in unheated temperate climate dairy digesters.  The
bacteria exist or evolve to work in all ocean conditions.  The gas
production at seafloor temperatures in seawater will be slower, but not
that much.  Perhaps 80% of volatile solids (aka ash-free biomass) hitting
the deep seafloor should be converted to CH4 and CO2 within a decade, if
not sooner.



Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org



 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still
alive at the MIT geoengineering competition
From: Andrew Lockley 
Date: Fri, July 12, 2013 7:15 pm
To: william.cal...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering 

I looked through it in detail earlier. Where's the evidence you can get
anywhere near the numbers you need?

A

On Jul 13, 2013 4:13 AM, "William H. Calvin" 
wrote:

I seem to be one of the three finalists in this geoengineering competition,
despite both judges remaining dubious and dismissive. You can judge for
yourself, as it is all at

 http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1302501

My detailed response is in the Comment following the judges’ report. (Note
that the revised proposal you see is not the original proposal the judges
saw and from which I quoted in my reply Comment).

The 2,000 word limit forced me to boil it down at lot but it has also
become, I hope, a bit more understandable for those who haven't been
following developments since 1983. A more complete proposal is in my short
book, *The Great CO2 Cleanup*, at the Kindle store or the PDF at
http://WilliamCalvin.org/bk16 <http://williamcalvin.org/bk16> .

I have until Monday to make revisions to the proposal before final judging.
Please email suggestions.  If you wish to add public comments or
“Supporter” endorsements, the Comments tab has a login/register link. I am
encouraged to “use on-line social networks” to build support, something I
am not good at doing.

This competition is my best chance so far to get a wider audience to
consider my reframing of the climate problem and its implications for the
time scale of needed climate actions.

Thanks to many of you for earlier comments,

-Bill

William H. Calvin, Ph.D.
University of Washington, School of Medicine.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"g

RE: [geo] Re: Another view on the Arctic

[Peter Flynn]

The Montreal accord ended most of the commercial use of chlorinated and
fluorinate hydrocarbons in most of the world; I think China is about to
join this accord. Hence there is some precedent for international action,
although I agree that it is very difficult to achieve. It seems
particularly difficult for climate change, perhaps a reflection of the
magnitude of the economic impact.



Peter Flynn



*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *euggor...@comcast.net
*Sent:* June-27-13 6:13 PM
*To:* johnnissen2...@gmail.com
*Cc:* geoengineering; Ron
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Another view on the Arctic



John:



When have you experienced international cooperation with a common goal? The
first step is that all have to believe survival is at stake and for sure
that conviction does not currently exist. For that we need a world dictator
that does not exist. When it is absolutely clear to all that survival is at
stake then maybe you will get some international cooperation. Only when it
is totally unambiguous that all are at risk will the world cooperate. I
can't prove that but neither can you prove the opposite.



-gene
--

*From: *"John Nissen" 
*To: *"Ron" 
*Cc: *"geoengineering" 
*Sent: *Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:38:19 PM
*Subject: *[geo] Re: Another view on the Arctic

Hi Ron,

It makes you sick, that turn of phrase "fait accomplit".

No doubt there are myopic people who have thought it highly desirable
for the Arctic to heat quickly, and would therefore want to suppress any
science that suggested that the Arctic warming had dangerous
repercussions.  Now that these people can see that the sea ice is in a
death spiral, they can relax over the science.  They can now argue that
it's too late to do anything.

It makes a mockery of those distinguished scientists (including several
government advisers) who have stated that geoengineering to cool the
Arctic would be premature.

Our only means of avoiding certain catastrophe is a last ditch effort to
save the sea ice.  But it is also a rare opportunity for international
collaboration with a common goal in mind - survival.

John

--

On 27/06/2013 19:25, Ron wrote:
> The July-August issue of Foreign Affairs has a lengthy article (pp 76-89)
on the Arctic by Scott Borgerson.  Title:  "The Coming Arctic Boom."
>
> Zero mention of climate and geoengineering, save this phrase in bottom
paragraph of p 78:
>   " Arctic warming is a fait accompli"
>
> Ron
>
>
>

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: [geo] Re: Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?

[Peter Flynn]

Based on experience with making ice islands as drilling platforms, one can
make ice by spraying water into the air. On already formed ice one need not
spend the energy on spraying (formation of a mist is energy intensive);
rather just pump water on to the surface. In my mind this would be the
object of a small test. But where there is no existing ice sheet, one could
speed its formation by spraying water into the air, a technique already
used in making ice islands.



One commenter noted that ice formed at the bottom of an ice sheet is
“fresh”, and this is correct: as water crystallizes a saltier and denser
brine is formed that flows down into the ocean beneath the ice sheet. But
we also know that salt water does freeze: this has been demonstrated on
Arctic ice islands created by spraying, and by the icing on ships. We don’t
know the details of this: does salt segregate as the water crystallizes? A
wonderful question for a small test on a near shore ice sheet in the far
north.



If it is easy to incorporate air bubbles in ice, great, but it may not be
needed: very thick ice islands were created as drilling platforms in one
season.



Peter Flynn







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Currier
*Sent:* June-19-13 11:09 PM
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* [geo] Re: Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?



I tried to post this question last week, when Peter and Ron were discussing
Peter's idea mentioned above, but the message didn't seem to go through -
forgive me if it actually did, and I'm repeating myself.  I mentioned an
idea once to Mike, and I think at AMEG as well, and don't know enough to
know whether it has in fact already been explored, might be feasible, etc -
 and that is, not thickening ice as per Peter's plan, but possibly creating
more of it, through exploiting wind patterns' effect on sea ice creation.

What I mean is this: relatively limited parts of the Laptev sea, in
particular, function something like an ice factory for the whole arctic
ocean (the Laptev altogether makes more sea ice than the Barents, Kara,
East Siberian and Chukchi Seas combined). This is caused by strong winds
that continually advect the new ice, so that there are features like the
Great Siberian Polynya, that remain ice free, and this leads to the
continuous creation of a great deal of ice there.

It is particularly northerlies that blow from the coast about due north of
Tiksi, covering not that big an area, that seem to make the largest of
these polynyas. So, since what you need is increased wind right at the
surface to drive this effect, could you design simple passive
structures that would help concentrate the wind more down along the
surface, making a kind of wind tunnel phenomenon, perhaps along 50-100
miles, and in this way increase the rate of advection, and hence creation
of sea ice?

All best,

Nathan






On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:09:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Hayes wrote:

To Emily on ice additives,



During the early years of WW2, there was a proposed for a mid atlantic
iceberg as an airfield. They had a small one built in Canada. They used
sawdust and did achieve year-round ice. Project Habakkuk "was a plan by the
British <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain> in World War
II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II> to
construct an aircraft
carrier<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier> out
of pykrete <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete> (a mixture of wood
pulp<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_pulp>
 and ice <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice>), for use against German
U-boats<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat> in
the mid-Atlantic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean>, which were
beyond the flight range of land-based planes at that time.".



I believe they did achieve year-round ice. The war ended as they were
gearing up for a sea trial.



Best,




On Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:39:14 PM UTC-7, Josh Horton wrote:

Hi everyone,



Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering
at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as
follows:



“There is one experiment we’re currently undertaking – we’re trying to look
at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in
Norway – and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we’re trying to look at
that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice."



(
http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climate-silver-bullet/
)



Does anyone know what he is talking about?



Josh Horton

joshuah...@gmail.com



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegro

RE: [geo] Re: Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?

[Peter Flynn]

I’m not sure of the intended location of Project Habakkuk, but year round
ice in the north is just thick ice. A conventional boundary for annual vs.
year round ice is 3-4 m thickness:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs



I think a first experiment would be to see if one could make an incremental
3 m thick ice in one winter by pumping sea water on top in the winter. If
so, it would obviate the need for sawdust.



I have no doubt that sawdust would retard melting: it was the standard
insulation for block ice in ice houses when ice was cut from rivers in the
winter for year round usage. However, if thickening sea ice focuses on
additives it will add a layer of environmental complexity (adding sawdust
to the Arctic ice cap) that can be avoided if a sufficient thickness can be
achieved with the additive.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:
geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael Hayes
*Sent:* June-19-13 5:10 PM
*To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* [geo] Re: Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?



To Emily on ice additives,



During the early years of WW2, there was a proposed for a mid atlantic
iceberg as an airfield. They had a small one built in Canada. They used
sawdust and did achieve year-round ice. Project Habakkuk "was a plan by the
British <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain> in World War
II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II> to
construct an aircraft
carrier<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier> out
of pykrete <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete> (a mixture of wood
pulp<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_pulp>
 and ice <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice>), for use against German
U-boats<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat> in
the mid-Atlantic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean>, which were
beyond the flight range of land-based planes at that time.".



I believe they did achieve year-round ice. The war ended as they were
gearing up for a sea trial.



Best,




On Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:39:14 PM UTC-7, Josh Horton wrote:

Hi everyone,



Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about geoengineering
at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is quoted as
follows:



“There is one experiment we’re currently undertaking – we’re trying to look
at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from Spitzbergen in
Norway – and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we’re trying to look at
that as a very short term protection against the loss of Arctic Ice."



(
http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climate-silver-bullet/
)



Does anyone know what he is talking about?



Josh Horton

joshuah...@gmail.com 



-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?

[Peter Flynn]

I remain of the belief that simply creating thicker and more extensive ice
by the known and proven technique of pumping or spraying water into cold
air in the winter is a cheap, safe (because it can be halted at any time)
and already demonstrated process (on both fresh and salt water). If any
missed the previous paper on this I am happy to resend.

This technique works by increasing the rate of heat transfer: water on top
of ice freezes much more quickly than water at the bottom of ice because
the ice is both an insulation layer and it prevents convective heat
transfer from the water layer to the air.

I think this is intuitively safer than atmospheric modification because it
can be stopped at once.

Peter Flynn

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455



-Original Message-
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave
Sent: June-16-13 6:34 PM
To: 
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Experiment Currently Taking Place in the Arctic?

Sounds like a modeling exercise: "stimulating" should be "simulating," I
assume.

Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector.


On Jun 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, "Josh Horton"
mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone,

Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about
geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University
is quoted as follows:

"There is one experiment we're currently undertaking - we're trying to
look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from
Spitzbergen in Norway - and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we're
trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of
Arctic Ice."

(http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climat
e-silver-bullet/)

Does anyone know what he is talking about?

Josh Horton
joshuahorton...@gmail.com<mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com>


--
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
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr
i...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[Peter Flynn]

I am joining this discussion late, so I hope I am not covering ground
already discussed.



Some years back a graduate student and I looked at a conceptual scheme to
grow algae and sink them into the deep ocean, using increased salinity from
evaporation as the “pump”. We found that the rate limiting step was not
sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower than
the potential rate of growth of the algae.



We came to understand why agitation and CO2 addition are included in some
commercial algal farms.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455

-- 
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.