David (and list) , In Banff we debated srm testing costs. I made my point poorly and wish to clarify.
The reason I think capital cost matters is because I don't think that government will grasp the nettle of research on a serious scale in the timescale required, because of the controversial nature of the subject. We may then be left trying to catch up research, whilst under huge pressure to deploy on a dangerously short timescale. To get a safe timescale, the research will likely have to be done with money and equipment funded by existing budgets and equipment inventory, and/or supported by 'greenfinger' benefactors. We can't wait for government to fund critical testing with new funding arrangements. Micro-cost geoengineering experiments are therefore critical to fast research. Brightwater, balloons, shells and smoke rings are all viable technologies for experiments funded by small departmental budgets and private donors. They may prove not to be as good as aircraft in certain respects , but as money is not immediately available for aircraft, we don't have the luxury of that choice. As a result, I believe that the focus should move to the technologies which we can test for tiny sums. We cannot afford to wait for 20 years of bureaucracy before testing a technology that may be needed in a hurry. If we wait for funding before we test, we may end up deploying half-baked technology. IMO, we should build our technology now, quickly and cheaply, so it is properly tested and ready to scale when the politicians come knocking. We cannot afford delays in our quest for knowledge. I don't want to be designing a parachute after I've jumped out of the plane. A -- 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.
