The answer to Ken's rhetorical question is a qualified yes, if you ignore
kinetics and assume you are looking only at the CO2 capture, desorption,
clean-up and compression as he described then you can do it for pennies a kg of
CO2 which is pennies per kWh. It's a yes because posed this way,
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
Our research has shown that assessments of Greenland reflectivity
change based on MODIS data are problematic.
We have looked for darkening trends with MODIS and statistically
speaking, we find a hint but nothing definitive.
The image shown mentions darkening in 2011 relative to a six-year
It would be useful, as a matter of record, to have on this list any
institutions which currently accept donations specifically earmarked for
geoengineering science or policy research.
At present it is unclear to me if any labs or organisations are able to
accept donations from members of the
I believe we are able to accept such donations and would be happy to do so.
http://carnegiescience.edu/giving-opportunities
I believe we can accept donations earmarked for specific purposes. (If the
demands are too cumbersome, we can always decline.)
The normal form just let's you specify down
I (Indian Institute of Science) would be happy to receive funds to do
research in geoengineering science (modeling).
Bala
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:
It would be useful, as a matter of record, to have on this list any
institutions which
