If Russia had injected aerosols in the stratosphere instead of
annexing Crimea, would the political and military response really have
been much greater?
Excellent observation, Ken.
There is a way to power transportation from LEO to GEO using low
threat microwaves, but I have made the same
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:09 AM, M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Fertilizing the oceans to restore fisheries is NOT prohibited, that is why
the Haida Salmon Restoration Project is perfectly legal.
I hope you are right. There is a bit of a question there. I suppose
as long as
this as a business.
It's not like it would be a significant cost burden on fishermen. And
if it has positive effects on the catch, they should be overjoyed to
do it.
Any minor effects it has on CO2 is just a fortunate happenstance.
Keith Henson
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
of resources to keep them there, but this is
one unlikely option, far less likely than the option I favor.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/how-japan-plans-to-build-an-orbital-solar-farm
http://theenergycollective.com/keith-henson/362181/dollar-gallon-gasoline
The trouble with the main
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
One wonders if the money would be better spent on reducing the cause of the
problem - CO2 emissions, or are we too late for that?
It's more that there isn't a good idea of how to do it. More
accurately, there isn't a
Just FYI on a proposal to get the methane out of the air.
Way back in 2009, at a DSRC meeting at Standford, Stuart Strand
proposed a way to get a substantial reduction of methane in the air.
He proposed a bit of genetic engineering on corn to add 5 methane
processing genes to corn. Turns out the
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Interesting review and analysis of the philosophic vitriol against GE.
snip
since
failure to stabilize climate if not CO2 would not seem to be in either
philosophical group's interest.
I am not so sure about that. There
, lasers or microwaves.
http://theenergycollective.com/keith-henson/362181/dollar-gallon-gasoline
The first power satellite could come on line by 2023, assuming the
first production Skylon flies in 2021. At a reasonable growth rate,
the world could be off fossil fuels by 2035.
There is a lot
of the ice.
On the other hand, you could almost certainly get a few tens of watts
for the thing to report its health to a satellite.
Keith
Greg
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on
behalf of Keith Henson [hkeithhen
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca 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.
There is a third
Why We Need CCS, Part 2: Reactive Climate Change Mitigation
I don't think this has been mentioned here.
synthetic gasoline by CO2 capture
and reduction to hydrocarbons via Fisher Tropsch synthesis.
There is a discussion of how to get the cost down here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iotdmmTJQsSzVYQ2Q0YUtCMERRczdYSXMtUWphUl92aHFN/edit?usp=sharing
And more at http://www.htyp.org/dtc
Keith Henson
they would want to use for what Geoengineers know can be accomplished
with a small part of our solar input. There is some subtlety in
nomenclature we should try to work out that is unrelated to how we do it or
how much it will cost.
Ron
On Mar 13, 2014, at 12:55 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen
-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429
or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on
behalf of Keith Henson [hkeithhen...@gmail.com
There are a couple of points re irreversible. First, we might not
want to reverse it. Around 1/3rd of crop yields is due to the higher
concentration of CO2.
But let's take reversing as taking out 100 ppm, and the time frame as
20 years. It's actually not that expensive in energy terms to
, and have been
defending similar concepta). I compare the cost of olivine mining and
spreading to the cost of that silly ccs idea, which is 5 to 10 times more
expensive, and not very safe nor sustainable, Olaf Schuiling
-Original Message-
From: Keith Henson [mailto:hkeithhen
strategy for biofuel marketing.
Ron
On Feb 21, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote:
Olaf and I did some off list discussion. The result was that olivine
mining looks to be at least ten times more expensive than the solar
power from space option.
That is if I have
the volume of coal and oil burned and the amount of
weathering needed to compensate, this seems implausible to me.
How many tons of rock do you need to crush to take up the CO2 from a
ton of coal? How much energy does this take?
Keith Henson
(Just an engineer, not a scientist)
--
You received
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
snip
Regardless, we need further research to
better understand if we have any globally effective options whose (cost
+impact+ risk)/benefit passes whatever $, environmental, and ethics smell
tests the world community
Social change means to the advocates enforcing what they see as
frugal morality on people, though, of course, never on the advocates.
We on the technical fix side tend in the direction of letting people
do fairly much whatever they want, Hummers, frequent air flights and
all, as long as we can
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Ronal W. Larson
rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
Keith:
I go through line by line - but deleting as much as I can. Mine all in
bold caps.
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Ronal W
.
Ron
On Dec 23, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote:
Arguments pro or con?
Biochar, especially if made using carbon free energy (such as solar
from space), is a good idea in any case because of the soil
improvement.
Biofuels are not. The problem with biofuels
. See also two responses below.
On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Ronal W. Larson
rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
Keith cc Greg
I appreciate your enthusiasm for the solar satellite approach, but I have
my hands more
On Nov 19, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote:
Some years ago I calculated how much energy it would take to convert
100 ppm of CO2 into synthetic oil which could be stored in old oil
fields safely for millions of years.
100 ppm of CO2 would be 470 cubic km of the stuff
of it. But depending on how
wet it is, it can be hard.
Where with really cheap external energy it doesn't much matter.
Keith
Ron
On Nov 20, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Keith Henson hkeithhen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Ronal W. Larson
rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote:
Keith cc list
1
in the
ground.
Much less energy if you take it out as CO2, but less of a blowout problem
Keith Henson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Ning Zeng z...@atmos.umd.edu wrote:
Or simply CRS (Carbon Removal and Storage). A few years back when this group
came up
am not qualified to estimate what this will do to the atmosphere,
but I know some of you are. _Some_ damage can probably be tolerated
since (if it works at all) it should solve the energy, carbon and
climate problems.
I would very much appreciate any thoughts you might have.
Keith Henson
http
27 matches
Mail list logo
