Dear Jed, You included this link, which I thought might have been referring to my papers since some of the numbers agreed with mine.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160425-how-a-giant-space-umbrella-could-stop-global-warming * On closer look, I saw that the author did not suggest some of my solutions to problems mentioned.* *1. Meulenberg, A. and Karthik Balaji P.S., “The LEO Archipelago: A System of Earth-Rings for Communications, Mass-Transport to Space, Solar Power, and Control of Global Warming <http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4043>,” Acta Astronautica 68 (2011), iss. 11-12 Jun 2011 pp. 1931-1946, doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.12.002 arXiv:1009.4043v1 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4043v1>.* *2. Meulenberg, A. and Wan, T., C., “LEO-Ring-Based Communications Network,” Proceedings of Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum (SPESIF-11, March 15-17, 2011), Physics Procedia <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18753892>, Volume 20 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_hubEid=1-s2.0-S1875389211X00123&_cid=277348&_pubType=JL&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000012438&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10404588&md5=947de3420691c5f1f0035a2a52ef0f5e>, 2011, Pages 232-241, edited by Glen A. Robertson.3. Meulenberg, A. and Poston, T., “Sling-on-a-Ring: Structural elements for a Space Elevator to LEO,” Proc. of SPESIF-11, March 15-17, 2011, Physics Procedia <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18753892> Volume 20 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_hubEid=1-s2.0-S1875389211X00123&_cid=277348&_pubType=JL&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000012438&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10404588&md5=947de3420691c5f1f0035a2a52ef0f5e>, 2011, pp 222-231, Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum edited by Glen A. Robertson.* *4. A. Meulenberg, R. Suresh, S. Ramanathan, "LEO-based optical/microwave terrestrial communications," Presented at the 59th International Astronautical Congress, Glasgow, Scotland, (2008). IAC-08-B2.5.2 Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46587815_Leo-Based_OpticalMicrowave_Terrestrial_Communications <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46587815_Leo-Based_OpticalMicrowave_Terrestrial_Communications>* These papers provide a path to space that would not only pay for itself; but, it would be a major profit source. Had these ideas been implemented a decade ago, we would now have relatively cheap transport to space and a means of major shipping to and from space that would not blow a growing hole in the ozone layer. Andrew _ _ _ _ On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:39 AM Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > I have discussed these topics here from time to time. I am preparing a > talk on them. I propose to stop global warming using cold fusion in two > steps: > > 1. Stop emitting carbon dioxide by using cold fusion energy. > 2. Remove excess carbon from the atmosphere by growing billions of > trees. When they are old, cut them down and bury them underground in > abandoned open-pit coal mines. > > Item 2, reforestation to sequester carbon, has been suggested by many > experts. I have taken their ideas and shown how the project can be enhanced > with cold fusion. > > I cannot fit the following into the talk, but here are three interesting > things I have learned in the last few years. > > > 1. The experts do not agree how much carbon this could be removed from the > atmosphere with this method. The experts also do not agree whether > old-growth forests continue to sequester carbon or not. Some say > that leaves on large, mature trees sequester a great deal of carbon. Others > disagree. Quote: > > “[W]hether carbon accumulation continues or peaks when net additional wood > growth is minimal (in “old-growth” forests) is disputed.” > > - Gorte, R.W., *U.S. Tree Planting for Carbon Sequestation*. 2009, U.S. > Congress: Congressional Research Service. > > > Here are some recent articles about carbon sequestration by reforestation. > I have highlighted some disagreements among experts, and some aspects of > the project that cold fusion would enhance. > > Reforest Action, Contribute to the Global Carbon Neutrality . . . by > Funding the creation and preservation of Forests, > https://www.reforestaction.com/en/contribution-climate, 19 million trees > planted > > University of Aukland, Can reforestation help reverse the extinction > crisis? > https://www.thebigq.org/2019/06/12/can-reforestation-help-reverse-the-extinction-crisis > > Congressional Research Service, U.S. Tree Planting for Carbon > Sequestration, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40562.pdf > > Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Planting trees to mitigate > climate change: Policy incentives could lead to increased carbon > sequestration, https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/61873 > > YOUNG TREES ARE BETTER! > > World Resources Institute, Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than > Previously Thought, > https://www.wri.org/insights/young-forests-capture-carbon-quicker-previously-thought > > NO! OLD TREES ARE BETTER! > > Pacific Forest Trust, E&E: Old trees store more carbon, more quickly, than > younger trees, > https://www.pacificforest.org/ee-old-trees-store-more-carbon-more-quickly-than-younger-trees/ > Most other sources say that younger trees store more carbon per year. See > also Figure 1 caption. > > 100 YEARS TO STORE 10 YEARS OF EMISSIONS (I say 100 years to sequester all > anthropogenic emissions) > > Frontiers in Forest and Global Change, Forests and Decarbonization – Roles > of Natural and Planted Forests, > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00058/ The authors > do not consider growing field crop indoors; irrigating deserts; or burying > deadwood anaerobically in abandoned coal mines, OR cold fusion. > > > > 2. If reforestation cannot be done quickly enough to forestall global > warming, some experts say that we can reduce global warming by painting > roofs white, or using white shingles. One expert said that will not work > because the light reflected from the roof bounces off of particles in the > air and ends up heating the air just as much, although he granted that it > does keep the house cooler. He missed an important point. In the first > world, air conditioning is widely used, so keeping the house cooler would > reduce energy consumption significantly. > > Global warming can also be forestalled by putting gigantic mylar sunshades > in low earth orbit. This would be millions of times cheaper than moving > cities or building seawalls. They will eventually erode or fall out of > orbit but by that time we should have the problem fixed. The mass of mylar > is not as great as you might think. You have to intercept 2% to 4% of > sunlight. It would be a bad idea to do this permanently. It might change > the ecosystem. However, sunshades the last 50 years while we remediate > global warming would be okay I think. > > https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160425-how-a-giant-space-umbrella-could-stop-global-warming > > > > 3. Dave Nagel has been talking about some of the proposed methods to > remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it. These involve > large machines and chemical processes. I think this is a bad idea. I > strongly favor growing trees instead. For the following reasons: > > CO2 removal also removes the oxygen. We need the oxygen. Someone computed > that if we were to burn all the remaining coal, oxygen would be severely > depleted. Photosynthesis separates and releases the oxygen. I do not know > whether there are any proposed mechanical or chemical methods of separating > oxygen but I am sure photosynthesis works well. > > Any method that depends upon machines would require massive amounts of > equipment that would have to be sustained for 100 to 200 years. Whereas, as > I described, planting trees would require only a modest amount of > equipment, mainly desalination plants that would no longer be needed after > fifty years, because natural rainfall would increase. Cold fusion energy is > much cheaper than any other source but even cold fusion costs something. > Whereas solar energy used to grow trees costs nothing. > > CO2 removal has no benefit other than avoiding global warming. It has no > ancillary profits. Whereas growing trees produces enormous profits as I > described. People like trees. People would like to see deserts the size of > the United States converted back into verdant land. The market value of > that land would be approximately $23 trillion: > > https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/land0820.pdf > > The cost of producing this land would be a tiny fraction of that. It > should be done even if we did not have a problem with carbon in the > atmosphere. As it happens this method not only removes carbon but it also > produces fantastic economic benefits. > >
