That is great stuff! Thanks. Your proposal is low earth orbit. I have heard of others like this. The one linked to at BBC.com is for a very distant space umbrella, at earth-sun L1. I don't understand how that would work. It seems harder to set up. But the technical details and astronomy are over my head. I think the experts (including you) can work out something.
I regard this as a stopgap solution. It should be done if needed, but if we are going to keep emitting CO2 it will eventually stop working. I think it would buy time for a more permanent solution. On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:23 PM Andrew Meulenberg <mules...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com> 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. >> >>
