" Pick an optimum parts per million CO2 level:(350? ….The way climate is now) and keep it there). LENR can enable this sort of climate management."
I agree, no need to over-engineer. Seems like even with a new ice age LENR will make living in the snow & ice cozier. On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > Such interplanetary geoengineering is not a good idea. Please leave > mother nature alone in terms of the amount of carbon we can get our hands > on. The real long term danger to humankind is the next ice age. JoJo is > right, if we use all our CO2 reserves now, we will not be able to stop the > new onslaught of the next ice age. There are chlorinated fluorocarbons that > can do the job instead of CO2 to manage global warming but IMHO, the best > way to manage the climate is through the carbon cycle. > > > > The disagreement in this tread is at its heart, how to best manage the > climate, and with the dawn of the LENR age such grand things are possible. > > > > Pick an optimum parts per million CO2 level:(350? ….The way climate is > now) and keep it there). LENR can enable this sort of climate management. > > > > > What mars needs is more water, it has enough carbon in its atmosphere in > the form of CO2. It also needs a protective magnetic field, and LENR can > help power this high energy particle radiation deflection system. > > > > We need to direct water bearing asteroids to Mars to provide this water. > And LENR can help in doing this job too. > > > > Cheers: Axil > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I wrote: >> >> >>> There might be market for carbon or carbon compounds on the Moon or Mars >>> for all we know. We might send millions of tons a day up by space elevator >>> and dispatch it around the solar system. I doubt that will happen, but you >>> never know. >>> >> >> This may sound utterly impractical. You might think the gigantic mass of >> material involved makes it out of the question. Think again. We know the >> approximate mass of material, and it is not so gigantic. We have already >> moved that mass of carbon compounds. We just have to move it again. The >> mass of carbon or carbon compounds that we would ship to Mars (or whoever >> wants to buy it) would be roughly equal to the mass of coal and oil that >> has been mined and shipped around the earth since 1800. That is a lot, but >> not an unthinkable amount. I think it takes ~50 supertanker deliveries per >> day to move oil around the world. A space elevator terminal dispatching 50 >> supertanker-sized loads of carbon compounds or wood to other planets would >> be expensive and large, but not much bigger than than a major port such >> as Savannah, Georgia. It would be operated entirely by robots. >> >> If you were to extract carbon from the atmosphere, and then keep >> dispatching carbon compounds on something like this scale for 200 to 400 >> years, you would reverse the effects of the combustion from the beginning >> of the industrial revolution. You would do it at a profit. I hope 200 to >> 400 years would be fast enough. >> >> It might be more profitable to simply export the remaining coal from the >> earth, or to extract carbon from other sources in the solar system. >> However, the purpose of would be to reverse global warming while at the >> same time producing something useful. >> >> I suppose we would use a combination of techniques. Selling some carbon, >> burying some, using some to build wooden houses. >> >> I predict that people will want to live in wooden houses far into the >> future, with wooden furniture, even after other synthetic materials become >> available. Wood looks nicer. People like traditional materials. Japanese >> people will want tatami made from natural rice straw and rush far into the >> future. Why wouldn't they? It smells nice. New tatami is a pleasure to sit >> on. As they say, to live a pleasant life you should get new tatami and a >> new wife, often. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
