Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

A Case for Climate Engineering

A forum to either submit your own review of a book, video or audio interview, or to post reviews by others.

A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 20:27:04

A Case for Climate Engineering

For decades, geoengineering — which describes various technical proposals, from the seemingly straightforward to ideas that sound like they were dreamed up on Star Trek — was a dirty word among environmental scientists, who wanted less messing with nature, not more. But with carbon dioxide emissions rising and political forces having little global impact, it’s an idea now openly debated at scientific and policy forums. At the same time, it has gone from a side interest of Keith’s to a full-time gig, including writing a book, A Case for Climate Engineering, that comes out next week.

Skeptics think geoengineering is hubristic overreach that is bound to backfire — either by removing the impetus to cut emissions or by causing new problems for the climate, or both. Keith welcomes the debate, but he bristles at being cast as gung-ho. The risks of climate tinkering are real, Keith says. But willful ignorance is riskier. Left unchecked, a warming climate could one day cause enough harm that mounting pressure to do something, anything, to cool the planet quickly would leave few other options. If that day comes, he says, we’d better know what we’re doing.


So it goes lately for Keith, who has become a one-man geoengineering band. In addition to teaching, writing, and attending speaking engagements and far-flung scientific symposiums, he runs a start-up company that plans to build and operate giant “scrubbers” to remove carbon dioxide from the air and then sell the gas to energy companies; they’ll send it deep underground to increase pressure in oil wells and extract hard-to-reach crude, leaving the gas buried, or feed it to algae engineered to make it into biofuel. The scrubbers — which use a chemical reaction similar to one that’s been used in the paper, pulp, and other industries for decades — are among the less risky geoengineering ideas.


bostonglobe
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 21:45:36

Humans have already engineered the climate by putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course we should reverse geo-engineer the planet to take the CO2 out and get things back to the natural state. Its like removing a dam to let the river run free and the salmon come back----natural is always better.

Image
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26627
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Lore » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 22:20:33

Reverse engineering of GHG emissions is a pipe dream. First, you first have to accept the problem to do something about it. By the time humans get frightened enough to act we'll either be too broke, too disjointed, or make a wild Hail Mary pass doomed to failure.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby TemplarMyst » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 22:46:04

I think it may well be too late already, but what the heck, it's at least worth thinking about. What else have we got to do - if it really is too late now?

I made my tentative intro on the microgrid thread a few days ago, on more less this topic. Given the massive GHG load in the atmosphere already - as Plantagenet pointed out - we've been geoengineering all along. Of all the schemes out there, drawing down the gases seems the least likely to result in unintended consequences.

Given current technology, I think this might only be considered with a massive excess of energy. Not only a reduction in use, but an increase in production. Using minimally GHG-intensive means.

Tall order, that. Yeah, not likely. But again, no harm in considering it. My own research indicates we'd need to use nuclear to do it, but the Big N has so many negative vibes its seems that's not a serious consideration. What then? I'm open.

And if Rune is listening, no, I'm not at all afraid of the N word or the technology. Should anyone have an open mind on it, I'd suggest starting with Radioactive Wolves on PBS. Chernobyl. 25 years after the fact. A barren wasteland, uninhabitable for thousands of years? If you have the inclination, watch the show. Form your own conclusions.

TM
TemplarMyst
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri 16 Aug 2013, 21:45:22
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 22:52:43

Global warming is already unstoppable because of increasing amounts of ghg discharging into atmosphere. There is a case for climate engineering but only once ff industry (and the rest of us) stop emitting ghg's. How can we convince them to stop doing business? The dollar signs in their eyes are too persuasive. Maybe when ff business is unprofitable. Can anyone suggest how this could occur?

The pressure to do something will mount as the Earth gets hotter. So preparing now and starting process like planting trees is worthwhile.
Last edited by Graeme on Fri 18 Oct 2013, 23:03:28, edited 1 time in total.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Lore » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 22:57:15

Graeme wrote:Global warming is already unstoppable because of increasing amounts of ghg in atmosphere. There is a case for climate engineering but only once ff industry (and the rest of us) stop emitting ghg's. How can we convince them to stop doing business? The dollar signs in their eyes are too persuasive. Maybe when ff business is unprofitable. Can anyone suggest how this could occur?

The pressure to do something will mount as the Earth gets hotter. So preparing now and starting process like planting trees is worthwhile.


World commerce will come to a grinding halt when millions to billions of their customers simply die off all at once in the not too distant future.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 23:09:14

Yes that's one extreme possibility. I was thinking of something less drastic like government policy (top down approach) or consumers boycotting ff (bottom up). Education is perhaps another.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Lore » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 23:15:19

That would be the sensible approach, but history suggests we're not too smart. We have educated people right now that run large corporations that contribute to the problem. They should know better and do, but immediate gratification keeps getting in the way. Humans will continue to do things until they can't do them anymore.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 18 Oct 2013, 23:28:02

We are beginning to see protests from the bottom and governments are slowly responding. Business is too. That's encouraging.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 19 Oct 2013, 10:48:57

There are only two, possibly four ways to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere quickly with current known technology that we could do without a huger energy cost.

Method 1, my favorite, Biochar. You take crop residues and use waste heat from industrial sources like large electric power plants to heat them to about 200 C in an oxygen free environment. The power plant can use the gasses driven off by pyrolysis as supplemental fuel or they can be refined into useful chemicals. The resulting char is then ground into fine particulate matter mixed with compost to be spread on fields and gardens and lawns and any other green space you can think of. The carbon captured as Biochar is around half the total carbon mass of the waste and is sequestered in the soil for millennial time scales.

Method 2, Instead of Biochar take those same crop residues, form them into bales with weights inside and dump them into places like the Mississippi delta fan in deep water where the silt will bury them for millions of years. In a few million years they will become coal, but in the short term you are sequestering all the carbon in the residues for the foreseeable future. Unlike Biochar you are not recovering the other chemical materials in the residues nor are you gaining the soil amendment benefits from them.

Method 3, Mine all known Olivine formations, grind the mineral into a powder form and mix it with urea for use as fertilizer everywhere there is a green space. As the fertilizer weathers the Olivine absorbs CO2 chemically and binds it into the silicate as carbonate minerals. More expensive and energy intensive than the crop residue options, but also a very long term sequestration.

Method 4, take iron and phosphorus and sulfur and create phytoplankton fertilizer, spray the mixture lightly in the low activity areas of the ocean. The phytoplankton population will increase greatly leading to a large increase in ecosystem carbon sequestration. In theory the fecal pellets and diatomaceous shells of the dead plankton will settle on the sea floor and become interred over geological time scales just like the material which formed the oil formations we access today.

Possible method 5 only slightly tested. Take SPAR type structures far out to sea and fit them with large wind turbines. Use those turbines to power pumping equipment pulling cold deep mineral rich water up from below 1000 feet/300 Meters down and spraying it out onto the surface waters. The mineral rich deep water behaves exactly like the Method 4 fertilizer above and in some ways is much simpler to accomplish. This is mimicking nature, anywhere in the deep ocean where a sea rise like a reef or island exists the ocean currents are forced upward and deep waters are brought to the surface creating some of the best fishing grounds on Earth. The Flemish Cap and Grand Banks of the Atlantic coastline are examples of this, as is the Dogger Bank in European waters.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17059
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Graeme » Sat 19 Oct 2013, 13:33:10

Tanada, Thanks that's very helpful. I can go a step further and do some simple calculations to illustrate the scale of the problem and the feasibility of lowering CO2 in atmosphere from 400ppm to 300ppm (ie remove approx 700Gt). Using the 7 CO2 removal techniques listed on the graphic on this page, assuming the world could remove 20Gt/year at an average cost of $50/tonne, it would take 35 years and cost a trillion/year to achieve this goal. Could we actually do this? Keith is going the attempt DAC (direct air capture) - one of the techniques which could remove roughly 8-10 Gt CO2/year.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Rune » Sat 19 Oct 2013, 15:23:25

TemplarMyst wrote:And if Rune is listening, no, I'm not at all afraid of the N word or the technology. Should anyone have an open mind on it, I'd suggest starting with Radioactive Wolves on PBS. Chernobyl. 25 years after the fact. A barren wasteland, uninhabitable for thousands of years? If you have the inclination, watch the show. Form your own conclusions.


The RBMK reactor at Chernobyl, an old generation II reactor, was a very unsafe design. Not to mention that it used the Uranium Fuel Cycle, which is inherently dangerous.

You cannot say that the use of the Thorium Fuel Cycle eliminates all risks, but it reduces them drastically - and I mean, drastically.

The whole subject is very much worth reading about because there is so much information to absorb.

But LFTR reactors are what Dr. James Hansen of NASA, famous climatologist and GW alarmist, has recommended to the US government. And he recommended it based on his informed opinion.

What are the risks of continuing to spew CO2 into the atmosphere? They are very large risks, are they not?

So what is the problem with reducing those risks? The first objective should be to quickly cease burning coal. That means developing a baseload energy source cheaper than coal. It is totally possible to do that. It would take about 20 years.

The Chinese are set upon doing it and it is the world's best hope for the development of small modular LFTRs so far. The US and Russia should get behind that effort and make it a cooperative one - quickly.

It is not as if it has never been done before. The US MSR worked great.

Any common-sense first step in reducing climate risk should involve, firstly, STOPPING further CO2 emmissions.

I haven't seen any reasonable scientific methods for actually reversing the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in any big way (though I haven't looked lately).

But I do know that some plant species are more successful in capturing CO2 for photosynthesis than other plants. Is it possible to genetically engineer plants or algae to optimize this trait? I wouldn't be quick to bet against it. Any ideas are worth investigating.
It takes courage to watch a film so well-done as September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor. You will never be the same. It is a new release. Five hours. Watch it on YouTube for free.
User avatar
Rune
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Tue 25 Mar 2008, 03:00:00

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Graeme » Sun 20 Oct 2013, 03:41:53

The case for removal of CO2 from atmosphere looks daunting from the preliminary calculations I did above but not only do I see this as an initial step in terms of cost and time but also flexible in terms of techniques described including the ones that Tanada listed. At this point, DAC is my favourite. All the various 'flavours' of CO2 removal could be modified to reduce cost and speed of removal. All need to be rigorously tested. If I see any further developments in this area, I will post here.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 20 Oct 2013, 08:48:43

I'll remind everyone that Al Gore promoted carbon sequestration using machinery followed by deepwater injection in the film An Inconvenient Truth. He stopped doing that after someone pointed out how energy intensive that was.

The point would be don't promote a method of removing atmospheric carbon dioxide unless you also specify a carbon-free energy source. Then figure out what your method would cost on a global scale.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Surf » Sun 20 Oct 2013, 13:40:04

Tanada wrote:

Possible method 5 only slightly tested. Take SPAR type structures far out to sea and fit them with large wind turbines. Use those turbines to power pumping equipment pulling cold deep mineral rich water up from below 1000 feet/300 Meters down and spraying it out onto the surface waters. The mineral rich deep water behaves exactly like the Method 4 fertilizer above and in some ways is much simpler to accomplish. This is mimicking nature, anywhere in the deep ocean where a sea rise like a reef or island exists the ocean currents are forced upward and deep waters are brought to the surface creating some of the best fishing grounds on Earth. The Flemish Cap and Grand Banks of the Atlantic coastline are examples of this, as is the Dogger Bank in European waters.


You don't need much to pump water. A buoy with a couple of solar panels can supply enough power to run small air and water pumps. A small 10 GPM pump can pump 7000 gallons in one day assuming 12 hours of sunlight and the air pump can aerate all that water to insure it is has adequate CO2 levels. From what I have read it doesn't take a lot of fertilizer to to trigger an algae bloom.

If you string rope between the buoys you can attach and grow seaweed on the rope. Then periodically a small ship would come out and strip off some of the seaweed. On shore the seaweed can be fermented into ethanol that can be used as fuel and the waste water from the fermentation tanks can be used to fertilize farm fields. If you look at EROEI studies of Ethanol production most of the energy used to make ethanol is used to heat and pump water. Solar and wind power with flow battery backup can easily provide the needed power to run the plant.If you consider the size of the ocean and assume all cars in the future get 40 to 50 miles per gallon it might be possible to replace fossil fuel use with Ethanol from seaweed. If some of the Ethanol is placed into long term underground storage it can even be CO2 negative.

Excess fertilizer use on farm fields is currently causing large algae blooms near river deltas causing "dead zones" ere no fish can live. Growing seaweed in these areas could eliminate the dead zones, recycle the fertilizer and provide use with large quantities of ethanol. It would eliminate several problems at once with very little excess cost added to the economy.
Surf
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat 13 Jul 2013, 14:13:49

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Timo » Mon 21 Oct 2013, 12:21:29

Graeme wrote:Yes that's one extreme possibility. I was thinking of something less drastic like government policy (top down approach) or consumers boycotting ff (bottom up). Education is perhaps another.

Historically speaking, that top-down model of governance has dominated humanity for most of our civilized existence. When power is spread to the massses, ergo very thin, then everyone has very little, and everyone fights to maintain what they've got, and nothing large-scale ever gets accomplished. I know i'll get beat up here for saying this, but the status quo systems of decentralized governance of the western world are fundamentally incapable of solving any problems that extend beyond our economic interests. Sometimes, being told what to do is the best way to go. That's why your parents always told you to take out the trash or to wash the dishes when you were a kid. Kids never do helpful chores voluntarily. The central power system of parents makes the household work more efficiently, and also keep the house from being overrun with dirty dishes. 99.9% of the earth's human population right now are just little kids who need to be told what to do for their own interets, only the stakes are now planetary survival, and not just being grounded for two weeks.
Timo
 

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Graeme » Mon 21 Oct 2013, 19:56:46

I just found this paper which indicates that DAC is not viable until after mid-century, in which case it will be too late. It could be deployed on a massive scale then but in the meantime other methods must be used. BECCS is one promising candidate however according to this reference, a commercial project is not yet available and "questions regarding reliability and economics remain to be resolved".
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 22 Oct 2013, 06:55:01

The best reference I could on biochar is this one. It's a series of slides produced by Woolf. The last one entitled "Global cost curve for GHG abatement shows that biochar cost €21-30 per tCO2e (from'McCarl 2009) and could remove 3.7 > 6.6 Gt CO2 e / yr abatement (Woolf et al 2010).
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: A Case for Climate Engineering

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 22 Oct 2013, 08:04:44

Graeme wrote:The best reference I could on biochar is this one. It's a series of slides produced by Woolf. The last one entitled "Global cost curve for GHG abatement shows that biochar cost €21-30 per tCO2e (from'McCarl 2009) and could remove 3.7 > 6.6 Gt CO2 e / yr abatement (Woolf et al 2010).


If you are really interested I would suggest sites like http://www.biochar.ca/ and
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar-soils/info

Reports on research and development get posted regularly by different participants.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17059
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Next

Return to Book/Media Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests