Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Geoengineering, another rush for money?  (Read 54090 times)

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3573
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #300 on: April 26, 2018, 05:15:09 AM »
If you have a pipe to send the methane out to space, past the Earth's atmosphere, then we could take the methane out of the permafrost.

Since you probably don't we need to leave that methane sequestered.
That is not a permanent solution.  Heat it up and it will come out. Eventually it will be heated up.  The longer it takes the more there is.  Too much and we do Venus.  Over heat it and melt the ice.  Out gas it maybe burn it, and no ice on earth.  End the age of ice.  that will stabilize the environment long term.

I'd really like to know if you're serious or whether you're attempting to troll.


Sleepy

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 942
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #301 on: April 26, 2018, 05:39:56 AM »
...

Humanity already know what plan to follow and how to mitigate, we're just not doing it.
We (the top 10%) are still aiming for the stars and another rush for money and geoengineering.

...
Do we?

If you look at sort term (our life time and the lifetime of our great grandkids) comfort and convenience for us then we need to stop and reverse global warming.

If you look long term then you get a different answer.  The long term health of the biosphere depends on getting the methane out of the arctic permafrost as the permafrost sequesters it and enough could build up overtime to drive the planet to a state like Venus.

So it is in the long term, the health of the planet involves intentional AGW now.  Or some other way of dealing with the sequestered methane and how to convert it to solid carbon.

There is no long term for us, we should focus on what we should do today. Every day we pursue green growth is a day lost that will have to be fixed with geoengineering solutions, which still does not exist.

Earth is not Venus, we do share the same sun but it's further away and we spin faster, a lot faster. So every disaster we can muster will eventually be "normalized" by Earth. We won't be here to see it though.

Global material resource use may more than double to 2050, with high-income countries currently consuming 10 times more per person than low-income countries. We can't focus on emission abatement alone. There are no silver bullets.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

Iceismylife

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #302 on: April 26, 2018, 08:13:41 PM »
If you have a pipe to send the methane out to space, past the Earth's atmosphere, then we could take the methane out of the permafrost.

Since you probably don't we need to leave that methane sequestered.
That is not a permanent solution.  Heat it up and it will come out. Eventually it will be heated up.  The longer it takes the more there is.  Too much and we do Venus.  Over heat it and melt the ice.  Out gas it maybe burn it, and no ice on earth.  End the age of ice.  that will stabilize the environment long term.

I'd really like to know if you're serious or whether you're attempting to troll.
I'm serious.  Do we put ourselves ahead of the biosphere?  Or do we put the biosphere ahead of ourselves?

The numbers as of now that I've seen bantered around look like this.  The is something like 5,000gt  Methane in the arctic permafrost.  that works out to 3,750gt carbon.  But methane is 100 times as good as CO2 at global warming.  We've added 300gt of carbon as CO2 to the atmosphere so we are looking at 1,000 times as much global warming if we out gas the methane as we've done so far.

If you raise the temperature of the sea water at the equator to 100C then the sea water will tend to go into the atmosphere.  heat it up enough and you drive out the CO2 from the rock And we have something like Venus.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3573
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #303 on: April 26, 2018, 09:55:39 PM »
OK, I'll assume you are serious.

There's a tremendous amount of methane that could come out of the world's permafrost if it was allowed to melt and decompose.

Quote
Methane in the earth's atmosphere is a strong greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 104 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame; methane is not as persistent a gas as CO2 and tails off to about GWP of 28 for a 100-year time frame.[4][11]

This means that a methane emission will have 28 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass over the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 8.9±0.6 years in the atmosphere,[12] whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period, having an estimated lifetime of over 100 years.

Wiki.

We could burn the methane, turning CH4 into CO2 and H2.  Then we end up with CO2 that will screw up the climate for 100 years.

The best solution is to not melt the permafrost and leave all that dead vegetation safely frozen.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #304 on: April 27, 2018, 03:11:25 AM »
Bob Wallace, Up thread your recollection ( IIRC )is that CO2 increases will remain in the atmosphere for a hundred years. I went back through an old SKeptical Science piece and pulled out this discussion.
"It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10)."
 
So long as we don't totally screw up the biological components of the ocean carbon sink 500 years of heating is to be expected not 100. The longer we wait to reduce our CO2 emissions the longer this heating time lag will extend. Biological processes are extremely important and we really don't know how badly we are compromising them.
 Land use emissions and concrete production also play their part. We are extending those stressors do to modern farming practices as well as forest reductions and nasty wildfires.   


Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #305 on: April 27, 2018, 03:43:55 AM »
The more I read the more I become convinced that CO2 was the reason civilization flourished during the Holocene. We have been geoengineering the planet for thousands of years.

It seems likely that farming, deforestation and wood burning from humans was enough to keep the perfect temperature for humans going for 10,000 years. Long enough to abandon our animal nature in favor of writing and tool making. Then we found fossil fuels at the  perfect time.

The planet was cooling and CO2 was droping. We might have hit a thermodynamic equilibrium but the popularization of fossil fuels raised CO2 levels which combined with an upswing of the solar cycle raised the temperatures enough for humans to remain growing exponentially. Then we over did. We are still overdoing it.

We are putting too much CO2 in the atmosphere and that is warming the planet faster than it has since the PETM, probably faster. We are overheating the planet. Let's suppose we somehow get it under control in time.

Then we will need fossil fuels to keep the planet warm for the next million years.  Maybe if we learn to manage the CO2 cycle we can keep the planet's CO2 levels at 300ppm forever.  That would be a start trek kind of future for mankind. All we have to do is keep the planet from overheating now.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #306 on: April 27, 2018, 05:13:53 AM »
"geoengineering the planet for thousands of years."

Ruddiman says the same. Check him out, i have posted about him before.
There's a good book called 1491 about the American continents, too.

sidd

Sleepy

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 942
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #307 on: April 27, 2018, 06:17:44 AM »
If you raise the temperature of the sea water at the equator to 100C then the sea water will tend to go into the atmosphere.  heat it up enough and you drive out the CO2 from the rock And we have something like Venus.
Not possible according to James Hansen, five years ago:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 942
  • Every day you live, something else dies.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #308 on: April 27, 2018, 06:25:23 AM »
Then we will need fossil fuels to keep the planet warm for the next million years.  Maybe if we learn to manage the CO2 cycle we can keep the planet's CO2 levels at 300ppm forever.  That would be a start trek kind of future for mankind. All we have to do is keep the planet from overheating now.
Let's go.
http://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/assessing-global-resource-use
Key messages attached.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #309 on: May 02, 2018, 12:44:51 AM »

Should we create a solar shade to cool the earth? | Danny Hillis

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #310 on: May 27, 2018, 03:52:00 AM »
High-quality carbon nanotubes made from carbon dioxide in the air break the manufacturing cost barrier

http://www.kurzweilai.net/high-quality-carbon-nanotubes-made-from-carbon-dioxide-in-the-air-break-the-manufacturing-cost-barrier

Quote
Vanderbilt University researchers have discovered a technique to cost-effectively convert carbon dioxide from the air into a type of carbon nanotubes that they say is “more valuable than any other material ever made.”

This sets off my "sounds to good to be true" alert but I'll drop it here just in case.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3573
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #311 on: May 27, 2018, 04:33:35 AM »
Bringing down the cost of carbon nanotubes is a good thing.  But I wonder if we'd ever make enough to make a meaningful dent in the total amount of carbon in the above-surface carbon cycle?

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1186
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #312 on: May 27, 2018, 02:25:55 PM »
The demand for Carbon Nanotubes must be enormous for this method to make a difference.Maybe a significant price drop allows for technology to advance and incorporate nanotubes in a significant portion of everything that's produced. Still, I don't see how it will ever reach more than a fraction of a percent CO2 reduction.

However if pulling CO2 from the atmosphere to make stuff becomes a trend then all this little reductions may sum into something significant. Any such thing is decades away.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #313 on: August 08, 2018, 07:59:22 PM »
If this method of using OTEC , ocean thermal energy, can be run at scale it would be an enormous step forward. OTEC is used to convert thermal energy into hydrogen which can be used as a produced fuel and the byproduct is a common form of alkalinity that can counteract ocean acidification.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211830532X?via%3Dihub

NeilT

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #314 on: August 09, 2018, 01:41:46 AM »
If this method of using OTEC , ocean thermal energy, can be run at scale it would be an enormous step forward. OTEC is used to convert thermal energy into hydrogen which can be used as a produced fuel and the byproduct is a common form of alkalinity that can counteract ocean acidification.

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211830532X?via%3Dihub

From the article

Quote
roughly 13 GW of surface ocean heat would be directly removed to deep water

Isn't it a fact that the vast majority of sea level rise, so far, is due to ocean expansion from heat storage in the deep ocean.

It sounds, to me, like we dump heat, even faster, into the deep ocean, but get a net by-product of free H2 electricity and 2.6GW of cooling.

But we've still dumped 13GW of heat into the deep ocean.  I assume per installation.

It is a known fact that the heat in the deep ocean does cycle back to the surface (was that 30 years?).

Is this something we want to experiment with when, decades down the line, it could come back to haunt us?
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #315 on: August 09, 2018, 02:59:11 AM »
NeilT, Heat is distributed in surface waters much differently than in intermediate, deep or bottom waters. Bottom waters can take up to a thousand years to bring cold , saline, and CO2 ( DIC ) rich waters back to the surface from initial formation processes.
 I don't know much about OTEC but if they extend only into intermediate waters you are correct and circulation time is about 35-50 years from formation to upwelling at least in the North Pacific.

I was attracted to this new proposal because it can produce alkalinity as a byproduct and at least locally this could be used to increase the saturation state of surface waters and improve conditions for species sensitive to acidification. Yes it would distribute heat into deeper waters that will eventually return to the surface but there may be locations where that return time is longer than intermediate waters of the North Pacific.  It is a redistribution of heat rather than the creation of heat that results from combustion and added atmospheric CO2 so IMO it is renewable and less damaging than current fossil fuel energy production.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 15421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #316 on: August 14, 2018, 04:32:27 PM »
The study cited in the linked article finds that extensive use of BECCS technology would lead to an increase in carbon in the atmosphere rather than the decrease assumed by many IPCC projections:

Title: "Guest post: Why BECCS might not produce ‘negative’ emissions after all"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-beccs-might-not-produce-negative-emissions-after-all

Extract: "In our new study, published in Nature Communications, my colleagues and I find that expansion of bioenergy in order to meet the 1.5C limit could cause net losses in carbon from the land surface. Instead, we find that protecting and expanding forests could be more effective options for meeting the Paris Agreement."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 15421
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #317 on: Today at 03:48:32 AM »
There are no simple/easy answers in geoengineering:

Title: "Geoengineering: Blocking sunlight to cool Earth won't reduce crop damage from global warming"

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-geoengineering-blocking-sunlight-cool-earth.html

Extract: "Injecting particles into the atmosphere to cool the planet and counter the warming effects of climate change would do nothing to offset the crop damage from rising global temperatures, according to a new analysis by University of California, Berkeley, researchers."

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson