ranking the ideas

[Andrew Lockley]

Can anyone else help me 'rank' the technologies? Just because people
talk about a tech lots doesn't mean it's actually any good! I'm
getting the impression that the following are basically in/out

IN
Sea water spraying
Sulphur stratospheric seeding
Ocean fertilisation with iron/urea
White roofs (nice but not very effective)

DON'T KNOW
Limestone powder into the sea
Fake plastic trees
Biochar
Removing HCl from oceans

OUT
Nuclear bombs
Space mirrors
Shiny balloons
Sea albedo from litter/pykrete
Low level soot and sulphur burning

This is obviously just a list based on my bar stool expertise. If
anyone with more knowledge could help that would be appreciated. Any
references to an objective ranking system that I can put in the wiki
would be appreciated.

A

[Mike MacCracken]

Dear Andrew--

Although not done intentionally (well, in many cases we have chosen not to
use the technology that would maximally limit emissions), we are already,
quite fortunately, creating a significant cooling influence with
tropospheric sulfate aerosols. While there are negative side effects,
comparing those against the impacts this cooling presently alleviates
(resulting from about the 0.5 C cooling influence) has not been done, but
might not be clear-cut.

In that there is no overwhelming negative influence of the tropospheric
sulfate aerosols, one could well imagine increasing their amount, at least
to generate additional sulfate aerosols in regions where ecological impacts
are likely to be minimal. So, increasing tropospheric sulfur dioxide
emissions from the elevated stacks of coal-fired power plants or by some
other means of lofting the sulfur dioxide to above the boundary layer (where
its lifetime is long enough to allow conversion to sulfate aerosol) would
seem to be an option to be included in the IN category. Indeed, there may be
adverse impacts in terms of deposition and human health, but it may well be
possible to manage the emissions to that they occur only for trajectories
that take the sulfates out over the oceans or to other locations where
deposition would not be problematic.

In fact, given the apparently increasing SO2 emissions from the new
coal-fired power plants in China (as evidenced by the high sulfate levels
shown in the figure in the IPCC WG I report), this approach to limiting
warming may already be having some effect--indeed, maybe, as in the mid 20th
century, sulfates may be what seems to be somewhat slowing the warming over
the past decade.

Mike MacCracken

[Andrew Lockley]

Thanks, I hope others with opinions about this and other categories
will put their views forward.

I'm concerned by the use of sulphur in this way. It caused terrible
damage to the forests of Europe in the 70s and 80s. At this time it
was apparently difficult to establish exactly which sources were
causing the problem. How can we ensure that this does not happen
again?

Furthermore, I understand that tropospheric soot is also very
significant, and that some have proposed using 'dirty burn' in ships
and aircraft to promote cooling. Smoke from rainforest fires in SE
Asia is apparently sufficient to promote regional cooling. Should
this go on the IN list?

A

2008/12/23 Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>:

[Mike MacCracken]

I cannot imagine how adding soot to the atmosphere would lead to cooling
instead of warming.

On the use of sulfates, indeed there were problems as a result of
deposition. The worst problems occurred when the sulfate was not lofted and
so dispersed, as opposed to local, concentrated deposition. Sometimes this
occurred well down some particular trajectories (such as UK to Scandinavia).
The question is whether there might be a way, by selectively determining
locations and the particular weather, to build up sulfate concentrations
over dark oceans rather than over land and forests. Certainly there would
still be (and likely are now) some adverse consequences, but one would seek
to minimize those. Then the question is how these impacts would compare with
the effects of the warming that is being alleviated--and how this would
compare with the balance for other approaches and the costs and challenges
of implementing the various approaches.

Mike MacCracken

[David Schnare]

Andrew:

 

Any attempt to pick winners and losers in geoengineering will be viewed as highly suspect unless first there is a robust discussion of ranking criteria.  Indeed, you have not disclosed your own criteria, much less the criteria used by others upon whom you have relied.

 

Why don't we think about waiting for the British effort to pick winners and losers, examine the criteria they used and start from there.  Until then, it's just one man's opinion against another, and that is neither good science or good policy.

 

David

[Andrew Lockley]

Here's the reference I used for soot.
http://www.californiaskywatch.com/documents/htmldocs/geoengineering.htm

I am pretty sure that soot from burning rainforests caused
significant regional cooling in SE asia.

If I'm wrong please can someone set me straight.

2008/12/23 Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>:

[Andrew Lockley]

I didn't have any formal criteria, and I'd be pleased to be guided by
anyone who can do a proper comparative paper.

If by the 'British Competition' you mean the IMechE, they already
announced the results and I posted it to the list. I think it was
only new schemes though.

A

2008/12/23 David Schnare <dwsc...@gmail.com>:

> --
> David W. Schnare
> Center for Environmental Stewardship
>

[Andrew Lockley]

Thanks to Sam for pulling together this matrix of evaluation criteria.
Is anyone knowledgeable/brave/foolish enough to have a go at ranking
the ideas against these criteria? I don't have the knowledge or the
credibility.

A

2008/12/24 Sam Carana <sam.c...@gmail.com>:
> Here are some points on which I have evaluated a number of geo-engineering
> projects. I encourage others to suggest additions and changes.
>
> =======
> SCIENCE
> =======
> - EXISTING STUDIES - Are relevant studies available? Has there been any
> peer-review?
> - FURTHER STUDY - What further studies and modeling are required?
> - EFFECTIVENESS - How effective will the proposal be in reducing global
> warming?
> - TIMESCALE - How long will it take to see results?
> - CONCERNS - What are possible climate risks, side-effects, dangers?
>
> ===========
> ENGINEERING
> ===========
> - METHODS - How can it be done? Have specific methods been proposed?
> - TECHNICAL PROBLEMS - Could the project run into technical problems?
> - TECHNOLOGIES - Does the project require development of new technologies?
> - TESTING - Has any testing been done? At what scale?
>
> ==========
> ECONOMICS
> ==========
> - COST - Are there estimates as to what (each of the various stages of)
> implementations would cost?
> - FINANCING - How could the project be financed? Is there any backing for
> the project?
> - RESOURCES - Will there be access to the various resources needed to make
> it work?
> - IMPACT - What will be the economic impact? Who will profit from the
> project?
>
> =======
> POLITICS
> =======
> - APPROVAL - What kind of approvals are needed to go ahead?
> - SUBSIDIES - Are subsidies required for impact studies, feasibility studies
> or for specific parts of the project?
> - POLICY - How does the project fit in with specific policies, e.g. offset
> policies, emissions trading or feebates?
> - LEGAL - Does it require new laws or amendment of existing laws? Can legal
> challenges be expected?
> - DIPLOMACY - Would the project require international negotiations between
> nations?
> - ADMINISTRATION - From where will the project be administered?
>
> ===============
> SOCIAL & MEDICAL
> ===============
> - SUPPORT - Is there public support for, concern about or resistance against
> the project?
> - CONSULTATION - Who will benefit, who could be harmed? Has the public been
> consulted?
> - CONTROL - What level of policing, supervision and security is needed? What
> monitoring is needed?
> - MEDICAL - Would the project pose safety and health concerns?
> - CULTURAL - Does the project offend some people in some way?
>
> ============
> ENVIRONMENT
> ============
> - IMPACT STUDY - Has an environmental impact assessment been done? Are
> further studies required?
> - MAINTENANCE - Is any monitoring, maintenance or restoration required, to
> prevent environmental damage?
>
> These points could give some indication as to how hard it will be to
> implement with a proposed project. Projects could be scored on each point by
> asking whether this point will raise any difficulties for the respective
> project. A high score would indicate that there can be expected to be little
> or no difficulty on this point for the project, while a low score would
> indicate that the project can be expected to have difficulty on this point.
>
> Each point could be given a specific weighting, resulting in overall score
> for each of the projects. The higher the overall score, the more the project
> should be of interest to members of this group. A high overall score should
> indicate that there is sufficient confidence that the project is safe,
> effective, feasible, viable, etc, with little or no concern, risk or danger
> that things could go wrong or that a proposal could cause damage or harm in
> some way.
>
> Importantly however, this should not be seen as a race where only one winner
> is selected. It is prudent to encourage diversity in approach and to
> continue to study multiple ideas and suggestions in parallel.
>
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>

[Alvia Gaskill]

NAS-92 considered burning of high sulfur coal on islands in the ocean or
sulfur alone on ships to increase CCN (cloud condensation nuclei) of low
level marine stratocumulus clouds by 30% and the overall cloudiness
(brightness) by 4%, arriving at a figure of 6Mt S/yr to balance a doubling
of CO2. They also considered how best to minimize land impacts.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook/0309043867/gifmid/824.gif

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1605&page=824

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1605&page=830

The objective in that analysis was to increase CCN, but increasing the
sulfate aerosol concentration so that it scatters sunlight back into space
would require a great deal more, with many of the same concerns as in the
CCN enhancement strategy. I would be opposed to the burning of coal on the
scale required, not just because of the CO2 emissions, but also because of
mercury emissions. I also do not support any plan to allow Chinese power
plants to continue to burn high sulfur coal without FGD systems and am
unaware of locations where acid rain from such plants does not present an
environmental hazard as the emissions can be transported thousands of miles.
Thus, the best place to do this would be an island in the Pacific Ocean,
although again one would have to be concerned about transported aerosol
reaching land areas. Placing the sulfur combustor on a mountain would
facilitate getting the SO2 into the upper level winds, but since the goal
was to keep it in a confined area over the ocean, I'm not sure that would be
a good idea either.

The scale necessary to achieve the desired cooling is also problematic. If
one assumes that the 60Mt/yr or so of S emitted globally today goes to zero
by 2050 and that the sulfate aerosol from these emissions account for a
negative 1.3W/m-2 forcing, then to replace this negative forcing would
require an additional 60Mt/yr be found and burned. The reason 60Mt would be
needed for tropospheric aerosols and only a few Mt for stratospheric to
achieve the same or even greater scattering of sunlight is the much shorter
residence time for the tropospheric aerosols. While 6Mt S may be available
for this use by 2011 due to surplus production stimulated by demand from
China for fertilizer, I see no easy source of 60Mt. The link below presents
a summary of the present market for sulfur and its future demand.

http://www.pr-inside.com/china-sulfur-market-report-r641237.htm

Sulfur prices have ranged from $5-50/tonne for most of the last 10 years,
but spiked to nearly $800/tonne in 08 and has now collapsed again, along
with many other commodities like crude oil. At $1000/tonne, 60Mt costs $60
billion, but back down at $200, a more realistic long term price, $12
billion. So availability and not cost would be the more important obstacle.
This is why stratospheric and not tropospheric aerosols are the better
alternative, all other impacts aside.

http://www.ictulsa.com/sulphur_history.pdf

[Ken Caldeira]

Andrew,

Perhaps instead of trying to rank technologies, which involves coming up with a scalar value for a multivariate phenomenon amid uncertainty, it would be more useful to list the characteristics of each approach that someone could use to do a ranking.

This would be especially useful if uncertainty ranges could be specified instead off simple numbers, and there were suggestions on how uncertainties might be diminished.

Best,

Ken

PS. It would be interesting to try to get some specificity on claims of environmental risk. For example, is there anybody who really believes there is significant direct risk associated with the fertilization activity proposed by Climos? If the real concern is the slippery slope and not the possible effects of the proposed activity itself, it would be useful for that to be out in the open. If people really do think there could be lasting bad effects from their proposed activity, it would be useful for someone to try to provide evidence of this risk.

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

[Sam Carana]

Hi Ken, and others,

I agree that it's good to work with a range, to cater for uncertainties, in order to come up with worst-case and best-case scenarios. To facilitate this, it's good to hear about any concerns about safety, risks, unintended consequences, etc. In that spirit, I'll add some myself.

Ever since I floated ideas of spraying water vapor into the sky, people have been writing me with concerns, such as that
- hydrogen and oxygen will escape from Earth into space;
- some areas will receive salty rains and decrease in fertility;
- the greenhouse effect of water vapor is too strong, more heat will be trapped than light will be reflected back into space;
- decrease in light will reduce growth of vegetation, crop, etc.

Similar concerns apply to suggestions to the suggestion to burn more coal, crop residue, wood and dung (the idea being that less sunlight will then penetrate Earth). Another concern with this idea is that this will - apart from the CO2 emissions - add large amounts of soot into the atmosphere, which appears to be underestimated in regard to its impact.

In an article I wrote last April (URL below), I quoted a study by Professor V. Ramanathan and G. Carmichael of UC San Diego, concluding that black carbon causes a warming effect in the atmosphere of about 0.9 watts per meter squared. That compares to earlier estimates of between 0.3 watts per meter squared of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Black carbon could have as much as 60% of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e. more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977306586

One problem is that soot and dust particles can rise high into the atmosphere, keeping heat trapped underneath. Furthermore, soot and dust particles can cover ice and snow on mountaintops, causing an albedo change that will accelerate the melting of glaciers, which are crucial in that they feed rivers that supply water to crop, livestock, people and vegetation. The fear is that, once the glaciers have melted, the rivers will stop flowing, causing droughts that will bring famine and endanger the lives of vast amounts of people.  

In that respect, water vapor is much more benign; it can result in more snow in the mountains, with positive contributions to glaciers and rivers, while the light surface of snow and ice will reflect more sunlight back into space.

Cheers!
Sam Carana

[David Schnare]

Sam offers an interesting, if somewhat simplistic set of criteria.  Simple can be very powerful, so don't take that as a negative critique.  I do note, I see nothing on cost-effectiveness, nor any comparison on a per ton of carbon offset concept, both of which would be necessary for most policy analysts. 

 

As for the British effort, I was referring to the Royal Society study now underway and due out in about 6 months. 

 

d.

[Sam Carana]

I just realized that I had sent my evaluation criteria only to Andrew
personally, and not to the group, hence my confusion as to why people
responded to a message that didn't appear to be in the archive.
Apologies for my confusion. To give everyone a clearer overview of the
evaluation criteria that I used, here's the post again. As said, I

=====================

On Dec 24, 4:39 am, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't have any formal criteria, and I'd be pleased to be guided by
> anyone who can do a proper comparative paper.
>
> If by the 'British Competition' you mean the IMechE, they already
> announced the results and I posted it to the list.  I think it was
> only new schemes though.
>
> A
>

> 2008/12/23 David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com>:

>
> > Andrew:
>
> > Any attempt to pick winners and losers in geoengineering will be viewed as
> > highly suspect unless first there is a robust discussion of ranking
> > criteria.  Indeed, you have not disclosed your own criteria, much less the
> > criteria used by others upon whom you have relied.
>
> > Why don't we think about waiting for the British effort to pick winners and
> > losers, examine the criteria they used and start from there.  Until then,
> > it's just one man's opinion against another, and that is neither good
> > science or good policy.
>
> > David
>

> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> Thanks, I hope others with opinions about this and other categories
> >> will put their views forward.
>
> >> I'm concerned by the use of sulphur in this way.  It caused terrible
> >> damage to the forests of Europe in the 70s and 80s.  At this time it
> >> was apparently difficult to establish exactly which sources were
> >> causing the problem.  How can we ensure that this does not happen
> >> again?
>
> >> Furthermore, I understand that tropospheric soot is also very
> >> significant, and that some have proposed using 'dirty burn' in ships
> >> and aircraft to promote cooling.  Smoke from rainforest fires in SE
> >> Asia is apparently sufficient to promote regional cooling.  Should
> >> this go on the IN list?
>
> >> A
>

> >> 2008/12/23 Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>: