On the relative harm and benefit of partially relaxing the recently fully implemented IMO maritime bunker fuel sulfur emissions regulation for “high seas” maritime transport in ways that as much as possible, increase the human and natural global cooling benefits of sulfur aerosols, and decrease the human and natural harm of tropospheric sulfuric acid, from these maritime emissions.
On the possible inclusion of benign tropospheric aerosol precursors such as sea water, or other substances in existing fuel, or future non-GHG, or net-zero GHG, emitting fuel, that increase the human and natural global cooling benefits of sulfur aerosols, and decrease the human and natural harm of tropospheric sulfuric acid, from these maritime emissions.
On the possible injection of benign tropospheric aerosol precursors such as sea water, or other substances from ships, regardless of what fuel they use, that could provide direct climate cooling that would be as, or more effective, than “bunker fuel” sulfur in providing effective direct climate cooling with no or much less harm to human and natural health current efforts.
4. On the possible replacement of fossil bunker fuels and existing combustion equipment with biomass pyrolysis systems that apparently can achieve the needed cost efficiency through solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), which may double the usual efficiencies by converting syngas to electricity for ship propulsion while also creating the income-generating carbon negative co-product: biochar.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Ron,
With regard to your second paragraph, you could include this graph from the Carbon Brief article by Hausfather and Forster (2023) in your reference list - https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/. It could also be referenced in the second paragraph of the open letter:
In the second point about sponsoring research I suggest you should delete ‘sulfur’ at the end of the 4th line and just leave it to refer to aerosols. Otherwise you are restricting the research to just substances containing sulphur and there may be suitable non-sulphur containing materials that could produce useful aerosols.
With regard to Ron’s suggested 4th point, I think you should run it past a shipping person before including it as I think it has some potential problems including:
Best wishes
Chris.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com.
Hi All
Most ships use big Diesel engines. If we can make submicron drops of filtered sea water we can inject them into the hot gas of the exhaust manifold.
The corrosion rate will not be greater than the former sulphuric acid.
Stephen
From: Chris Vivian <chris....@btinternet.com>
Sent: 16 August 2023 10:17
To: 'Ron Baiman' <rpba...@gmail.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; ''Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>;
'Healthy Climate Alliance' <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations
This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.
Ron,
With regard to your second paragraph, you could include this graph from the Carbon Brief article by Hausfather and Forster (2023) in your reference list - https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/. It could also be referenced in the second paragraph of the open letter:
In the second point about sponsoring research I suggest you should delete ‘sulfur’ at the end of the 4th line and just leave it to refer to aerosols. Otherwise you are restricting the research to just substances containing sulphur and there may be suitable non-sulphur containing materials that could produce useful aerosols.
With regard to Ron’s suggested 4th point, I think you should run it past a shipping person before including it as I think it has some potential problems including:
Best wishes
Chris.
From:
noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Ron Baiman
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 10:20 PM
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>;
Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>;
geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: SALTER Stephen <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations
Dear Colleagues,
I would greatly appreciate suggested edits and comments to this proposed open letter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewSMGl1bnh-umD86pT0x_2-EvaZUHbe1/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116465941111195452408&rtpof=true&sd=true
Most importantly, does the text and the three requests (one inspired by a comment from Stephen Salter) make sense, and is the overall descriptive language accurate?
Thank you!
Best,
Ron Baiman
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com.
Rob,
As I have pointed out to Peter Fiekowsky in a number of emails on the NOAC meetings emails, the claim that ocean fertilization could sequester tens of gigatons of carbon in the ocean is not credible.
In his 1990 paper, John Martin says “…very small amounts of Fe are needed; that is, the molar ratios of C to Fe are of the order of 10,000 (Fe replete [Morel and Hudson, 1985]) to 100,000:1.0 (Fe deficient [Anderson and Morel, 1982]).” These figures are for the productivity of Fe in the surface mixed layer NOT the amount sequestered beneath it.
He also says “One can even contemplate the ultimate enrichment experiment: the fertilization of the whole southern ocean (the largest by far of the HNLC areas) with 430,000 tons of Fe, the amount required to support the removal of 3 Gt C yr-1 ”. Note that this time the latter figure is for removal i..e., sequestration NOT the productivity generated in the surface mixed layer by the deposition of the Fe. The 3 Gt C yr-1 is rather different from what Peter and you envisage is possible. I calculated that the removal of 3 Gt C yr-1 using 430,000 t Fe gives a Fe : C ratio of 1 : 32,472, much lower than Peter uses in his calculations.
Chris.
From: 'rob de laet' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 10:46 PM
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>
Cc: SALTER Stephen <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk>; Russ George <russ....@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations
Dear Ron,
Perfect letter IMHO!
Would love to see you then move on to embracing ocean restoration as a direct means to sequester carbon, increase cloud formation, precipitation and increased thermal radiation into outer space, cooling the planet. We know that through measures of ocean fertilization and other ocean biology revival measures we can sequester maybe beyond 30 Gt of CO2 per year, fight acidification, repopulate the oceans with fish and marine animals, increase vertical ocean mixing cooling surface tempertures and have all the above effects I described in the first sentence.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1742666228.136956.1692135959357%40mail.yahoo.com.
John
It would be a good idea to use free waste heat but boiling produces lots of salty bubbles which may contain more salt than we want. We would have to fit demisters and do some size selection. The right salt mass matters. I think it is 10^-14 grams but would like this confirmed by the atmospheric physics community.
Stephen
From: 'John Macdonald' via Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 18 August 2023 12:22
To: Stephen Salter <s.sa...@oceancooling.org>
Cc: Chris Vivian <chris....@btinternet.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>;
geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [prag] RE: Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations
This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.
Hi Stephen and all
Seawater could also be boiled from hot exhaust gases using heat exchangers. The pure steam plume could then be re entrained with sprayed seawater or fine dry salt powder to reintroduce particles necessary for CCN cloud formation.
John Macdonald
On 17 Aug 2023, at 9:32 pm, Stephen Salter <s.sa...@oceancooling.org> wrote:
Hi All
Most ships use big Diesel engines. If we can make submicron drops of filtered sea water we can inject them into the hot gas of the exhaust manifold.
The corrosion rate will not be greater than the former sulphuric acid.
Stephen
From: 'Chris Vivian' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 16 August 2023 10:17
To: 'Ron Baiman' <rpba...@gmail.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; ''Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 'SALTER Stephen' <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations
Ron,
With regard to your second paragraph, you could include this graph from the Carbon Brief article by Hausfather and Forster (2023) in your reference list - https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/. It could also be referenced in the second paragraph of the open letter:
<image002.png>
In the second point about sponsoring research I suggest you should delete ‘sulfur’ at the end of the 4th line and just leave it to refer to aerosols. Otherwise you are restricting the research to just substances containing sulphur and there may be suitable non-sulphur containing materials that could produce useful aerosols.
With regard to Ron’s suggested 4th point, I think you should run it past a shipping person before including it as I think it has some potential problems including:
- I doubt that “… space now needed for bunker fuel is sufficient for the less energy dense biomass”.
- Ron says “Space now used for bunker fuel might be enough, but the huge multi-ocean cargo ships now using bunker fuels seem large enough to open up new space for biomass fuel”. I doubt that shipping companies would be willing to give up cargo space. Many have already had to accommodate Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems.
Best wishes
Chris.
From: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Ron Baiman
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 10:20 PM
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: SALTER Stephen <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations
Dear Colleagues,
I would greatly appreciate suggested edits and comments to this proposed open letter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewSMGl1bnh-umD86pT0x_2-EvaZUHbe1/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116465941111195452408&rtpof=true&sd=true
Most importantly, does the text and the three requests (one inspired by a comment from Stephen Salter) make sense, and is the overall descriptive language accurate?
Thank you!
Best,
Ron Baiman
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/03b601d9d022%2457f59cc0%2407e0d640%24%40btinternet.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/LO2P265MB102173ABA0ABF8466819164BE715A%40LO2P265MB1021.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/73ADE2A0-CD89-41C8-BD22-C3C06A6CADB6%40icloud.com.
John
I think that it will depend on the rate of boiling. Sectiom18-83 of the Perry Chemical Engineers Hand Book has information about demister design.
There is also stuff at
https://marineengineeringonline.com/fresh-water-generator-or-evaporator-alfa-laval-type/
I worked on a desalination technique using energy from sea waves which required demisting. The design used a random packed bed of 10 mm diameter 10mm long stainless thin-wall stainless steel tubes but I was trying to stop all the salt.
Stephen
From: John Macdonald <ning...@icloud.com>
Sent: 18 August 2023 13:25
To: Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Stephen Salter <s.sa...@oceancooling.org>; Chris Vivian <chris....@btinternet.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; 'Eelco Rohling' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>;
geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] RE: Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations
This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.
You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.
That’s interesting Stephen.
I has been my understanding that when saltwater is boiled, the steam that is produced is generally free of salt ie. that the distillation process of boiling water causes the water to evaporate, leaving behind impurities like salt and other minerals.
I agree that input from the atmospheric physics community re the right salt mass would be welcome.
John
On 18 Aug 2023, at 9:36 pm, Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: