Request for Feedback: Open Letter Supporting Research on Three Responses to Warming Impact of Bunker Fuel Regulations

[Ron Baiman]

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

[rob de laet]

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. 

Rob de Laet 

Member of the Eco Restoration Alliance

Fellow of the Global Evergreening Alliance

WhatsApp: +55 71 992617846

--
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.

[Stephen Salter]

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 4^th 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.

--
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.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

[Ronal Larson]

Ron B. et al, adding the biochar.io list and one USBI staffer.

I support your letter  - as requested below

For easy comparison on style, I include your three proposed R&D foci with my proposed fourth.  Note one typo in #2

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

Added explanatory notes:

I have discussed the above suggested fourth addition with a few fellow biochar advocates, but am not aware of it being proposed publicly prior to today.  SOFC R&D is quite well advanced and SOFC systems are commercially available.  

But R&D funding is certainly needed, especially for this (possibly new) application. 

Commonly associated with only hydrogen, SOFCs also work with carbon monoxide (CO), the other main component of syngas.  

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.  

Generated biochar can be readily placed in the space first used for the needed biomass.  The amazingly high efficiency of SOFCs possibly means that space now needed for bunker fuel is sufficient for the less energy dense biomass.  

R&D can also focus on the many ways that the biomass and biochar stocks can be best configured at or near the many ports where they will be needed.  

R&D will also help determine if the normal exhaust CO2 might be somehow captured during each trip - as in all proposed CCS systems, again helping to lower shipping costs.  

Probably can add sulfur co-products as in Ron B’s three options.  Main rationale though is simply replacing the fuel now widely prohibited in ports world-wide.  Should be considerable economies in avoiding the present prohibitions.

These ships are regularly docked for service during which this relatively small modification can be accomplished.  

Bunker fuel use is not as necessary as routinely stated.

(The above 3 paragraphs moved up from the underlined cite below.)

Ron

--

[Chris Vivian]

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 4^th 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,

--
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.

[Stephen Salter]

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

--
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.

[Chris Vivian]

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/1742666228.136956.1692135959357%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ron Baiman]

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you all for your comments and suggested edits!  Unfortunately, I've been tied up with other time sensitive stuff but will get back to this as soon as I can. In the meantime if you're able to input suggested your edits and comments into the google this will hopefully expedite our drafting process!: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewSMGl1bnh-umD86pT0x_2-EvaZUHbe1/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116465941111195452408&rtpof=true&sd=true

Best,

Ron

[John Macdonald]

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>

--
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.