Angle on Commercialization...
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Dan Whaley
Sep 1, 2008, 5:56:16 PM9/1/08
to geoengineering
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2225094/pick-tab-climate-tinkering
Who will pick up the tab for climate-tinkering technologies?
As scientists call for more funding for geo-engineering pilot studies,
experts warn risks could be too great to attract investors
James Murray, BusinessGreen, 01 Sep 2008
While the rewards may one day prove mind blowing, the risks inherent
to the development of geo-engineering technologies that many
scientists believe are now necessary to combat global warming are so
huge that proposed pilot projects are struggling to find funding.
According to a series of papers published today by the Royal Society,
the failure to address soaring carbon emissions means that the world
should be preparing geo-engineering techniques capable of artificially
lowering temperatures, such as dumping iron into oceans to improve
plankton's ability to soak up carbon or seeding clouds to bolster
their ability to reflect the sun's rays.
Writing in the preface to the collection of papers, Brian Launder of
the University of Manchester and Michael Thompson of the University of
Cambridge argued that, "While such geo-scale interventions may be
risky, the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky
than doing nothing."
However, several of the scientists who contributed work for the Royal
Society series have today admitted that with no commercial model
currently in place to monetise geo-engineering projects, they are
struggling to raise the funding required to move beyond the planning
stages.
"There is no money to be made from saving the planet," said Stephen
Salter, emeritus professor of engineering design at the University of
Edinburgh, who is proposing a project to seed marine clouds to
increase the amount of energy they reflect. "You can make vast sums
from wrecking it, but not the other way round, unfortunately."
Salter claimed that his team could undertake a working pilot project
for about £20m, a sum he describes as less than the security budget
for the UN's series of international climate change negotiations. But
he admitted that attracting the investment was proving difficult.
"At the moment there is no commercial return on these [geo-
engineering] projects for bringing the temperature down," he said.
"The people working in carbon markets don't want these type of
projects included and unless someone works out a way to put a value on
cooling, there is no commercial proposition."
Speaking to BusinessGreen.com, Launder agreed that geo-engineering
projects were facing huge difficulties in raising the funding
necessary to move their proposals into the pilot stage. "The funding
could come from government, but it is difficult prising out the
necessary development money," he said. "For businesses, we are talking
about technologies that have to be ready to go, but you hope you will
never have to use… that requires a new business model to anything we
have currently."
The commercial risks associated with such projects are simply too
large for most investors, according to David Metcalfe, director at
independent green business research firm Verdantix. "There is a
growing sense among scientists that we will need some of these big
bets as part of the portfolio for tackling climate change," he said.
"But for most investors, even projects such as carbon capture and
storage are too risky a bet, so [geo-engineering] will really struggle
[to attract funding]."
The risk associated with geo-engineering projects was highlighted
earlier this year when almost 200 countries imposed a moratorium on
ocean iron fertilisation projects.
Iron fertilisation is believed to help lower carbon dioxide
concentrations in the atmosphere by stimulating the growth of
phytoplankton, which trap the carbon dioxide on the ocean floor when
they die. However, many environmentalists have criticised the
approach, claiming it could do huge damage to delicate marine
ecosystems.
The ban on fertilisation projects throws into doubt the future of a
number of startups already working on the technology, such as US firm
Climos and Australian outfit Ocean Nourishment Corp, which announced
plans for a pilot project off the coast of the Philippines earlier
this year.
Salter is confident that his proposals for cloud seeding could avoid
many of the environmental risks associated with more controversial and
costly projects such as ocean fertilisation, and is continuing to seek
financial backing.
"The advantage of seeding clouds to make them whiter is that you can
try it on a small scale and it is reversible," he said. "You can also
use satellites to measure how much energy is reflected and prove it is
working."
But Metcalfe warned that commercial backing for geo-engineering
projects will remain very difficult to secure. "The problem with any
project in the R&D phase is that an investor has to ask when it will
start delivering," he said. " And with these projects that is just not
clear."
Who will pick up the tab for climate-tinkering technologies?
As scientists call for more funding for geo-engineering pilot studies,
experts warn risks could be too great to attract investors
James Murray, BusinessGreen, 01 Sep 2008
While the rewards may one day prove mind blowing, the risks inherent
to the development of geo-engineering technologies that many
scientists believe are now necessary to combat global warming are so
huge that proposed pilot projects are struggling to find funding.
According to a series of papers published today by the Royal Society,
the failure to address soaring carbon emissions means that the world
should be preparing geo-engineering techniques capable of artificially
lowering temperatures, such as dumping iron into oceans to improve
plankton's ability to soak up carbon or seeding clouds to bolster
their ability to reflect the sun's rays.
Writing in the preface to the collection of papers, Brian Launder of
the University of Manchester and Michael Thompson of the University of
Cambridge argued that, "While such geo-scale interventions may be
risky, the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky
than doing nothing."
However, several of the scientists who contributed work for the Royal
Society series have today admitted that with no commercial model
currently in place to monetise geo-engineering projects, they are
struggling to raise the funding required to move beyond the planning
stages.
"There is no money to be made from saving the planet," said Stephen
Salter, emeritus professor of engineering design at the University of
Edinburgh, who is proposing a project to seed marine clouds to
increase the amount of energy they reflect. "You can make vast sums
from wrecking it, but not the other way round, unfortunately."
Salter claimed that his team could undertake a working pilot project
for about £20m, a sum he describes as less than the security budget
for the UN's series of international climate change negotiations. But
he admitted that attracting the investment was proving difficult.
"At the moment there is no commercial return on these [geo-
engineering] projects for bringing the temperature down," he said.
"The people working in carbon markets don't want these type of
projects included and unless someone works out a way to put a value on
cooling, there is no commercial proposition."
Speaking to BusinessGreen.com, Launder agreed that geo-engineering
projects were facing huge difficulties in raising the funding
necessary to move their proposals into the pilot stage. "The funding
could come from government, but it is difficult prising out the
necessary development money," he said. "For businesses, we are talking
about technologies that have to be ready to go, but you hope you will
never have to use… that requires a new business model to anything we
have currently."
The commercial risks associated with such projects are simply too
large for most investors, according to David Metcalfe, director at
independent green business research firm Verdantix. "There is a
growing sense among scientists that we will need some of these big
bets as part of the portfolio for tackling climate change," he said.
"But for most investors, even projects such as carbon capture and
storage are too risky a bet, so [geo-engineering] will really struggle
[to attract funding]."
The risk associated with geo-engineering projects was highlighted
earlier this year when almost 200 countries imposed a moratorium on
ocean iron fertilisation projects.
Iron fertilisation is believed to help lower carbon dioxide
concentrations in the atmosphere by stimulating the growth of
phytoplankton, which trap the carbon dioxide on the ocean floor when
they die. However, many environmentalists have criticised the
approach, claiming it could do huge damage to delicate marine
ecosystems.
The ban on fertilisation projects throws into doubt the future of a
number of startups already working on the technology, such as US firm
Climos and Australian outfit Ocean Nourishment Corp, which announced
plans for a pilot project off the coast of the Philippines earlier
this year.
Salter is confident that his proposals for cloud seeding could avoid
many of the environmental risks associated with more controversial and
costly projects such as ocean fertilisation, and is continuing to seek
financial backing.
"The advantage of seeding clouds to make them whiter is that you can
try it on a small scale and it is reversible," he said. "You can also
use satellites to measure how much energy is reflected and prove it is
working."
But Metcalfe warned that commercial backing for geo-engineering
projects will remain very difficult to secure. "The problem with any
project in the R&D phase is that an investor has to ask when it will
start delivering," he said. " And with these projects that is just not
clear."
John Latham
Sep 1, 2008, 7:34:55 PM9/1/08
to dan.w...@gmail.com, geoengineering
Hello Dan,
Briefly to respond to points in your 3 messages today (9/1).
1. Our cloud-albedo global temperature stabilisation scheme does not
involve the creation of clouds (fake or otherwise). Nor is it
accurately represented by your "shooting various things into the
clouds .....". If you were to read the 2 papers we produced for the
Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. special issue you would find that it is
concerned with enhancing the reflectivity of existing clouds by
introducing seawater particles into them in order to increase their
droplet number concentrations, and thus their albedos. The principle
is the same as that involved in the formation of ship-tracks. GCM
computations made by leading groups in the UK and the US (2 separate
models) suggest that this technique could produce a controllable
cooling sufficient to hold the Earth's temperature constant for at
least 50 years. Although there exists some experimental /
observational support for these predictions more work is required
before a categoric statement can be made about the efficacy of this
scheme, and a full study of its possible ramifications - should it
ever be deployed - has yet to be made.
2. At the recent workshop on geo-engineering held at Harvard, the
participating economists (half of the total group, the rest being
scientists) stated unanimously that the estimated costs of deploying
the Crutzen stratospheric sulphur scheme or our atmospheric
cloud-albedo one are so trivial in comparison with those associated
with unbridled CO2 emissions that they should be regarded as zero. The
funds we need for definitive testing of these ideas are comparable
with those of middle-range NSF grants.
3. The word geo-engineering has highly negative connotations. I think
it important that we counterbalance or overcome these by stressing
much more often that our goal is to achieve significant restorative
effects. The possible restoration would inevitably be far from
perfect, but it could be significant.
Cheers, John. lat...@ucar.edu
Briefly to respond to points in your 3 messages today (9/1).
1. Our cloud-albedo global temperature stabilisation scheme does not
involve the creation of clouds (fake or otherwise). Nor is it
accurately represented by your "shooting various things into the
clouds .....". If you were to read the 2 papers we produced for the
Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. special issue you would find that it is
concerned with enhancing the reflectivity of existing clouds by
introducing seawater particles into them in order to increase their
droplet number concentrations, and thus their albedos. The principle
is the same as that involved in the formation of ship-tracks. GCM
computations made by leading groups in the UK and the US (2 separate
models) suggest that this technique could produce a controllable
cooling sufficient to hold the Earth's temperature constant for at
least 50 years. Although there exists some experimental /
observational support for these predictions more work is required
before a categoric statement can be made about the efficacy of this
scheme, and a full study of its possible ramifications - should it
ever be deployed - has yet to be made.
2. At the recent workshop on geo-engineering held at Harvard, the
participating economists (half of the total group, the rest being
scientists) stated unanimously that the estimated costs of deploying
the Crutzen stratospheric sulphur scheme or our atmospheric
cloud-albedo one are so trivial in comparison with those associated
with unbridled CO2 emissions that they should be regarded as zero. The
funds we need for definitive testing of these ideas are comparable
with those of middle-range NSF grants.
3. The word geo-engineering has highly negative connotations. I think
it important that we counterbalance or overcome these by stressing
much more often that our goal is to achieve significant restorative
effects. The possible restoration would inevitably be far from
perfect, but it could be significant.
Cheers, John. lat...@ucar.edu
John Latham
Sep 2, 2008, 2:44:11 AM9/2/08
to dan.w...@gmail.com, dan.w...@gmail.com, geoengineering
Hello again Dan,
Ken pointed out what I had missed in my midnight missive to you below,
namely that you are not the originator of the comments I responded to,
but simply the reporter. I'm very sorry that I screwed up.
All Best, John.
Ken pointed out what I had missed in my midnight missive to you below,
namely that you are not the originator of the comments I responded to,
but simply the reporter. I'm very sorry that I screwed up.
All Best, John.
John Nissen
Sep 2, 2008, 7:04:20 AM9/2/08
to john.l...@manchester.ac.uk, dan.w...@gmail.com, geoengineering, John Gorman
Hello John,
I realised you should not have been addressing your
points at Dan, but your points are pertinent, nevertheless.
1. We should try and get field trials of the
cloud brightening idea, as it could help to cool the North Atlantic and restore
Arctic sea ice, in conjunction with stratospheric aerosols.
2. I think that time rather than cost is the
issue with stratospheric aerosols. Will we able to get them up fast
enough, given that otherwise the Arctic sea could be ice-free within five years
or less?
The Caldeira-Wood paper (in PhilTransRoySoc)
reports simulation results in a world with double pre-industrial CO2
levels, i.e. 540 ppm:
"A linear regression on the results obtained
here suggests that restoring September sea ice extent to its pre-industrial
value in a 2xCO2 atmosphere would require reduction
of insolation by approximately 21 per cent over the 2.7 per cent of the Earth
that lies north of 71 degrees N."
The current CO2 level is around 385 ppm (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/),
so we'd need about 15% reduction rather than 21% to restore the sea ice, or at
least halt the retreat. Could one ramp up stratospheric aerosols to
achieve 15% insolation reduction within two or three years? That
is the scale of the engineering challenge.
3. The term geo-engineering has been
confusing journalists. For example the BBC correspondent, Tom Fielding, on
the Radio 4 Today programme (6.50 am Monday) seemed to think that
geo-engineering (including injection of Sulphur into the upper atmosphere) was
all about "managing the carbon cycle"! We should always make a clear
distinction between "albedo geoengineering" and "geoengineering for carbon
sequestration".
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
xben...@aol.com
Sep 2, 2008, 1:41:23 PM9/2/08
to j...@cloudworld.co.uk, john.l...@manchester.ac.uk, dan.w...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, gor...@waitrose.com
All:
"We should always make a clear distinction between "albedo geoengineering" and "geoengineering for carbon sequestration"."
I suggested before that all these measures, plus carbon restriction, can be called "climate control" with divisions such as the above. We will be augmenting processes like albedo change and sequestration, amplifying with new technologies. This avoids people making distinctions on provenance (artificial vs natural) rather than method.
On: The current CO2 level is around 385 ppm (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), so we'd need about 15% reduction rather than 21% to restore the sea ice, or at least halt the retreat. Could one ramp up stratospheric aerosols to achieve 15% insolation reduction within two or three years? That is the scale of the engineering challenge.
Both Lowell Wood and I have done an economic cost estimate for the Arctic and find a few hundred million dollars a year is sufficient, using existing technologies -- which need development, nonetheless. I believe from other experiences that we could trade money for time in this development and hit a 3 year deadline.
It's the will that
's missing, not the means.
Gregory Benford
-----Original Message-----
From: John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>
To: john.l...@manchester.ac.uk; dan.w...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; John Gorman <gor...@waitrose.com>
Sent: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 4:04 am
Subject: [geo] Re: Latham comments. Geo-eng. Costs/mechanisms/restoration
Hello John,
I realised you should not have been addressing your
points at Dan, but your points are pertinent, nevertheless.
1. We should try and get field trials of the
cloud brightening idea, as it could help to cool the North Atlantic and restore
Arctic sea ice, in conjunction with stratospheric aerosols.
2. I think that time rather than cost is the
issue with stratospheric aerosols. Will we able to get them up fast
enough, given that otherwise the Arctic sea could be ice-free within five years
or less?
The Caldeira-Wood paper (in Phi
lTransRoySoc)
reports simulation results in a world with double pre-industrial CO2
levels, i.e. 540 ppm:
"A linear regression on the results obtained
here suggests that restoring September sea ice extent to its pre-industrial
value in a 2xCO2 atmosphere would require reduction
of insolation by approximately 21 per cent over the 2.7 per cent of the Earth
that lies north of 71 degrees N."
The current CO2 level is around 385 ppm (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/),
so we'd need about 15% reduction rather than 21% to restore the sea ice, or at
least halt the retreat. Could one ramp up stratospheric aerosols to
achieve 15% insolation reduction within two or three years? That
is the scale of the engineering challenge.
3. The term geo-engineering has been
confusing journalists. For example the BBC correspondent, Tom Fielding, on
the Radio 4 Today programme (6.50 am Monday) seemed to think that
geo-engineering (including inject
ion of Sulphur into the upper atmosphere) was
all about "managing the carbon cycle"! We should always make a clear
distinction between "albedo geoengineering" and "geoengineering for carbon
sequestration".
>:
> models) suggest that this technique co
uld produce a
controllable
>> Writing in the preface to the
collecti
on of papers, Brian Launder of
=0
A>>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More!
Oliver Wingenter
Sep 2, 2008, 10:44:43 PM9/2/08
to geoengineering
Dear Gregory,
Ocean iron fertilization may fall under both "albedo geoengineering"
and "geoengineering for carbon sequestration". It is proven to
enhance albedo and may sequester additional carbon.
Oliver Wingenter
On Sep 2, 11:41 am, xbenf...@aol.com wrote:
> All:
>
> "We should always make a clear distinction between "albedo geoengineering" and "geoengineering for carbon sequestration"."
>
> I suggested before that all these measures, plus carbon restriction, can be called "climate control" with divisions such as the above. We will be augmenting processes like albedo change and sequestration, amplifying with new technologies. This avoids people making distinctions on provenance (artificial vs natural) rather than method.
>
> On: The current CO2 level is around 385 ppm (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), so we'd need about 15% reduction rather than 21% to restore the sea ice, or at least halt the retreat. Could one ramp up stratospheric aerosols to achieve 15% insolation reduction within two or three years? That is the scale of the engineering challenge.
>
> Both Lowell Wood and I have done an economic cost estimate for the Arctic and find a few hundred million dollars a year is sufficient, using existing technologies -- which need development, nonetheless. I believe from other experiences that we could trade money for time in this development and hit a 3 year deadline.
>
> It's the will that's missing, not the means.
>
> Gregory Benford
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>
> To: john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk; dan.wha...@gmail.com
>
> Cc: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; John Gorman <gorm...@waitrose.com>
> geo-engineering (including injection of Sulphur into the upper atmosphere) was
>
> To: <dan.wha...@gmail.com>
>
> Cc: <dan.wha...@gmail.com>;
> Subject: [geo] Latham comments. Geo-eng.
> > much=2
> 0
>
> >http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2225094/pick-tab-cli...
> collection of papers, Brian Launder of
> ...
>
> read more »
Ocean iron fertilization may fall under both "albedo geoengineering"
and "geoengineering for carbon sequestration". It is proven to
enhance albedo and may sequester additional carbon.
Oliver Wingenter
On Sep 2, 11:41 am, xbenf...@aol.com wrote:
> All:
>
> "We should always make a clear distinction between "albedo geoengineering" and "geoengineering for carbon sequestration"."
>
> I suggested before that all these measures, plus carbon restriction, can be called "climate control" with divisions such as the above. We will be augmenting processes like albedo change and sequestration, amplifying with new technologies. This avoids people making distinctions on provenance (artificial vs natural) rather than method.
>
> On: The current CO2 level is around 385 ppm (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), so we'd need about 15% reduction rather than 21% to restore the sea ice, or at least halt the retreat. Could one ramp up stratospheric aerosols to achieve 15% insolation reduction within two or three years? That is the scale of the engineering challenge.
>
> Both Lowell Wood and I have done an economic cost estimate for the Arctic and find a few hundred million dollars a year is sufficient, using existing technologies -- which need development, nonetheless. I believe from other experiences that we could trade money for time in this development and hit a 3 year deadline.
>
> It's the will that's missing, not the means.
>
> Gregory Benford
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Nissen <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>
>
> Cc: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; John Gorman <gorm...@waitrose.com>
> Sent: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 4:04 am
> Subject: [geo] Re: Latham comments. Geo-eng. Costs/mechanisms/restoration
>
> 0A
> Subject: [geo] Re: Latham comments. Geo-eng. Costs/mechanisms/restoration
>
> all about "managing the carbon cycle"! We should always make a clear
> distinction between "albedo geoengineering" and "geoengineering for carbon
> sequestration".
>
>
>
> Cheers from Chiswick,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "John Latham" <john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk>
> distinction between "albedo geoengineering" and "geoengineering for carbon
> sequestration".
>
>
>
> Cheers from Chiswick,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> To: <dan.wha...@gmail.com>
>
> Cc: <dan.wha...@gmail.com>;
> Subject: [geo] Latham comments. Geo-eng.
> Costs/mechanisms/restoration
>
> Hello again Dan,
>
> Ken pointed out what I had missed in my midnight
> missive to you below,
> namely that you are not the originator of the
> comments I responded to,
> but simply the reporter. I'm very sorry that
> I screwed up.
>
> All Best, John.
>
> Quoting John
> Latham <john.latha...@manchester.ac.uk>:
>
> Hello again Dan,
>
> Ken pointed out what I had missed in my midnight
> missive to you below,
> namely that you are not the originator of the
> comments I responded to,
> but simply the reporter. I'm very sorry that
> I screwed up.
>
> All Best, John.
>
> Quoting John
>
> > Hello Dan,
>
> > Briefly to respond to points
> in your 3 messages today (9/1).
>
> > 1. Our cloud-albedo global
> temperature stabilisation scheme does not
> > involve the creation of clouds
> (fake or otherwise). Nor is it
> > accurately represented by your
> "shooting various things into the
> > clouds .....". If you were to read the
> 2 papers we produced for the
> > Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. special issue you
>
> would find that it is
> > concerned with enhancing the reflectivity of
> existing clouds by
> > introducing seawater particles into them in order to
> increase their
> > droplet number concentrations, and thus their albedos.
> The principle
> > is the same as that involved in the formation of
> ship-tracks. GCM
> > computations made by leading groups in the UK and the
> US (2 separate
> > models) suggest that this technique could produce a
> > Hello Dan,
>
> > Briefly to respond to points
> in your 3 messages today (9/1).
>
> > 1. Our cloud-albedo global
> temperature stabilisation scheme does not
> > involve the creation of clouds
> (fake or otherwise). Nor is it
> > accurately represented by your
> "shooting various things into the
> > clouds .....". If you were to read the
> 2 papers we produced for the
> > Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. special issue you
>
> would find that it is
> > concerned with enhancing the reflectivity of
> existing clouds by
> > introducing seawater particles into them in order to
> increase their
> > droplet number concentrations, and thus their albedos.
> The principle
> > is the same as that involved in the formation of
> ship-tracks. GCM
> > computations made by leading groups in the UK and the
> US (2 separate
> 0
> more often that our goal is to achieve significant restorative
>
> effects. The possible restoration would inevitably be far from
> > perfect,
> but it could be significant.
>
> > Cheers,
> John. lat...@ucar.edu
>
> > Quoting Dan Whaley
> <dan.wha...@gmail.com>:
>
> effects. The possible restoration would inevitably be far from
> > perfect,
> but it could be significant.
>
> > Cheers,
> John. lat...@ucar.edu
>
> > Quoting Dan Whaley
>
> >http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2225094/pick-tab-cli...
>
> read more »
wig...@ucar.edu
Sep 2, 2008, 11:17:19 PM9/2/08
to oliver.w...@gmail.com, geoengineering
The issue must surely be the primary goal. Whether ocean
fertilization affects albedo significantly is debatable, but
it is not the primary goal -- merely a (possible) side effect.
For "albedo geoeng" I often use SRM (solar radiation management).
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
fertilization affects albedo significantly is debatable, but
it is not the primary goal -- merely a (possible) side effect.
For "albedo geoeng" I often use SRM (solar radiation management).
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Oliver Wingenter
Sep 3, 2008, 12:01:37 AM9/3/08
to geoengineering
Dear Tom,
Please qualify your comments. I have three publications to qualify
mine.
Oliver Wingenter
> ...
>
> read more »
Please qualify your comments. I have three publications to qualify
mine.
Oliver Wingenter
>
> read more »
Alvia Gaskill
Sep 4, 2008, 4:51:41 PM9/4/08
to dan.w...@gmail.com, geoengineering
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2225402/geo-engineering-gaining
Geo-engineering gaining scientific credibility
Huge projects to alter atmospheric chemistry would need significant business
investment
Tom Young, BusinessGreen, 04 Sep 2008
A new market opportunity could soon be opening for businesses to develop "
last minute" solutions that would be a final desperate attempt to prevent
runaway climate change.
A series of papers by eminent scientists were published today by the Royal
Society looking at how such " geoscale interventions" might work.
In an introduction to the papers, Brian Launder of the University of
Manchester and Michael Thompson of the University of Cambridge write:
"While such geoscale interventions may be risky, the time may well come when
they are accepted as less risky than doing nothing." Global warming is
already causing ice caps to melt, they argue.
With melting ice, more heat is absorbed by the earth than reflected. Once
this tipping point is reached, some scientists think any reduction on carbon
emissions will not be enough to prevent runaway climate change.
The papers include research on a number of methods that could be used to
prevent climate change reaching this tipping point.
One idea is to introduce a sulphate aerosol to the stratosphere to reflect
sunlight via planes, rockets, or most likely high altitude balloons.
A second plan looks at improving the reflectivity of low-level marine clouds
which cover about a quarter of the oceanic surface of the earth. By
increasing droplet number concentrations in these clouds their reflectivity
and longevity is increased, allowing them to keep more sunlight from
reaching the earth for longer.
Scientists envision wind-driven spray vessels sailing "back and forth
perpendicular to the local prevailing wind and releasing micron-sized drops
of seawater into the layer beneath marine stratocumulus clouds."
One of the papers presented describes a potential design for 300-tonne ships
powered by "Flettner rotors" – a technique developed to turn wind power into
forward motion before the cheap price of fuel ensured the dominance of
engine-powered boats.
The ships would be co-ordinated by satellite.
A third method outlined by scientists describes distributing phyto-plankton
across the worlds oceans to help the sea absorb CO2 from the atmosphere
faster. Again the plankton would have to be distributed by ship.
Many environmental groups don't like geo-engineering solutions because they
fear it will give politicians an excuse not to tackle climate change.
"The scientific community is becoming so scared of our collective inability
to tackle climate emissions that such outlandish schemes are being
considered for serious study," Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK,
wrote in The Guardian this week.
David Schnare
Oct 2, 2008, 1:52:30 PM10/2/08
to ant...@wingkosner.com, wig...@ucar.edu, kcal...@dge.stanford.edu, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, s.sa...@ed.ac.uk
Anthony:
Please find Prof. Salter's email to me with the newest version of the
graphic and reference to the owner of the drawing.
David Schnare
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Latham comments. Geo-eng. Costs/mechanisms/restoration
To: john.l...@manchester.ac.uk
Cc: David Schnare <dwsc...@gmail.com>, John MacNeill
<jwmac...@mindspring.com>
David Schnare
I attach a copy of the latest picture from the artist John MacNeill,
email above.
He allows free use for academic non-commercial purposes but it would
be nice to acknowledge him.
I thought that you might also like to see the attached photograph of
glass balls demonstrating the Twomey effect.
Stephen
John Latham wrote:
>
> David:
>
> You'll see I've forwarded yr letter to Steve who's responsible for all our technology / drawings etc. I'm sure he'll accommodate you.
>
> All Best, John
>
>
>
>
> Quoting David Schnare <dwsc...@gmail.com>:
>
>> John:
>>
>> Either you or Steven posted a new drawing of the wind driven ship that could
>> be used for cloud whitening. It showed some subsurface features. I can't
>> find that posting and would very much like to use the picture in a
>> presentation later this week. Can you point me to it?
>>
>> Best,
>> David Schnare
>>
>
>
>
>
--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
School of Engineering and Electronics
University of Edinburgh
Mayfield Road
Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
tel +44 131 650 5704
fax +44 131 650 5702
Mobile 07795 203 195
S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages