Money

[Andrew Lockley]

Where do people think extra money is needed to further the study of geoengineering?

A

[Oliver Tickell]

There has been sod all funding for studies of accelerated rock
weathering. Some work has been done, on farmland in Holland for example,
but to get this wiely accepted it's important to know how fast ground
olivine weathers in different grain sizes, on land, on coast, different
climates, effects on rivers draining olivined catchments, effects on
marine biota from washout of Fe (if any) / H4SiO4, usefulness as
fertiliser to restore Mg where lacking in soils, etc etc.

All of which really should be done before any large scale deployment.
Oliver.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[eugg...@comcast.net]

A:

If there is any money available  use it to form a geoengineering society to which members belong and pay dues, receive a publication with peer reviewed papers on geoengineering technology and experiments, and can attend an annual meeting; which society is managed and run for all the members and for the benefit of geoengineering. It should not undermine the science/technology by putting limits on what opinions people can  express given they are within proper bounds. Members should be responsible for generating their own proposals and getting grant funding. If money is given to the group and then dispensed it is not likely to get truth in advertising and a small group gets too much power.

This can be done for a few million dollars annually. I speak from personal experience having done exactly this years back in what is currently a group that is part of IEEE.

-gene

---

From: "Oliver Tickell" <oliver....@kyoto2.org>
Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:26:18 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Money

[Andrew Lockley]

My take on additional funding is that private money could be beneficial in 3 key ways, which the state may be slow or reluctant to fund.

1) A kitty for funding ad hoc costs, such as conference fees, open access charges , etc. This will allow the removal of minor but annoying road blocks.
£50k-£500k

2) Extra bodies and more computer time for key labs, to enable them to publish faster
£200k-2M
(more fundable by state than 1&3)

3) Serious investment in outdoor experiments, and engineering development of deployment systems
£500k-100M

I have no experience of funding bodies, so I'd welcome comments on the above.

A

[Russell Seitz]

Instead of adding yet another interest group to the crowded scene, many of the aims discussed here could be accomplished by established by creating  new sections within the the AGU and EGU,  automatically qualifying them  for a place at those organizations'policy discussion table, 

As can be seen from the absence of SRM  from the agenda AGU's forthcoming  ( June 24-26) science policy conference in Washington , the absence of such sections from the scene is already consequential.

[Oliver Tickell]

Excuse my ignorance - AGU? EGU?

What I do know is that people very often omit any discussion of ARW in their papers, reviews, etc, on CO2 drawdown. And that it is entirely absent from the policy debate. Probably because it comes in at a tenth of the cost, and zillionth the risk, of their preferred options.

Since ARW has been published quite widely, and is included in the Royal Society's review of geoengineering, it is hard to see the omission as accidental.

Oliver.

[eugg...@comcast.net]

In contrast I have been involved in IEEE (while also maintaining a serious R&D job outside IEEE ) since ~1960 having run conferences, served on publication committees, founded and served as an assistant editor on 2 publications, and founded and run one IEEE society, served on the IEEE awards committee, founded one major award, etc. so excuse me if I have a hangup concerning the value of professional organizations. Although this geoengineering group activity serves a valuable purpose I firmly believe it would be far more effective if it were a recognized society as I described below. Discussions would include effectiveness of a particular technique but while slams against geoengineering R&D as an activity would still occur they would be laughable. In my opinion individuals or small groups getting funding for experiments would be more successful. I doubt this group with a narrow administrative base although a serious following through e-mail has the credibility of an ongoing society. I think a society would more effectively achieve the admirable objectives set out below. Geoengineering is important, will be critical and deserves a credible support organization to improve the investment prospects.

-gene

---

From: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew....@gmail.com>
To: "Eugene I. Gordon" <eugg...@comcast.net>
Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, "Oliver Tickell" <oliver....@kyoto2.org>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 10:00:16 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Money

[Fred Zimmerman]

There are some differences of perspective that might limit the membership of such a society.  There are those who are already convinced that GE (or a particular form of it) is a necessity and those that are convinced that GE research is a necessity. Then there are those who are concerned with a robust flexible and innovative response to climate change but do not wish to be pigeonholed as members of a geoengineering professional society.  I

---

Fred Zimmerman

Geoengineering IT!   

Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology

GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 

[Ron]

Andrew and list,  cc Eugene

1.  I suggest that Andrew's dollar amounts indicated below are probably needed, but very unlikely to be found - maybe even after decades.

2.  The reason is twofold 

     a.  Too many disciplines - career advancement demands publication in journals close to your field of employment.  I was chair of ASES, the American Solar Energy Society, which after more than fifty years and  dozens of state affiliates (i helped found one) is still in serious financial difficulty.  The PV researchers tend to go to Physics Journals ( some to IEEE),  the wind researchers go to mechanical and aeronautical society journals.  ASES doesn't even make a pretense with biomass, hydro, geothermal, oceans.

   I believe this list membership is similar.

     b.  too little tie to corporations- where the big money can be.  ASES has a type of member that big corporations (with exceptions) see little need to reach.

    I believe the same is true here.

   3.  Eugene's reference to IEEE is still pertinent.  I was an IEEE member, faculty advisor to a student chapter, it's first Congressional fellow, and Chair of a local Society group.  But I switched membership allegiance to ASES, when IEEE offered me too little (maybe that has changed).  If this group could find a parent group like IEEE, that could be perfect.

    For those not familiar with IEEE, it is the world's largest professional group, with 38 different specialist "Societies", many state or smaller groups.  In checking just now, I found seven IEEE student groups in Atlanta (and would have guessed one).  The IEEE has ten regions, four out of the US.

    I don't see one like IEEE on the horizon for this list for many years..  I wouldn't stop looking.

4.  Now, I have again switched to a six year old group, IBI, and its even younger national affiliate,, USBI, with all the same discipline and corporate support problems.  Lots of volunteers however, and conferences are occurring regularly that way, with zero support from the struggling 

larger groups.  There is benefit in being volunteer-based.

  The situation will change when there are Geoengineering degrees and big corporations seeing value in a membership organization with "geoengineering" in it's name.

    In sum, I see no realistic near-term alternative for this list as is - and so again thank Andrew for his, I presume, volunteer efforts

Ron

[eugg...@comcast.net]

Ron:

Good comments. You win some and you lose some. 

However, you cannot sort out the winners and losers without trying. We had solid state, semiconductor and gas lasers, UV, visible, IR and far IR. We made high bandwidth optical communications happen as well as local loop. Many military and medical systems are based on lasers. It was not all friendly. Retrospectively it was a big win although it could have failed. I made many friends in China and Japan translating their papers written in Chinglish and Jinglish into understandable English so they could be published. I never regretted the huge amount amount of work it took. Our current climate problem is at least as important.

-gene

---

From: "Ron" <rongre...@comcast.net>
To: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew....@gmail.com>
Cc: eugg...@comcast.net
Sent: Saturday, June 8, 2013 12:09:20 PM

[eugg...@comcast.net]

Fred:

You give some good reasons not everyone would belong or want to belong but right now no one belongs. Perhaps membership might not include everyone but it would be a viable group and it would enhance the credibility of geoengineering. Belonging to a particular group (possibly among others) is not being pigeon holed. One can keep membership private or not as they see fit.

My goal in starting a laser society in an electrical engineering context was that electrical engineers understood laser principles better than physicists but physicists understood the materials and I wanted a mix and the members to mix. I achieved that. The !EEE Photonics Society ( http://www.photonicssociety.org/ ) now has over 7000 members. It has not slowed development of lasers and other photonic technology; very much on the contrary.

-gene.

---

From: "Fred Zimmerman" <geoengin...@gmail.com>
To: "Gene Gordon" <eugg...@comcast.net>
Cc: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew....@gmail.com>, "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>, "Oliver Tickell" <oliver....@kyoto2.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 8, 2013 10:30:09 AM