[geo] The Reality Behind the Chevy Volt's 230 MPG
There are some bacground information on the impact of decline of fossil fuels to fuel economies in transport powered by electricity. EC view is global oil production goes into terminal decline within the next two years, from geoengineering point of view these background considerations may be important factors from testing systems to running them. I also believe that broad bird view into picture helps one to orienate when in the woods and therefore, good framework insider information can be helpful, if nothing else, at least as a motivational factor to carry on researching geoengineering solutions to the energy and climate crisis that is grabbing as being attempted to be addressed by various strategies. With kind regards, Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS The Reality Behind the Chevy Volt's 230 MPG Energy and Capital (eac-elet...@angelnexus.com) The Reality Behind the Chevy Volt's 230 MPG By Chris Nelder | Friday, August 14th, 2009 Cleantech and hybrid car enthusiasts were all a-Twitter this week over General Motors's claim that the new Chevy Volt will get a fuel economy of 230 miles per gallon (mpg). It was widely circulated and many breathless column-inches were printed, yet I was unable to find a single article that actually made any sense of this number. As usual, I was forced to sort it out for myself. Follow me as I walk through the numbers. . . such as they are. First, the very concept of miles per gallon doesn't make sense if it doesn't take the initial charge of a plug-in hybrid into account. That's like saying the electricity that runs the Volt for the first 40 miles is free. Instead, we should be using a new metric, like miles per kilowatt hour (I will use m/kWh for this). By converting the gasoline used into its kWh equivalent, then adding it to the kWh for the initial charge, we could come up with a simple number. The reality, however, is much more complex. Calculating Miles per Kilowatt Hour In a serial hybrid like the Volt, there are losses incurred (on the order of 15%) for using an on-board generator that burns gasoline to charge up the battery pack which drives the powertrain motor. There are also transmission losses, and losses from the self-discharge of the battery pack when it's unplugged, both of which are difficult to quantify. So simply converting the BTU content of the gasoline to kWh (33.7 kWh equivalent per gallon) isn't quite right. Nor do we know the actual efficiency of the Volt's generating and charging systems. Even if we had accurate numbers to work with, it would be somewhat misleading to use m/kWh as a basis for comparison. As most consumers know, there is a big difference between city and highway driving, because straight gasoline engines typically operate at very low efficiency below 25 mph, and are most efficient between 25 and 55 mph. Electric motors operate with a fairly constant efficiency at various speeds, but if the battery pack on a serial hybrid is deeply discharged and the gasoline generator used heavily, the overall fuel economy plummets. In the case of the Volt, it would fall from the alleged 230 mpg to 50 mpg or less. And both straight gasoline engines and hybrids consume more energy over 65 mph as wind resistance increases. In order to address the issue, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working on a new draft methodology for testing mileage and establishing fuel economy ratings, but it is not yet public and EPA has declined to confirm GM's claim for the Volt. In the absence of good comparative standards, car companies can get away with wild claims like 230 mpg; not to be outdone, the Nissan boasts 367 mpg for its new Leaf car. But we can take a stab at some reasonable calculations. GM claims that the new EPA methodology will be stated in terms of kWh per 100 miles traveled, and that by this metric, the Volt will go 100 miles on 25 kWh of battery charge. This seems a less than perfect way of rating the fuel economy, since the Volt will only run 40 miles on a charge before the gasoline generator kicks in. To arrive at the 230 mpg number, GM assumes a 51-mile driving cycle with drivers charging up their Volts once a day, so the battery powers 4/5 of the distance. Taking GM's claim at face value though, we can calculate that the Volt gets about 4 m/kWh. This can be compared to approximately 0.8 m/kWh for a typical European diesel car getting an average 40 mpg, or about 0.4 m/kWh for a typical American gasoline car getting an average of 20 mpg. (Newer models have a range of higher fuel economies, but those are the averages of the current fleets.) Professor David MacKay of the University of Cambridge notes that even this metric can range wildly from 0.24 m/kWh for the BMW Hydrogen 7 car, to 3-10 m/kWh for some all-electric vehicles. A blog post by former Tesla chief marketing officer Darryl Siry claims that
[geo] Ecologists weigh in
Apologies if this has already been discussed, but thought some quotes in here were pretty precious. Article written in a curious mixture of tenses. Anyone go to this? The bigger the scale of the approach, the riskier it is for the environment, [=small scale solutions to a big scale problem are less risky?] Any large-scale fertilization could cause risks to ocean ecosystems as great as those of global warming itself, [On the other hand ignoring 70% of the earth's surface and the largest CO2 controller on the planet doesn't make a lot of sense either in solving a global CO2 problem. Where's the proof that land based ideas are going to solve the problem?] Playing with the Earth's climate is a dangerous game with unclear rules.We need more direct ways to tackle global warming, including energy efficiency, reduced consumption, and investment in renewable energy sources. [And what happens if those aren't enough and/or don't happen fast enough - isn't that also a dangerous game? How does carefully considering other options like geoengineering increase global risk? If at the end of the day research proves that no geoengineering options are worth it, then fine, please don't use them. Until then, since nothing else seems to be working, how about soliciting and actively investigating other ideas like geo? ] -Greg http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/breaking-news-all-topics/symposium-to-discuss-geoengineering-to-fight-climate-change-at-the-esa-annual-meeting_68460.html Symposium to discuss geoengineering to fight climate change at the ESA Annual Meeting - 6 Aug 2009 By Ecological Society of America Symposium to discuss geoengineering to fight climate change at the ESA Annual Meeting Ecologists call techniques a risky strategy at large scales Geoengineering techniques aim to slow global warming through the use of human-made changes to the Earth's land, seas or atmosphere. But new research shows that the use of geoengineering to do environmental good may cause other environmental harm. In a symposium at the Ecological Society of America's Annual Meeting, ecologists discuss the viability of geoengineering, concluding that it is potentially dangerous at the global scale, where the risks outweigh the benefits. The bigger the scale of the approach, the riskier it is for the environment, says session organizer Robert Jackson , director of Duke University's Center on Global Change. Global alterations of Earth's natural cycles have too many uncertainties to be viable with our current level of understanding, he says. One global-scale geoengineering method, termed atmospheric seeding, would cool the climate by releasing light-colored sulfur particles or other aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays back into space. This approach mimics what happens naturally when volcanoes erupt; in 1991, for instance, an eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the Earth by 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit. But Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research argues that despite its potential to create overall cooling, atmospheric seeding could cause significant changes in localized temperature and precipitation. Her simulations also predict that sulfur seeding could destroy atmospheric ozone, leading to increased ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface. An increase in ozone depletion over the Arctic could lead to dangerous levels of ultraviolet light hitting the Earth's surface, she says. In this case, the recovery of the ozone hole over the Antarctic could be delayed by decades. Another large-scale geoengineering scheme is fertilizing the oceans with iron to increase carbon uptake from the atmosphere. Charles Miller of Oregon State University says that ocean fertilization could create a rise in iron-limited phytoplankton populations, which by dying and sinking would use enough oxygen to create extensive dead zones in the oceans. In addition, he says, the maximum possible rate of ocean iron fertilization could only offset a small fraction of the current rate of carbon burning by humans. Ocean fertilization also does not alleviate the increasing problem of ocean acidification, caused by carbon dioxide from the increasingly carbon-rich atmosphere dissolving into seawater. In fact, Miller says, ocean fertilization schemes will likely exacerbate this problem. Any large-scale fertilization could cause risks to ocean ecosystems as great as those of global warming itself, he says. Despite its apparent hazards at the global scale, Jackson thinks that research should continue on safer ways to use geoengineering at a smaller scale. Geologic sequestration, sometimes known as CO2 capture and storage, takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and stores it in underground reservoirs. Jackson says that this solution has the potential to store more than a century's worth of electric power emissions at a relatively low cost. He notes, however,
[geo] Re: Home experiment
After a couple of days all the Special K sank. I think this is rather neat. It gives you a couple of days to whiten and insulate the ocean - just long enough to mess up a hurricane. Then it can either end up as food for bottom-feeders or it will sequester the carbon. I think it could be worth a sea trial. If anyone lives near a relatively secluded harbour and can afford to invest in a few boxes of breakfast cereal, it would be a very cheap geoeng experiment. Perhaps we can attempt to calculate from first principles whether Rice Krispies or Sugar Puffs would be the best. Will the Honey Monster or the GRREAT Tiger save Florida most effectively? An alternative is sawdust or matchwood, which would be more resilient and would have better insulating properties as it would float out of the water and is non-porous. However, it's not as short lived, which may be a problem. I have to admit it would be extremely amusing if such a ridiculous idea actually works. A 2009/8/13 Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com Dear Andrew, If the water temperature is warmer than the air you will insulate the water and make it warmer. What color will the Special K be after a few days if it is eat? What happens to the (additional) fish near the surface when the hurricane comes? If not the cooling effect will increase the mixed layer depth and this will have an additional cooling effect. Evaporation may increase because the surface area of the Special K is higher than the water. Worth checking this out. Pick a substance that will break down in a few days and is benign. There is a natural organic scum on the sea surface already. If you add to it, you will alter bubble bursting and air-sea transfer. Good luck, Oliver Wingenter On Aug 12, 5:50 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I tested my theory that breakfast cereals could disrupt hurricanes with a very small experiment. I got some Kellog's Special K and floated it in briny water for 36 hours. I tried two versions: soaked in olive oil, and dry. Both samples remained afloat, just under the surface of the water, at the end of the experiment. I suggest that this will make a significant difference to heat transfer into the hurricane, by a variety of mechanisms: 1) Increasing albedo (Special K is pale yellow) which will reduce solar heating of the sea 2) Impeding circulation on small scales near the surface, reducing evaporation 3) Oil-mixed cereal may reduce evaporation directly, by reducing the wet surface area 4) A continuous oil layer will reduce wave disturbance, thus reducing effective surface area. I think this idea is worthy of some further consideration. I really hope someone can comment on the idea. It seems pretty cheap and environmentally benign to me. A --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Home experiment
Remember, that crashing waves might well be an important factor to consider in lifetime of the floating material. The approach has to limit evaporation, not so much heat transfer, and it is a bit hard to see how one would cover the waves in any sort of continuous way without a much larger amount than just to cover smooth water with a thin layer. I might add that, as I understand it, Kerry Emanuel actually did some experiments on doing this sort of thing (with an organic fluid) 5-10 years ago, and did not find success‹it is very likely a lot harder than it might seem. Mike MacCracken On 8/14/09 8:48 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: After a couple of days all the Special K sank. I think this is rather neat. It gives you a couple of days to whiten and insulate the ocean - just long enough to mess up a hurricane. Then it can either end up as food for bottom-feeders or it will sequester the carbon. I think it could be worth a sea trial. If anyone lives near a relatively secluded harbour and can afford to invest in a few boxes of breakfast cereal, it would be a very cheap geoeng experiment. Perhaps we can attempt to calculate from first principles whether Rice Krispies or Sugar Puffs would be the best. Will the Honey Monster or the GRREAT Tiger save Florida most effectively? An alternative is sawdust or matchwood, which would be more resilient and would have better insulating properties as it would float out of the water and is non-porous. However, it's not as short lived, which may be a problem. I have to admit it would be extremely amusing if such a ridiculous idea actually works. A 2009/8/13 Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com Dear Andrew, If the water temperature is warmer than the air you will insulate the water and make it warmer. What color will the Special K be after a few days if it is eat? What happens to the (additional) fish near the surface when the hurricane comes? If not the cooling effect will increase the mixed layer depth and this will have an additional cooling effect. Evaporation may increase because the surface area of the Special K is higher than the water. Worth checking this out. Pick a substance that will break down in a few days and is benign. There is a natural organic scum on the sea surface already. If you add to it, you will alter bubble bursting and air-sea transfer. Good luck, Oliver Wingenter On Aug 12, 5:50 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I tested my theory that breakfast cereals could disrupt hurricanes with a very small experiment. I got some Kellog's Special K and floated it in briny water for 36 hours. I tried two versions: soaked in olive oil, and dry. Both samples remained afloat, just under the surface of the water, at the end of the experiment. I suggest that this will make a significant difference to heat transfer into the hurricane, by a variety of mechanisms: 1) Increasing albedo (Special K is pale yellow) which will reduce solar heating of the sea 2) Impeding circulation on small scales near the surface, reducing evaporation 3) Oil-mixed cereal may reduce evaporation directly, by reducing the wet surface area 4) A continuous oil layer will reduce wave disturbance, thus reducing effective surface area. I think this idea is worthy of some further consideration. I really hope someone can comment on the idea. It seems pretty cheap and environmentally benign to me. A --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] whatever you think of orbiting solar...
does anyone out there see heat harvesting from parking lots as transformational? http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/energy-frontiers-space-solar-hot-lots/ weigh in... -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Home experiment
I guess this makes you a cereal killer. Cereal is also relatively expensive. Starch based packing peanuts would be whiter and also biodegradable, but the scale and other issues previously discussed in my opinion make this an infeasible pre-emptive measure. You may have seen on the weather this week that some Saharan dust interfered with the development of a tropical wave in the Atlantic, so there are ways to prevent the growth of storms. I still think that an examination of the effect of placing a white cover over part of the country of Niger (of Plame and yellowcake fame) on the discharge of waves into the Gulf of Guinea would be a worthwhile exercise. The hot Saharan air from there or even from other surrounding areas would have to pass over this cooler area and be subject to subsidence. This would prevent it from converging and if it never enters the water with any characteristics of a wave, it can't gain energy from the jungle or the ITCZ, it can't gain rotation from the Coriolis effect and it can never become an organized tropical cyclone. Stephen Salter and Bill Gates want to kill them on the way to school or or work, I favor the strangle them in the crib or earlier approach. BTW, that dinky little Cat 1 that hit Taiwan killed 500 people. The best hurricane is no hurricane at all. OK, I'm biased. In the fall of 1954, a 36-year-old pregnant woman in coastal NC was nearly killed when she attempted to remove downed tree limbs from her yard, thinking that a hurricane that had just struck the area had passed and instead was caught off guard by the winds from the backside of the storm as the eye was passing directly over her. She was my mother. I was along for the ride. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley To: oliver.wingen...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:48 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Home experiment After a couple of days all the Special K sank. I think this is rather neat. It gives you a couple of days to whiten and insulate the ocean - just long enough to mess up a hurricane. Then it can either end up as food for bottom-feeders or it will sequester the carbon. I think it could be worth a sea trial. If anyone lives near a relatively secluded harbour and can afford to invest in a few boxes of breakfast cereal, it would be a very cheap geoeng experiment. Perhaps we can attempt to calculate from first principles whether Rice Krispies or Sugar Puffs would be the best. Will the Honey Monster or the GRREAT Tiger save Florida most effectively? An alternative is sawdust or matchwood, which would be more resilient and would have better insulating properties as it would float out of the water and is non-porous. However, it's not as short lived, which may be a problem. I have to admit it would be extremely amusing if such a ridiculous idea actually works. A 2009/8/13 Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com Dear Andrew, If the water temperature is warmer than the air you will insulate the water and make it warmer. What color will the Special K be after a few days if it is eat? What happens to the (additional) fish near the surface when the hurricane comes? If not the cooling effect will increase the mixed layer depth and this will have an additional cooling effect. Evaporation may increase because the surface area of the Special K is higher than the water. Worth checking this out. Pick a substance that will break down in a few days and is benign. There is a natural organic scum on the sea surface already. If you add to it, you will alter bubble bursting and air-sea transfer. Good luck, Oliver Wingenter On Aug 12, 5:50 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I tested my theory that breakfast cereals could disrupt hurricanes with a very small experiment. I got some Kellog's Special K and floated it in briny water for 36 hours. I tried two versions: soaked in olive oil, and dry. Both samples remained afloat, just under the surface of the water, at the end of the experiment. I suggest that this will make a significant difference to heat transfer into the hurricane, by a variety of mechanisms: 1) Increasing albedo (Special K is pale yellow) which will reduce solar heating of the sea 2) Impeding circulation on small scales near the surface, reducing evaporation 3) Oil-mixed cereal may reduce evaporation directly, by reducing the wet surface area 4) A continuous oil layer will reduce wave disturbance, thus reducing effective surface area. I think this idea is worthy of some further consideration. I really hope someone can comment on the idea. It seems pretty cheap and environmentally benign to me. A --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received
[geo] Re: Home experiment
There are a variety of artificial materials that could be used, such as corn starch plastic strips, etc. as well as packing peanuts. There are lots of agricultural wastes that would be worth a go. Wheat straw, peanut shells, apple cores, potato peelings, etc. The logic for this approach is just that it seems a small difference in heat transfer to the storm could make a big difference to the storm's destructive power. Even a 1mph difference make a house fall down or not fall down. It's so cheap to trial this that it has to be worth a go. Fine a small natural harbour, chuck in a few split bales of straw and see what happens. There should be a degree-magnitude temperature difference compared to control conditions in time and space. Hands up who lives near the sea nand has ready access to groundnut waste, hay, etc. A 2009/8/15 Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.com I guess this makes you a cereal killer. Cereal is also relatively expensive. Starch based packing peanuts would be whiter and also biodegradable, but the scale and other issues previously discussed in my opinion make this an infeasible pre-emptive measure. You may have seen on the weather this week that some Saharan dust interfered with the development of a tropical wave in the Atlantic, so there are ways to prevent the growth of storms. I still think that an examination of the effect of placing a white cover over part of the country of Niger (of Plame and yellowcake fame) on the discharge of waves into the Gulf of Guinea would be a worthwhile exercise. The hot Saharan air from there or even from other surrounding areas would have to pass over this cooler area and be subject to subsidence. This would prevent it from converging and if it never enters the water with any characteristics of a wave, it can't gain energy from the jungle or the ITCZ, it can't gain rotation from the Coriolis effect and it can never become an organized tropical cyclone. Stephen Salter and Bill Gates want to kill them on the way to school or or work, I favor the strangle them in the crib or earlier approach. BTW, that dinky little Cat 1 that hit Taiwan killed 500 people. The best hurricane is no hurricane at all. OK, I'm biased. In the fall of 1954, a 36-year-old pregnant woman in coastal NC was nearly killed when she attempted to remove downed tree limbs from her yard, thinking that a hurricane that had just struck the area had passed and instead was caught off guard by the winds from the backside of the storm as the eye was passing directly over her. She was my mother. I was along for the ride. - Original Message - *From:* Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com *To:* oliver.wingen...@gmail.com *Cc:* geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Friday, August 14, 2009 8:48 PM *Subject:* [geo] Re: Home experiment After a couple of days all the Special K sank. I think this is rather neat. It gives you a couple of days to whiten and insulate the ocean - just long enough to mess up a hurricane. Then it can either end up as food for bottom-feeders or it will sequester the carbon. I think it could be worth a sea trial. If anyone lives near a relatively secluded harbour and can afford to invest in a few boxes of breakfast cereal, it would be a very cheap geoeng experiment. Perhaps we can attempt to calculate from first principles whether Rice Krispies or Sugar Puffs would be the best. Will the Honey Monster or the GRREAT Tiger save Florida most effectively? An alternative is sawdust or matchwood, which would be more resilient and would have better insulating properties as it would float out of the water and is non-porous. However, it's not as short lived, which may be a problem. I have to admit it would be extremely amusing if such a ridiculous idea actually works. A 2009/8/13 Oliver Wingenter oliver.wingen...@gmail.com Dear Andrew, If the water temperature is warmer than the air you will insulate the water and make it warmer. What color will the Special K be after a few days if it is eat? What happens to the (additional) fish near the surface when the hurricane comes? If not the cooling effect will increase the mixed layer depth and this will have an additional cooling effect. Evaporation may increase because the surface area of the Special K is higher than the water. Worth checking this out. Pick a substance that will break down in a few days and is benign. There is a natural organic scum on the sea surface already. If you add to it, you will alter bubble bursting and air-sea transfer. Good luck, Oliver Wingenter On Aug 12, 5:50 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: I tested my theory that breakfast cereals could disrupt hurricanes with a very small experiment. I got some Kellog's Special K and floated it in briny water for 36 hours. I tried two versions: soaked in olive oil, and dry. Both samples remained afloat, just
[geo] Re: whatever you think of orbiting solar...
I don't as it would have very limited applicability if any at all. Plus, if the surfaces are eventually whitened as is the goal of the LBNL initiative, that would reduce the effectiveness of such systems. I also doubt that sufficient energy can be captured to make it worthwhile, although the principle is the same as that of using molten salt to store heat from CSP for use during the overnight to produce steam. The maximum temperature would probably follow the same pattern as the heating of the atmosphere, peaking somewhere around 4-6pm in the summer and reaching a lowpoint just before dawn. So the number of hours that usable heat could be extracted is much less than 24 and by the time it has passed through the heat exchanger system, it may not add significantly to any water that is to be heated. It seems like a very complicated way to produce energy on the margin when there are other more readily available sources. There is a long history of using undergound pipes to heat or cool surfaces, e.g. football fields and hockey arenas, but none in the area of heat collection in this way. In the interest of furthering scientific knowledge, I will take the trusty IR non contact thermometer outside right now and get a parking lot/roadway reading and also some tomorrow during the daytime. The range for tomorrow is 67-85F, much less than Phoenix, but it should give an idea as to what to expect. Results: probably biased because it rained earlier and nature took away all that valuable waste heat energy, but the air temp is about 73F at 10:30pm EDT and the roads, parking lots and sidewalks (I believe in being thorough) ranged from 74-77, indicating some residual heat in the pavement, but not very much. The article and or video noted that only a small fraction of parking lots were actually used for parking, so instead of installing an expensive and problematic heat exchanger system, why not have some of the post real estate collapse serfs place a white tarp onto these urban hot plates during the daytime and remove them at night. Now that's a use of the tarp that even old John McCain could support for Arizona. - Original Message - From: Andrew Revkin anr...@nytimes.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 9:32 PM Subject: [geo] whatever you think of orbiting solar... does anyone out there see heat harvesting from parking lots as transformational? http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/energy-frontiers-space-solar-hot-lots/ weigh in... -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Environment 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 http://www.nytimes.com/revkin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[geo] Re: Home experiment
Perhaps you should estimate the cost first. How much straw per ha do you need to insulate enough to get 50% reduction in heat flux? Or to cover, to make it simpler. The sea area to be covered would be something on the order of the area of a hurricane. Purchase and shipping costs for the straw delivered off shore would be something like $120 /Mg DW CR, 2006 (Strand and Benford 09 minus ballast). So how cheap is it? You also need to estimate the rate at which the particles would be dispersed in the open sea. I am still not clear on the mechanism by which this is supposed to affect hurricanes. If it is to cool the ocean, how is heat transfer to be affected? By changing bulk thermal conductivity or the boundary layer (aquatic?)? Corn stover and bagasse are the most available sources of cheap biomass in the tropics, they are not foreign to the marine ecosystem, but the environmental impact would be unclear. The environmental effects would be greater than for technology such as CROPS because the terrestrial carbon would be dispersed over the water column for a longer time over a greater area. = Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 6:53 PM To: Alvia Gaskill Cc: oliver.wingen...@gmail.com; geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Home experiment There are a variety of artificial materials that could be used, such as corn starch plastic strips, etc. as well as packing peanuts. There are lots of agricultural wastes that would be worth a go. Wheat straw, peanut shells, apple cores, potato peelings, etc. The logic for this approach is just that it seems a small difference in heat transfer to the storm could make a big difference to the storm's destructive power. Even a 1mph difference make a house fall down or not fall down. It's so cheap to trial this that it has to be worth a go. Fine a small natural harbour, chuck in a few split bales of straw and see what happens. There should be a degree-magnitude temperature difference compared to control conditions in time and space. Hands up who lives near the sea nand has ready access to groundnut waste, hay, etc. A 2009/8/15 Alvia Gaskill agask...@nc.rr.commailto:agask...@nc.rr.com I guess this makes you a cereal killer. Cereal is also relatively expensive. Starch based packing peanuts would be whiter and also biodegradable, but the scale and other issues previously discussed in my opinion make this an infeasible pre-emptive measure. You may have seen on the weather this week that some Saharan dust interfered with the development of a tropical wave in the Atlantic, so there are ways to prevent the growth of storms. I still think that an examination of the effect of placing a white cover over part of the country of Niger (of Plame and yellowcake fame) on the discharge of waves into the Gulf of Guinea would be a worthwhile exercise. The hot Saharan air from there or even from other surrounding areas would have to pass over this cooler area and be subject to subsidence. This would prevent it from converging and if it never enters the water with any characteristics of a wave, it can't gain energy from the jungle or the ITCZ, it can't gain rotation from the Coriolis effect and it can never become an organized tropical cyclone. Stephen Salter and Bill Gates want to kill them on the way to school or or work, I favor the strangle them in the crib or earlier approach. BTW, that dinky little Cat 1 that hit Taiwan killed 500 people. The best hurricane is no hurricane at all. OK, I'm biased. In the fall of 1954, a 36-year-old pregnant woman in coastal NC was nearly killed when she attempted to remove downed tree limbs from her yard, thinking that a hurricane that had just struck the area had passed and instead was caught off guard by the winds from the backside of the storm as the eye was passing directly over her. She was my mother. I was along for the ride. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockleymailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: oliver.wingen...@gmail.commailto:oliver.wingen...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineeringmailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:48 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Home experiment After a couple of days all the Special K sank. I think this is rather neat. It gives you a couple of days to whiten and insulate the ocean - just long enough to mess up a hurricane. Then it can either end up as food for bottom-feeders or it will sequester the carbon. I think it could be worth a sea trial. If anyone lives near a relatively secluded harbour and can afford to invest in a few boxes of breakfast cereal, it would be a very cheap geoeng experiment. Perhaps we can attempt to
