Re: [geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project?
Tree planting is, from a geologic perspective, a very short - term fix. What will be done with the trees when they die? Will the forest cover persist, or be replaced by alternative climax communities, will less locked in carbon? Taking a tiny seed and putting it in a hole is nothing compared to the logistics of felling a tree and locking its carbon away from the biosphere. I don't think that the scaling of tree planting has been tested any more than most CDR schemes, which always seem to end up with and then you just build the largest industry the world has ever seen, and *hey presto* the AGW problem is solved. A On Jun 7, 2013 1:06 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Andrew: Agreed on Net^2. It'll be quite a few years before we run out of good locations. I meant to get into the last message that we need to be thinking in billions, not millions, of new trees per year. One per capita would help a lot. Chinese schoolkids are planting I think 5 per year. Ron -- *From: *Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com *To: *Ron Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net *Cc: *geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, durbrow durb...@gmail.com *Sent: *Thursday, June 6, 2013 5:38:35 PM *Subject: *Re: [geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project? Surely you also have to consider whatever vegetation your are replacing? It's the net increase in net primary productivity which matters A On Jun 7, 2013 12:33 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Dr. D.and list I am not an expert in this area, but try to follow the subject closely - because it is a hugely important topic for biochar and you should get an answer. You asked below *My guess is that many group members here might [think] this is among the least effective geo-engineering efforts. Am I wrong? * My answer: we need more data. By no means least yet.. Googling found this Wiki statement (emphasis added): *'They grow at such a rate as to produce roughly 40 cubic feet (1.1 m3) of wood each year, approximately equal to the volume of a 50-foot-tall tree one foot in diameter.[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_giant_sequoias#cite_note-NPS2009-7This makes them among the fastest growing organisms on Earth, in terms of annual increase in mass. *This is encouraging but meaningless in CDR (NPP) terms until we know the associated tree age and land area. If the above hypothetical tree had unity density [barely floated] of about half carbon, we could say about 0.55 tonnes C/yr per tree. If there were 100 such trees per hectare (each occupying 100 sqm) or spaced about 10 meters apart, then we could say the NPP was about 55 tonnes C/ha-yr or about 5.5 kg C/sqm-yr. This would be astoundingly good. But could be off easily by a factor of10 if the 40 cu ft related to a 250 ft tall tree (maybe this growth statistic is for land with fewer than 10 trees per ha??). Anyone up on these numbers for giant sequoia? An actively managed planted forest might start off with 100 times as many trees per ha (one per sqm) - and slowly reduce the density to get the maximum annual dollar yield from the initial planting - the thinned little guys going to energy and biochar of course. There are numerous forestry experts who know this proper (maxmum profit) planting and thinning schedule for different species. The growth follows a sigmoid curve shape - so we need data on that as well. If the maximum growth period is 500 years off, that is not so good. Speaking of biochar, millions of seedlings are now finding better growth and economics with char replacing vermiculite or similar starter soil. Ron -- *From: *Dr D durb...@gmail.com *To: *geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Sent: *Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:49:34 PM *Subject: *[geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project? Instead of sharing a paper, below is a 5 min video from the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/06/06/science/10002262388/reaching-for-the-sky.html The Archangel Project wants to take cuttings from giant trees (Sequoias), propagate them in the millions, and plant thousands of arces of them throughout the US (e.g. New England). The idea is to capture carbon and store if for thousands of years. My guess is that many group members here might this is among the least effective geo-engineering efforts. Am I wrong? -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: [geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project?
Andrew and list See below. On Jun 7, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Tree planting is, from a geologic perspective, a very short - term fix. What will be done with the trees when they die? Will the forest cover persist, or be replaced by alternative climax communities, will less locked in carbon? RWL: For Jim Hansen's proposed 100 Gt C, he clearly just let's them mature and have no continuing climate value. Not optimum. Biochar folk would be harvesting and replanting with some optimum mix of a combination of both stocks and flows, not simply stocks (Hansen). As we move to 100% RE, that standing biomass is a perfect energy storage vehicle to back-up wind and solar. This hypothetical tree might be coppiced every year. Might be a perennial like Miscanthus, to get maximum NPP. And average annual standing biomass as well. . Taking a tiny seed and putting it in a hole is nothing compared to the logistics of felling a tree and locking its carbon away from the biosphere. RWL. Much more likely to be seedlings, but of course you are correct on future costs. I have just learned that biomass is selling in North Carolina for about $25/tonne delivered (double this for dry ton). Lower cost energy than most anything. I would worry more about having too little than too much (if we are serious about getting fossil fuel use to zero ) I don't think that the scaling of tree planting has been tested any more than most CDR schemes, which always seem to end up with and then you just build the largest industry the world has ever seen, and *hey presto* the AGW problem is solved. RWL. I think you would be surprised how mature is the forestry industry. And relatively economically depressed. Over supply, so low costs. Not claiming easy - but there are a very large number (billions) of farmers and foresters ready to go. Worldwide. Ron A On Jun 7, 2013 1:06 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Andrew: Agreed on Net^2. It'll be quite a few years before we run out of good locations. I meant to get into the last message that we need to be thinking in billions, not millions, of new trees per year. One per capita would help a lot. Chinese schoolkids are planting I think 5 per year. Ron From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: Ron Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, durbrow durb...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 5:38:35 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project? Surely you also have to consider whatever vegetation your are replacing? It's the net increase in net primary productivity which matters A On Jun 7, 2013 12:33 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Dr. D.and list I am not an expert in this area, but try to follow the subject closely - because it is a hugely important topic for biochar and you should get an answer. You asked below My guess is that many group members here might [think] this is among the least effective geo-engineering efforts. Am I wrong? My answer: we need more data. By no means least yet.. Googling found this Wiki statement (emphasis added): 'They grow at such a rate as to produce roughly 40 cubic feet (1.1 m3) of wood each year, approximately equal to the volume of a 50-foot-tall tree one foot in diameter.[7] This makes them among the fastest growing organisms on Earth, in terms of annual increase in mass. This is encouraging but meaningless in CDR (NPP) terms until we know the associated tree age and land area. If the above hypothetical tree had unity density [barely floated] of about half carbon, we could say about 0.55 tonnes C/yr per tree. If there were 100 such trees per hectare (each occupying 100 sqm) or spaced about 10 meters apart, then we could say the NPP was about 55 tonnes C/ha-yr or about 5.5 kg C/sqm-yr. This would be astoundingly good. But could be off easily by a factor of10 if the 40 cu ft related to a 250 ft tall tree (maybe this growth statistic is for land with fewer than 10 trees per ha??). Anyone up on these numbers for giant sequoia? An actively managed planted forest might start off with 100 times as many trees per ha (one per sqm) - and slowly reduce the density to get the maximum annual dollar yield from the initial planting - the thinned little guys going to energy and biochar of course. There are numerous forestry experts who know this proper (maxmum profit) planting and thinning schedule for different species. The growth follows a sigmoid curve shape - so we need data on that as well. If the maximum growth period is 500 years off, that is not so good. Speaking of biochar, millions of seedlings are now finding better growth and economics with char replacing vermiculite or similar starter soil. Ron From: Dr D durb...@gmail.com To:
[geo] Geo-engineering information request EIR13/0584 - Publications - Inside Government - GOV.UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/geo-engineering-information-request-eir130584 Geo-engineering information request EIR13/0584 Organisation:Department of Energy Climate Change Published:4 June 2013 Response: EIR13/0584 Response to request for information concerning geo-engineering research PDF, 345KB, 4 pages Detail The request has been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
Re: [geo] Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management in Climate Change Policies by Vasiliki Manousi , Anastasios Xepapadeas :: SSRN
Andrew, Stephen cc list 1. Thanks to Andrew for alerting us to this paper. I think the best I have seen combining Policy, Geoengineering and Economics. At first, it looks exceedingly complex, but after decoding the (new-to-me) nomenclature, not bad. A well written paper. 2. Stephen - I concur with your statement. But wonder whether you include the CDR suite in your term CO2 reduction. They use the term mitigation - which seems to have been meant to include CDR. They said (p 3, para 2) Mitigation reduces emissions and the stock of GHGs, which allows a larger flow of outgoing radiation and eases the pressure on temperature to rise. Ron - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:07:37 - (UTC) Subject: Re: [geo] Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management in Climate Change Policies by Vasiliki Manousi , Anastasios Xepapadeas :: SSRN Hi All The word 'cloud' does not appear in this paper. One policy might be to do as much CO2 reduction as you possibly can and then use geoengineering to clean up the rest. Stephen On 05/06/2013 10:29, Andrew Lockley wrote: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 2273439 Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management in Climate Change Policies Vasiliki Manousi Anastasios Xepapadeas Abstract: We couple a spatially homogeneous energy balance climate model with an economic growth model which incorporates two potential policies against climate change: mitigation, which is the traditional policy, and geoengineering. We analyze the optimal policy mix of geoengineering and mitigation in both a cooperative and a noncooperative framework, in which we study open loop and feedback solutions. Our results suggests that greenhouse gas accumulation is relatively higher when geoengineering policies are undertaken, and that at noncooperative solutions incentives for geoengineering are relative stronger. A disruption of geoengineering efforts at a steady state will cause an upward jump in global temperature. Keywords: Climate Change, Mitigation, Geoengineering, Cooperation, Differential Game, Open Loop - Feedback Nash Equilibrium -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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 . -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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 . -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
Re: [geo] [paper] Science of Geoengineering, in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Ken, cc list I thought your annual review piece was generally good and for most technologies, probably helpful. But I fail to understand your non-treatment of biochar. You only used the word once - in a Table. I think Annual Reviews lost a good many potential purchasers. There are many reasons to leave out a technology that more than a few would think warranted inclusion. Too small a future? Too large a future? Too many publications? Too few? Too controversial? Too complicated to analyze? Too unlike the others? Ran out of time? Someone dropped the ball? Wrong Annual Review? Best of all could be that Annual Reviews is planning a separate biochar chapter , but then someone dropped a different ball. I don't claim to be a disinterested bystander, but I have no financial interest in any biochar company. So, being biased, I may be wrong, when I hazard these guesstimates on the biochar industry, comparing to any (repeat any) of the CDR (or SRM) technologies you did cover. a. More annual technical peer reviewed papers b. More academic departments and more theses c. More investment. More by large energy companies. d. More conferences and larger number of papers at conferences e. A longer history of use f. More employees, largest company g. More current sales and users, more countries , faster growth rate h. More varied approaches and more energy aspects (end use sectors, physical forms) i. More local support chapters and groups Anyone care to trade numerical values on any of these for one covered by Ken? My answers (repeat guesstimates) mostly will come from www.biochar-internatonal.org Ken: I hope you can explain your rationale for ignoring biochar. I have to ask , since I am sure to be asked. Apologies. Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:40:13 PM Subject: [geo] [paper] Science of Geoengineering, in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences This link goes through their porous paywall and gives anyone free access to the pdf: http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/8NiUE6HXETbrWNj3ybct/full/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105548 The Science of Geoengineering Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 41: 231-256 (Volume publication date May 2013) DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105548 Ken Caldeira, 1 Govindasamy Bala, 2 and Long Cao 3 1 Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California 94305; email: kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 2 Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India 3 Department of Earth Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310027, China Abstract. Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas are increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. These increased concentrations cause additional energy to be retained in Earth's climate system, thus increasing Earth's temperature. Various methods have been proposed to prevent this temperature increase either by reflecting to space sunlight that would otherwise warm Earth or by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Such intentional alteration of planetary-scale processes has been termed geoengineering. The first category of geoengineering method, solar geoengineering (also known as solar radiation management, or SRM), raises novel global-scale governance and environmental issues. Some SRM approaches are thought to be low in cost, so the scale of SRM deployment will likely depend primarily on considerations of risk. The second category of geoengineering method, carbon dioxide removal (CDR), raises issues related primarily to scale, cost, effectiveness, and local environmental consequences. The scale of CDR deployment will likely depend primarily on cost. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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 . -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
[geo] The Caldeira If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis questioned by Ocean expert
During the QA after his 2012 AGU talk entitled *Ocean Acidification: Adaptive Challenge or Extinction Threat?*, Ken Caldeira said: I actually think* if you sterilize the ocean*, yes vulnerable people would be hurt, poor people would be hurt, but that* we'd still have Chicken McNuggets and TV shows and basically we'd be OK* A video of Ken's entire talk is* available here*http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/events/gc44c-special-lecture-in-ocean-acidification-consequences-of-excess-carbon-dioxide-in-the-marine-environment-video-on-demand/. He lays out the McNugget/Ocean Sterilization hypothesis starting at *minute 50:20*. This seemed to be Ken's answer to the question he posed in his subtitle, i.e. is homo sapiens facing a threat of extinction as a result of any particular odd behavior the species is engaged in at the moment such as carelessly dumping waste gases into the atmosphere which are changing the chemistry of the global ocean? Callum Roberts, a scientist who studies the impact of human activity on marine ecosystems, addressed an audience at the University of Sydney this year where he discussed the many problems human activity is causing life in the oceans. He interrupted his litany of woe briefly to tell the audience of some *good news* he had: even if all the ocean's primary productivity were shot down tomorrow,* it will still be a long time before we suffocate *because there's plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere, enough for more than 1,000 years. So hopefully we can get our heads around a few problems before then. A transcript and audio download of Callum's speech is* available herehttp://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-coming-crisis-for-the--oceans/4735314 *. His we've got 1,000 entire years comment starts around *minute 39:30*. (Callum's Wikipedia page is herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callum_Roberts ). Callum does not address Ken's remarks directly. I happened to hear him and thought this 1,000 year time limit idea could be a blow to those who thought the McNugget deliveries would still be happening in 3013 or so. I thought some of them might be hanging around here so I post this. A transcript of the relevant section of Ken's AGU talk follows: Around minute 50:20, Ken Caldeira answers a question from the audience: well this is a sort of deep type question - the question is, what if reefs disappear, what does that mean, or to summarize... well who cares? [50:40] And the standard answer is oh that there are vulnerable communities of poor people who depend on them [ coral reefs ] for fish and nutrients and you know there are numbers of how many hundreds of millions of people depend on reefs for their livelihood and tourism and all this kind of stuff. And then there is the other sort of standard answer, oh this is a necessary component of the homeostatic earth system and if we lose these that humans are the next domino to fall. I personally don't believe any of that. I actually think if you sterilize the ocean, yes vulnerable people would be hurt, poor people would be hurt, but that we'd still have Chicken McNuggets and TV shows and basically we'd be OK. And so for me its really this sort of tragedy - and maybe this is a middle class American viewpoint - but that you've had billions of years of evolution producing all this biodiversity and because we want to have - you know economists estimate it would cost something like 2% of GDP to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from our energy system, maybe it would cost a few percent more of GDP so because we want to be a few percent richer we're willing to lose all this, all these ecosystems, we're willing to lose the Arctic ecosystem, we're willing to lose these marine ecosystems and to me its a little bit like somebody saying well I have enough money so I can run through the Metropolitan Museum and just slash up all the paintings And so for me being a middle class American who is gonna have TV shows and Chicken McNuggets and burgers and things, for me its more this kind of ethical kind of thing. Obviously, if you depend on your livelihood for fishing on a reef you're going to have a different perspective. But that's enough of that. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
Re: [geo] The War on Nature: Geoengineering and the Climate Crisis - EcoWatch: Cutting Edge Environmental News Service
Peter etal Thanks for the interjection - at least partially responding to me. To the best of my knowledge, your proposed method of albedo enhancement (url given below) has not been advanced on this list. I can't find it at AMEG. I called a wind-friend at NREL (where I once worked), who also had never heard of the concept.(and warned that the national wind program has done nothing at all similar, and that the engineering would be difficult).. Since you have brought arctic ice thickening to our attention and you seem to be the main proponent - a few questions: a. Have their been any other articles and/or research on the wind-salt-water-freezing-albedo part of your paper? b. Has anyone done any simple (non-wind) tests to see how the freezing of salt water from the top will work out? c. How much money is needed to do an Arctic test ASAP, with just a few units - perhaps at the few kW level? d. Do you think your proposed approach is potentially least cost? Potentially least controversial? Ron ps - of course hoping to hear from anyone - Original Message - From: Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:40:26 PM Subject: RE: [geo] The War on Nature: Geoengineering and the Climate Crisis - EcoWatch: Cutting Edge Environmental News Service I hesitate to enter the charged discussion, but I will. Like many, I consider geoengineering a regrettable alternative to dealing with the source problem. And like many, I consider that the potential to deal realistically and effectively with the source problem, emissions of GHGs, is slim to nil, and hence we will get to the alternative. So as regards ice formation, we should be aware that one can enhance ice formation in the winter: the issue in the north is not an absence of cold in the winter, but rather a shortening of the season. Since ice formation is self-insulating, moving liquid water in contact with cold air will enhance the formation of ice. We had looked at this as regards the preliminary evidence of the weakening of the North Atlantic downwelling current, the companion of the Gulf Stream. I have attached a copy of the work that Jason (Songjian) Zhou and I did just to illustrate that enhancing ice thickness on the ocean, or ice cover, can be done, using the same technique that has been used to build ice bridges in northern settings. I don’t cite this as a panacea; we did our work to explore a contingency response. Regard, Peter Flynn Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Ron Sent: June-05-13 10:08 PM To: geoengineering Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [geo] The War on Nature: Geoengineering and the Climate Crisis – EcoWatch: Cutting Edge Environmental News Service List. Cc Andrew I have been fighting the folks at BiofuelWatch (BFW) since 2008. It was a great surprise to not see the word biochar in the following. But they are not dumb, the Arctic ice disappearance problem is much too urgent for much help from the biochar or other bio-CDR communities. Including biochar would have weakened their argument. How to respond? I t hink John Nissen or designee should ask this news outlet group for equal time. I don' t believe BFW has any alternative approach re ice disappearance, so they should be asked for their better alternative. There is no way they can claim expertise on this topic ( zero publications). Their claim that AMEG (and this list) are not fighting for zero fossil fuels is ludicrous. Why have they moved from the biofuels area? They are very close to the E.T.C. Group, and may have been asked to do this. We do not know much on their funding, so maybe pressure can be placed on funders if they can be found. Maybe they have a funder who wanted this. If anyone can reach Jim Hansen or Bill McKibben for a rebuttal statement, that would be ideal. I can imagine Al Gore being a help. They applaud Hansen here for talking about a disaster, but blast AMEG for very similar warning. I am pretty sure (needs checking) they are against Hansen's proposal for a new 100 Gt C in afforestation/reforestation (too much land) If David Archer is not accurately quoted, that could be a help. I know three biochar researchers incensed by the way they have been misquoted. They have a good point about the way biofuels have often been handled -with corrupt governments. But SRM and CDR approaches need not be tarred the same way. This corrupt government charge should not be as big a threat re Arctic ice, but watch out for assertions
Re: [geo] Money
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 13) 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 On Jun 6, 2013 9:34 AM, euggor...@comcast.net wrote: 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.tick...@kyoto2.org *Cc: *geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Sent: *Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:26:18 AM *Subject: *Re: [geo] Money 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. On 05/06/2013 10:58, Andrew Lockley wrote: Where do people think extra money is needed to further the study of geoengineering? A -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
