[geo] Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

[Andrew Lockley]

Oswald

The group description now states solar geoengineering - but this hasn't
been raised as an issue before, as I believe members are generally clear on
the group's purpose.

Methane (arctic or otherwise) is greenhouse gas removal, normally grouped
with CDR. Just like cirrus cloud thinning is normally grouped with SRM.

As I explained before, in certain circumstances it may be relevant to post
specific CDR content to the (solar) geoengineering group - for example, if
people have questions about drone delivery of aerosols for ISA. In general,
posts should be kept strictly on topic and not cross posted from other
fora.

Andrew Lockley
Moderator
Geoengineering Google group

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 10:27 Oswald Petersen, 
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> there is no need to get cross with me, I willingly oblige, that’s easy.
>
>
>
> My recommendation remains the same: Call your group something that
> reflects its content, then you will get a better targeting automatically.
> If the content is solar geoengineering, name it that way. If that was the
> case, AMR has no interest in that group, and we can easily forfeit the
> venue.
>
>
>
> BTW methane removal is neither SRM nor CDR… but that’s just a sidekick…
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Oswald Petersen
>
> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
>
> Lärchenstr. 5
>
> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
>
> Tel: +41-71-6887514
>
> Mob: +49-177-2734245
>
> https://amr.earth
>
> https://georestoration.earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Andrew Lockley 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 22. März 2024 09:29
> *An:* Oswald Petersen 
> *Cc:* geoengineering ; Michael
> MacCracken ; healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
> atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> The Geoengineering Google Group covers SRM only (including CCT, etc). This
> has been true since Greg Rau forked off the CDR Google group.
>
>
>
> I - and doubtless many other list members - are heartily sick of HPAC
> cross posting. I've asked politely already. If you continue to break the
> rules you will just be banned.
>
>
>
> Andrew Lockley
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 08:19 Oswald Petersen, 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
>
>
> Re. Geoengineering
>
>
>
> *Geoengineering*, the large-scale manipulation of a specific process
> central to controlling Earth’s 
> climate  for the
> purpose of obtaining a specific benefit.
>
> Geoengineering | Definitions, Examples, & Technologies | Britannica
> 
>
>
>
> Our subject here is clearly a GeoEngineering subject. If you want to make
> the GeoEngineering group solely a Solar GeoEngineering group, please call
> it Solar GeoEngineering.
>
>
>
> Re. Dispersion
>
>
>
> The process we use for dispersion is called sublimation. We use the
> jet-engine for the purpose. The result is ultra-fine particles under 100
> nm. No drone can do this.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Oswald Petersen
>
> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
>
> Lärchenstr. 5
>
> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
>
> Tel: +41-71-6887514
>
> Mob: +49-177-2734245
>
> https://amr.earth
>
> https://georestoration.earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Andrew Lockley 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 22. März 2024 08:25
> *An:* Oswald Petersen 
> *Cc:* Michael MacCracken ;
> healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
> atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> Chaps, this is seemingly nothing to do with the geoengineering Google
> group. Please stop cc us.
>
>
>
> The ISA aerosol can be dispersed with small drones for a lot less than
> 20m. A test project with existing equipment would be around 100k (I've been
> in supplier discussions for an MCB project) Pls see my recent paper on
> drones, noting this considers solids.
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad2f71
>
>
>
> Your biggest issue is aerosol size. You can't assume high levels of
> surface reactivity in large aerosols; most of your material is isolated in
> the centre of the particle. So you need to concentrate on dispersing
> extraordinarily fine powders or sprays.
>
>
>
> I'm also unclear what altitude you need. Surely stratospheric dispersal
> would avoid particle rain out? There's a lot of methane in the atmosphere -
> 2000 ppb, ie 6Gt - so you have to inject a great deal of ISA to
> meaningfully clean it out, even with the high leverage you offer below
> (roughly 1 Mt for a one off, or 50ktpa for continuous). You'll have much
> longer aerosol lifetimes in the stratosphere. However, you also need to
> consider optical effects on SW / LW radiation. Alternatively, you can apply
> surface coatings to bare rock faces. If water isn't required then the
> Atacama desert or Antarctic dry valleys would be an 

[geo] Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

[Andrew Lockley]

It's an interesting discussion, as it actually raises questions about Iron
Salt Aerosols more generally. My concern is they do too much - leading to
uncertain magnitude and sign of effects.

I'm happy to see ISA discussion on the geo list, if there's an obvious
content cross over with SRM - re optical effects, cloud nuclei, aircraft
distribution, etc. If it's general ISA discussion (ie methane removal),
best on the CDR list.

However, nit picking over edge cases isn't important. It's the thoughtless
spamming of the geoengineering Google group with completely irrelevant
content that has to stop.

Andrew
Geoengineering Google group moderator

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 08:53 Clive Elsworth, 
wrote:

> Andrew
>
>
>
> Part of the problem is that some interventions do more than one thing. For
> example, Iron Salt Aerosol and other Climate Catalyst Aerosols:
>
>- Remove Methane (CDR)
>- Act as Cloud Condensation Nuclei (SRM)
>- Fertilize the ocean (mCDR)
>
>
>
> So, should posts on this type of intervention be banned from both the CDR
> and SRM groups, or allowed in both?
>
>
>
> Clive
>
>
>
> *From:* healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Andrew
> Lockley
> *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2024 8:29 AM
> *To:* Oswald Petersen 
> *Cc:* geoengineering ; Michael
> MacCracken ; healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
> atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> The Geoengineering Google Group covers SRM only (including CCT, etc). This
> has been true since Greg Rau forked off the CDR Google group.
>
>
>
> I - and doubtless many other list members - are heartily sick of HPAC
> cross posting. I've asked politely already. If you continue to break the
> rules you will just be banned.
>
>
>
> Andrew Lockley
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 08:19 Oswald Petersen, 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
>
>
> Re. Geoengineering
>
>
>
> *Geoengineering*, the large-scale manipulation of a specific process
> central to controlling Earth’s 
> climate  for the
> purpose of obtaining a specific benefit.
>
> Geoengineering | Definitions, Examples, & Technologies | Britannica
> 
>
>
>
> Our subject here is clearly a GeoEngineering subject. If you want to make
> the GeoEngineering group solely a Solar GeoEngineering group, please call
> it Solar GeoEngineering.
>
>
>
> Re. Dispersion
>
>
>
> The process we use for dispersion is called sublimation. We use the
> jet-engine for the purpose. The result is ultra-fine particles under 100
> nm. No drone can do this.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Oswald Petersen
>
> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
>
> Lärchenstr. 5
>
> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
>
> Tel: +41-71-6887514
>
> Mob: +49-177-2734245
>
> https://amr.earth
>
> https://georestoration.earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Andrew Lockley 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 22. März 2024 08:25
> *An:* Oswald Petersen 
> *Cc:* Michael MacCracken ;
> healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
> atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> Chaps, this is seemingly nothing to do with the geoengineering Google
> group. Please stop cc us.
>
>
>
> The ISA aerosol can be dispersed with small drones for a lot less than
> 20m. A test project with existing equipment would be around 100k (I've been
> in supplier discussions for an MCB project) Pls see my recent paper on
> drones, noting this considers solids.
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad2f71
>
>
>
> Your biggest issue is aerosol size. You can't assume high levels of
> surface reactivity in large aerosols; most of your material is isolated in
> the centre of the particle. So you need to concentrate on dispersing
> extraordinarily fine powders or sprays.
>
>
>
> I'm also unclear what altitude you need. Surely stratospheric dispersal
> would avoid particle rain out? There's a lot of methane in the atmosphere -
> 2000 ppb, ie 6Gt - so you have to inject a great deal of ISA to
> meaningfully clean it out, even with the high leverage you offer below
> (roughly 1 Mt for a one off, or 50ktpa for continuous). You'll have much
> longer aerosol lifetimes in the stratosphere. However, you also need to
> consider optical effects on SW / LW radiation. Alternatively, you can apply
> surface coatings to bare rock faces. If water isn't required then the
> Atacama desert or Antarctic dry valleys would be an option.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 06:34 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action
> Coalition (HPAC), 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Mike,
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> I completely agree with all you say. We treat benefits from 

[geo] Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

[Andrew Lockley]

The Geoengineering Google Group covers SRM only (including CCT, etc). This
has been true since Greg Rau forked off the CDR Google group.

I - and doubtless many other list members - are heartily sick of HPAC cross
posting. I've asked politely already. If you continue to break the rules
you will just be banned.

Andrew Lockley

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 08:19 Oswald Petersen, 
wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
>
>
> Re. Geoengineering
>
>
>
> *Geoengineering*, the large-scale manipulation of a specific process
> central to controlling Earth’s 
> climate  for the
> purpose of obtaining a specific benefit.
>
> Geoengineering | Definitions, Examples, & Technologies | Britannica
> 
>
>
>
> Our subject here is clearly a GeoEngineering subject. If you want to make
> the GeoEngineering group solely a Solar GeoEngineering group, please call
> it Solar GeoEngineering.
>
>
>
> Re. Dispersion
>
>
>
> The process we use for dispersion is called sublimation. We use the
> jet-engine for the purpose. The result is ultra-fine particles under 100
> nm. No drone can do this.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Oswald Petersen
>
> Atmospheric Methane Removal AG
>
> Lärchenstr. 5
>
> CH-8280 Kreuzlingen
>
> Tel: +41-71-6887514
>
> Mob: +49-177-2734245
>
> https://amr.earth
>
> https://georestoration.earth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Andrew Lockley 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 22. März 2024 08:25
> *An:* Oswald Petersen 
> *Cc:* Michael MacCracken ;
> healthy-planet-action-coalition <
> healthy-planet-action-coalit...@googlegroups.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned
> atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review
>
>
>
> Chaps, this is seemingly nothing to do with the geoengineering Google
> group. Please stop cc us.
>
>
>
> The ISA aerosol can be dispersed with small drones for a lot less than
> 20m. A test project with existing equipment would be around 100k (I've been
> in supplier discussions for an MCB project) Pls see my recent paper on
> drones, noting this considers solids.
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad2f71
>
>
>
> Your biggest issue is aerosol size. You can't assume high levels of
> surface reactivity in large aerosols; most of your material is isolated in
> the centre of the particle. So you need to concentrate on dispersing
> extraordinarily fine powders or sprays.
>
>
>
> I'm also unclear what altitude you need. Surely stratospheric dispersal
> would avoid particle rain out? There's a lot of methane in the atmosphere -
> 2000 ppb, ie 6Gt - so you have to inject a great deal of ISA to
> meaningfully clean it out, even with the high leverage you offer below
> (roughly 1 Mt for a one off, or 50ktpa for continuous). You'll have much
> longer aerosol lifetimes in the stratosphere. However, you also need to
> consider optical effects on SW / LW radiation. Alternatively, you can apply
> surface coatings to bare rock faces. If water isn't required then the
> Atacama desert or Antarctic dry valleys would be an option.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024, 06:34 'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action
> Coalition (HPAC), 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Mike,
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> I completely agree with all you say. We treat benefits from OIF and MCB
> (the particles are also CCN) as freebies, benefits unknown in their
> efficiency. Bringing down methane levels alone would actually be sufficient
> to avert GW spiralling into the nevernever.
>
>
>
> So let us concentrate on CH4. As you say, there are a number of variables
> which influence the efficiency, and all our efforts in the last two years
> did indeed concentrate on that efficiency. The most important parameters
> are:
>
>
>
>- Height of dispersal point.
>- Location of dispersal point
>- Time of dispersal e.g. windspeed, weather conditions.
>- Size of particles
>- Dispersion method
>
>
>
> We have recently changed our dispersion technology from high, ocean-based
> steel-towers to planes. Those planes have jet-engines which we use for the
> dispersal of FeCl3 particles. Because of their speed and power jets are the
> best dispersion tool imaginable. Moving the dispersion point guarantees a
> large air room to be filled, plus, of course, planes are able to adapt
> their flight altitude to current weather conditions, which makes the model
> completely scalable. Today I wonder why it took us so long to understand
> this, but… there you go…
>
>
>
> With this dispersion technology we can basically decide ourselves what
> concentration of ISA we want on the ground. From our expert in toxicology
> we know that all concentrations below 1 ppm are harmless. Actually FeCl3 is
> quite harmless, non-toxic, so there is nothing to fear from that side. We
> work with much higher concentrations in our lab on a daily basis. The only
> small problem it poses is the fact that in 

[geo] Re: AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review

[Michael MacCracken]

Dear Oswald--For the benefit of others in the discussion, what my 
follow-ups with you suggested was that the real key to quickly getting 
the temperature reductions that you are talking about would be iron 
aerosol injection to bring the methane concentration down to its 
preindustrial level. As I indicated, I'm not an expert on such 
chemistry, but the key seems to be having the iron aerosol be the 
catalyst for this happening and happening quite rapidly for each bit of 
iron salt aerosol injected (so a thousand or more methane molecules 
destroyed before the iron aerosol molecule falls or is rained out). That 
the iron falling out into the ocean might promote some additional CO2 
uptake was nice, but not really the key to the short-term drop in 
temperature. And for longest life of the iron salt aerosol, injecting it 
into the free troposphere above the boundary layer was the place to put it.


The other aspects of the plan focused on long-term efforts to bring the 
CO2 down by, for example, ocean fertilization, which is a bit more 
speculative and, if done with nutrients from land, might well deplete 
land fertility by sinking a lot of nutrients into the ocean, something 
that could be avoided if one brought nutrients up from deeper in the 
ocean by wave pumping of similar renewable approach.


Focusing on the iron salt aerosol component of the effort that you 
describe, so there would be the initial efforts to bring down the CH4 
concentration to of order 700 ppb, and then the need for an ongoing 
effort to offset the methane emissions that are coming off each year and 
sustaining the present methane concentration that is nearing 2000 ppb. 
With the new methane detecting satellite, the expectation is that there 
will be a lot of learning about the sources and the potential for 
addressing the issue through emissions reductions versus the need for 
deploying iron salt aerosols.


Have there been global atmospheric chemistry simulations of the iron 
aerosol injection proposal that you have made, indicating whether there 
might be other consequences from the methane reductions? Presumably, 
location of the injections does not make much difference as atmospheric 
mixing will tend to pretty quickly fill any hole that is created--is 
this correct? What sort of testing has been done of iron aerosol injections?


Mike MacCracken


On 3/21/24 1:00 PM, 'Oswald Petersen' via Planetary Restoration wrote:


Dear Chris,

well, it’s the same as with SAI, nobody believes that either.

That’s why I keep repeating the message like a mantra. We CAN remove 
enough CH4 and CO2 to stop GW. Because apparently nobody is willing 
and able to read the pdfs I attached recently to almost all my emails 
in this forum (enclosed again) we have now created a website to get 
the message across.


You can find it here:

https://georestoration.earth

With the GeoRestoration Action Plan we can cool the climate within 20 
years by 0.5 to 1.0 °C. That’s sufficient to avert the worst scenarios.


If, as you say, nobody believes it, could one of those non-believers 
please explain why? This would be most interesting for us.


Regards

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth 

https://cool-planet.earth 

*Von:*'Chris Vivian' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) 


*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 21. März 2024 16:50
*An:* 'Oswald Petersen' ; 'Robin Collins' 
; 'Sev Clarke' 
*Cc:* 'Alan Kerstein' ; 'Clive Elsworth' 
; 'Herb Simmens' ; 
'Mike MacCracken' ; 'Planetary Restoration' 
; 'geoengineering' 
; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' 

*Betreff:* RE: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned 
atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review


Oswald,

It’s fine in theory to say “All we have to do is remove the GHG which 
cause Global Warming” but few people believe it can be scaled up fast 
enough to avoid tipping points, worsening climatic effects etc. How do 
you think it can be done fast enough?


Best wishes

Chris.

*From:*'Oswald Petersen' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) 


*Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:10 PM
*To:* 'Robin Collins' ; 'Sev Clarke' 

*Cc:* 'Alan Kerstein' ; 'Clive Elsworth' 
; 'Herb Simmens' ; 
'Mike MacCracken' ; 'Planetary Restoration' 
; 'geoengineering' 
; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' 

*Subject:* AW: [prag] [HPAC] Harvard has halted its long-planned 
atmospheric geoengineering experiment | MIT Technology Review


Hi Robin,

we do not need SRM. All we have to do is remove the GHG which cause 
Global Warming. It is safe, natural and much more efficient than SRM 
(any variety),


Regards

Oswald Petersen

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH-8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth 

https://cool-planet.earth