It is well known from sulfuric acid aerosols but even simple chloride
and carbonate aerosol particles produce definite and problematic
reactions within the atmosphere. It might be helpful to mention some of
their reactions within the troposphere:
Chloride: Cl- aerosol particles or droplets in the atmosphere change to
sulfate, nitrate and even oxalate particles by reaction with airborne
inorganic and organic acids. All these reactions generate gaseous HCl.
These reactions are known from sea-spray aerosols which lose their Cl-
content the longer they stay in the atmosphere. By reaction with iron
containing mineral aerosol and combustion derived oxidic iron aerosol in
the troposphere HCl combines with the iron component to Fe(III)
chlorides. Chloride salts of iron are very sensitive to sun radiation by
photolyzation to iron(II) chlorides and atomic °Cl which leaves the
particle or droplet phase into the gaseous phase. There °Cl oxidizes the
greenhouse gas methane (about 16 times faster than °OH) and returns
reduced to HCl. HCl reacts with reoxidized Fe(III) reproducing Fe(III)
chlorides again. Consequence of this (simplifized presented)
photocatalytic reaction cycle involving the methane depletion, the CaCl2
aerosol emission into the stratosphere could reduce the methane lifetime
in the atmosphere. But because the stratospheric albedo increase by the
aerosol emission even dims the short-wave part of the sun radiation
stronger than the longer wave part. The shorter waves are responsible
for the photolytic iron reduction. This photolysis would become
inhibited by the dimming as well as the dependent °Cl generation and
methane depletion by °Cl. But even the °OH generation within the
atmosphere responsible for the main methane depletion is sun radiation
dependent and becomes inhibited too by any sunshine dimming. Even the
stratospheric ozone layer would suffer from any increase in HCl content
because halogens catalyze the ozone depletion.
Carbonate: Opposite to chloride carbonate aerosol particles like CaCO3
would inhibit the iron-induced methane oxidation by °Cl because their
alkalinity would transform any iron salt into insoluble and inactive
hydroxide or oxidhydrate and transform any HCl into alkaline or earthern
alkaline chloride. Additional even the sun radiation dependent °OH
generation within the atmosphere becomes reduced which normally does
more than 90 % of the methane oxidation. Result will be a much more
elongated methane lifetime in the atmosphere resulting in a strong
increase of the methane concentration.
Apart from these considerations any kind of global permanent sunshine
dimming would reduce even the global assimilation with the result of a
reduction in CO2 carbon transformation to organic carbon and a reduction
in the plant root activated weathering induced CO2 carbon transformation
to dissolved hydrogencarbonate carbon. This again would increase even
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. We all should recognize that
our globe is a huge ball composed of reducing substances like metallic
iron. Only the globes surface contains a very thin layer of oxidants
like oxygen, sulfate, iron and mangan oxides and nitrate provided only
by the sun radiation and CO2 assimilating organisms. Mankind should not
do anything to disturb this mechanism which is the basis of our life!
My appeal to all SRM researchers: Stratospheric SRM is the most
expensive CE alternative which has only a cooling effect (possibly) and
it does nothing to deplete any of the greenhouse gases. Please
concentrate your CE research activities to the physical, chemical and
biological actions of the mineral aerosols in the lower troposphere. For
instance on the above mentioned natural iron oxide or iron salt aerosols
(ISA) or on the ISA method as their artificial equivalent: Such aerosols
induce the sustainable transformation of all kind of atmospheric carbon
into the ocean and fix them as carbonate and organic carbon in ocean
crust and ocean sediments and do additional an albedo-induced cooling
effect to the climate without doing harm to the ecosystems. Further this
CE measure might be achieved with investments and costs at least more
than at least two orders of magnitude lower than stratospheric SRM. This
and the manifold of climate directing couplings of the tropospheric
aerosols (http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/ ) should deserve a
lot of more attention from the scientists community.
But what happens in reality? Scientists of the the SRM dominated CEC'17
conference steering committee excluded not only our four oral and poster
contributions about new aspects about the ISA method from the
conference, even the two announced of our international author team
haven't been allowed to attend. Only by the intervention of the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) only one of our
research team became the allowance to attend the conference: but he
became the restriction to present only that poster out of the four
presenting the causes and dangers by icecap melt induced euxinia to
marine life. This of our posters had the smallest part of information
about the ISA method. Why did the SRM lobby do this? Might be they know
about the disadvantages of their SRM method and they might fear any
honest discussion about the pros and cons of the different CE methods
SRM and ISA? Or might be there are other reasons hidden behind this
unscientific behaviour?
Franz Dietrich Oeste
gM-Ingenieurbüro
Dipl.-Ing. Franz D. Oeste
Tannenweg 2
D-35274 Kirchhain
Germany
Tel +49 (0) 6422-85168 <tel:+49%206422%2085168>
Mobil +49 (0) 171-9526068 <tel:+49%20171%209526068>
oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com
------ Originalnachricht ------
Von: "David Sevier" <david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk>
An: "'Andrew Lockley'" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>;
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Gesendet: 19.10.2017 12:20:32
Betreff: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC
Dear Andrew,
Neither calcium chloride or calcium carbonate are going to cause
pollution if dispersed at large scale. I suspect that you have no
concerns about calcium carbonate (chalk) but are thinking about calcium
chloride. Calcium chloride has been widely used as a de-icer for the
last hundred years in very large quantities. Millions of tons per year
are applied to roads. When it dries and powders, it creates dusts that
have not been linked any environmental problems as far as I know. Above
oceans, dusts containing chloride and calcium ions are common as sea
water contains both of these ions in large quantities. Calcium
chlorides have been used as refrigerator brines for more than my
lifetime. Any text book on this will cover calcium chloride brines. I
don't think paper references are need for this.
Regarding the creation of fine particle aerosols using spinning disks,
this came out of discussion with Adrian Faulkner, one of the owners of
PNR UK Limited which produces and distributes spray nozzles for making
fine particle sprays. The conversation came about because we were
trying to make fine particle high surface area sprays of slurries of
gypsum and calcium carbonate under very low energy input conditions.
This was challenging and we were experiencing repeated clogging
problems. After many trials with a number of nozzles, Adrian explains
an alternative method for making fine particle sprays as we were
getting pretty frustrated. He suggested dropping the pumped slurry
(needs to not be too thick and watery enough to spread and film) onto a
disk that is spinning. The higher the speed, the greater the throw and
the finer the spray. He also indicated that fine grooves in the disk
would aid creation of finer particles. This is a low energy means of
making fine particle sprays as fluids can be released at essentially
zero pressure onto the spinning disk. Normally spray heads are energy
intense because the fluids have to be pumped at high pressure to drive
the atomisation process. The rule of thumb is the finer the spray, the
higher the pressure. The spinning disk method avoids this problem and
solves the clogging issue. The principles he outlined are sound.
Unfortunately spinning disks give significant "throw" of the created
particles which is not as useful in a confined space if you want to
dense mists of fine particles for carbon capture. If you set up several
spinning disks, the particles collide and become bigger which was not
helpful for us. This would not be a problem if you were trying the
create an aerosol in the high atmosphere from a single spinning disk.
Dave
From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 October 2017 14:35
To: David Sevier
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC
How would it disperse in (sub) micron sizes?
Please answer on the list - maybe with a proposal paper?
Small volumes may not be polluting, but large volumes may be a problem.
A
On 18 Oct 2017 12:29, "David Sevier" <david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk>
wrote:
Andrew,
Now I understand your question. There is no propellant. Nothing in the
slurry of water, calcium chloride (widely used on roads as a de-icer
and occurs naturally) and fine powder calcium carbonate is polluting.
The pressure washer creates pressure via cylinder compression. The
antifreeze properties are needed because the temperatures are cold in
the high atmosphere.
Dave
From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 October 2017 19:08
To: David Sevier
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC
How are you getting the propellant down?
Pls answer on list
On 17 Oct 2017 18:41, "David Sevier" <david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk>
wrote:
I believe that you will find that rail guns are rather more developed
than you believe but all of it is classified and basically you will hit
a brick wall if you want to delve into this further. But I don’t think
you are going to need rail guns. Make a solution of calcium chloride.
This will give you freezing protection down to -52 C. Suspend in the
solution precipitated calcium carbonate (less than 2 microns) and then
pump this up to the desired height using a balloon tether. I am
assuming the antifreeze properties should be enough but I don’t know
the height. 2 microns or less particles in a high density fluid like
calcium chloride solution won’t settle out at any speed that is likely
to give you problems. If you need greater freeze protection, there are
other salts that can be used to reduce the freeze point further. The
engineering challenges on this don’t seem all that bad and a lot easier
and cheaper than liquid nitrogen.
A number of carbon capture processes can also produce precipitated
calcium carbonate, so this could be a useful double kick.
David Sevier
Carbon Cycle Limited
248 Sutton Common Road
<https://maps.google.com/?q=248+Sutton+Common+Road+Sutton,+Surrey+SM3+9PW+England&entry=gmail&source=g>
Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW
<https://maps.google.com/?q=248+Sutton+Common+Road+Sutton,+Surrey+SM3+9PW+England&entry=gmail&source=g>
England
<https://maps.google.com/?q=248+Sutton+Common+Road+Sutton,+Surrey+SM3+9PW+England&entry=gmail&source=g>
Tel 44 (0)208 288 0128
Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129
This email is private and confidential
From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 October 2017 21:18
To: Doug MacMynowski
Cc: geoengineering; David Sevier; Hugh Hunt
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC
To reply specifically with likely issues :
AFAIK the liquid/gas column behaviour in the balloon pipe is
problematic. Hugh Hunt (cc) has, I believe, worked on this aspect of
the viability. The adiabatic cooling causes a temperature reduction, as
the hydrostatic pressure drops. This requires heating to a problematic
temperature.
Rail guns are problematic for a range of reasons, not least their lack
of development. They are highly prone to wear, and aren't particularly
suited to launching large payloads. I've worked on gas guns, which have
more suitable performance characteristics.
Generally, I don't take the view that engineering is trivial. I think
we should engineer early, and with the same enthusiasm as we apply to
other aspects. Engineering is trivial when it's done, not when it
isn't.
A
On 16 Oct 2017 18:53, "Douglas MacMartin" <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
wrote:
The start was Andrew’s email, which was based on a presentation given
at CEC17 (sorry, there weren’t any viewgraphs, but you’ve already got
the summary).
There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with any approach. Eventually we’ll
need a more serious engineering analysis of different options (i.e.,
beyond speculation). IMHO that day isn’t now, I’m satisfied with
knowing that it is a solvable problem.
Re material, yes, various other materials have definite advantages with
respect to either stratospheric heating or ozone loss. But there’s
also a big advantage with using something that exists naturally in the
stratosphere, as that at least gives an argument for bounding
uncertainty. I think it is rather premature to say one makes “more
sense” than another right now, as there are different (and somewhat
non-commensurate) concerns.
From:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Sevier
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 1:46 PM
To:andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: 'geoengineering' <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC
I am struggling to find the beginning of this thread. What are you guys
talking about exactly. What is wrong with pumping up a tube as so many
have suggested or using rail guns to launch packages into the higher
atmosphere. In the latter case, fine particles of chalk (such a PCC)
make more sense than sulphuric acid.
From:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: 16 October 2017 17:23
To:andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Engineering drama, post CEC
But as to the pile of papers, just think of the carbon storage!
G
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 15, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:
From what I gather, it seems we have a bit of engineering drama.
Apparently, you can't just swap aircraft engines and do SRM, because
the wings aren't right on any aircraft with even a vaguely adequate
payload.
This is A Problem.
We've either got to
A) engineer a new aircraft, like the Delft team did (with a $100m
expected development cost)
B) work out a way to make new wings for an existing jet (not simple)
C) come up with something else
If we assume it's C, then there's quite a lot decent new hardware
around. One choice is Blue Origin/Space X kit. Does anyone know how
that would fare in an up-and-down flight path? I know Blue Origin did
that before. Payload should be manageable, but I'm not sure how costs
are coming down.
Another alternative is one of the hybrid concepts. I got a flea in my
ear for mentioning BAE systems hybrid engines before. However, their
power in thin air may make them suitable for geoengineering use -
either as zoom climbers or cruise.
I know that current thinking is to condense H2SO4 directly, but I
guess with any kind of zoom climb, you're pretty much stuck dumping
bulk SO2 and crossing your fingers it doesn't all coagulate to
baseball-size and drop out!
Would be great to hear from people on the list.
(Personally, my concern is that our best option for accessing the
stratosphere at the current rate of engineering might be to make a
large pile of climate engineering governance papers, and walk up that
carrying gas tanks! There will soon be enough of them ;) )
Andrew
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free. www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
