Dear Jed, Among the advantages of my system is the ability to provide a low-cost (yet ecologically sound
and man-rated) mass-transfer system as a low-earth-orbit "waystation" that can then provide massive boosts to interplanetary transportation (e.g. to L1). The ability to transfer people from earth to space (and back), as well as to support a "tunable" sunshade, would make it a permanent fixture. In addition to reducing global warming (and preventing methane release), the shade rings would greatly reduce the global energy needs (details in the papers). Nevertheless, I agree with you that man's continuing thirst for energy must be ultimately satisfied by technological advances (e.g. CF). On the other hand, with uncontrolled population growth, even CF-derived electrical-energy production will have excessive waste-heat production. It might ultimately be necessary to move (even CF) electrical-energy production off-earth. But, perhaps by that time, population control and moving people and much industry off-planet will have solved that problem. Andrew _ _ _ On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:53 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > That is great stuff! Thanks. Your proposal is low earth orbit. I have > heard of others like this. The one linked to at BBC.com is for a very > distant space umbrella, at earth-sun L1. I don't understand how that would > work. It seems harder to set up. But the technical details and astronomy > are over my head. I think the experts (including you) can work out > something. > > I regard this as a stopgap solution. It should be done if needed, but if > we are going to keep emitting CO2 it will eventually stop working. I think > it would buy time for a more permanent solution. > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:23 PM Andrew Meulenberg <mules...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> Dear Jed, >> >> You included this link, which I thought might have been referring to my >> papers since some of the numbers agreed with mine. >> >> >> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160425-how-a-giant-space-umbrella-could-stop-global-warming >> >> >> >> * On closer look, I saw that the author did not suggest some of my >> solutions to problems mentioned.* >> >> *1. Meulenberg, A. and Karthik Balaji P.S., “The LEO Archipelago: A >> System of Earth-Rings for Communications, Mass-Transport to Space, Solar >> Power, and Control of Global Warming <http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4043>,” >> Acta Astronautica 68 (2011), iss. 11-12 Jun 2011 pp. 1931-1946, >> doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.12.002 arXiv:1009.4043v1 >> <http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4043v1>.* >> >> >> *2. Meulenberg, A. and Wan, T., C., “LEO-Ring-Based Communications >> Network,” Proceedings of Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International >> Forum (SPESIF-11, March 15-17, 2011), Physics Procedia >> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18753892>, Volume 20 >> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_hubEid=1-s2.0-S1875389211X00123&_cid=277348&_pubType=JL&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000012438&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10404588&md5=947de3420691c5f1f0035a2a52ef0f5e>, >> 2011, Pages 232-241, edited by Glen A. Robertson.3. Meulenberg, A. and >> Poston, T., “Sling-on-a-Ring: Structural elements for a Space Elevator to >> LEO,” Proc. of SPESIF-11, March 15-17, 2011, Physics Procedia >> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18753892> Volume 20 >> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_hubEid=1-s2.0-S1875389211X00123&_cid=277348&_pubType=JL&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000012438&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10404588&md5=947de3420691c5f1f0035a2a52ef0f5e>, >> 2011, pp 222-231, Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum >> edited by Glen A. Robertson.* >> *4. A. Meulenberg, R. Suresh, S. Ramanathan, "LEO-based optical/microwave >> terrestrial communications," Presented at the 59th International >> Astronautical Congress, Glasgow, Scotland, (2008). IAC-08-B2.5.2 Available >> from: >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46587815_Leo-Based_OpticalMicrowave_Terrestrial_Communications >> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46587815_Leo-Based_OpticalMicrowave_Terrestrial_Communications>* >> These papers provide a path to space that would not only pay for itself; >> but, it would be a major profit source. Had these ideas been implemented a >> decade ago, we would now have relatively cheap transport to space and a >> means of major shipping to and from space that would not blow a growing >> hole in the ozone layer. >> >> Andrew >> _ _ _ _ >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:39 AM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I have discussed these topics here from time to time. I am preparing a >>> talk on them. I propose to stop global warming using cold fusion in two >>> steps: >>> >>> 1. Stop emitting carbon dioxide by using cold fusion energy. >>> 2. Remove excess carbon from the atmosphere by growing billions of >>> trees. When they are old, cut them down and bury them underground in >>> abandoned open-pit coal mines. >>> >>> Item 2, reforestation to sequester carbon, has been suggested by many >>> experts. I have taken their ideas and shown how the project can be enhanced >>> with cold fusion. >>> >>> I cannot fit the following into the talk, but here are three interesting >>> things I have learned in the last few years. >>> >>> >>> 1. The experts do not agree how much carbon this could be removed from >>> the atmosphere with this method. The experts also do not agree whether >>> old-growth forests continue to sequester carbon or not. Some say >>> that leaves on large, mature trees sequester a great deal of carbon. Others >>> disagree. Quote: >>> >>> “[W]hether carbon accumulation continues or peaks when net additional >>> wood growth is minimal (in “old-growth” forests) is disputed.” >>> >>> - Gorte, R.W., *U.S. Tree Planting for Carbon Sequestation*. 2009, U.S. >>> Congress: Congressional Research Service. >>> >>> >>> Here are some recent articles about carbon sequestration by >>> reforestation. I have highlighted some disagreements among experts, and >>> some aspects of the project that cold fusion would enhance. >>> >>> Reforest Action, Contribute to the Global Carbon Neutrality . . . by >>> Funding the creation and preservation of Forests, >>> https://www.reforestaction.com/en/contribution-climate, 19 million >>> trees planted >>> >>> University of Aukland, Can reforestation help reverse the extinction >>> crisis? >>> https://www.thebigq.org/2019/06/12/can-reforestation-help-reverse-the-extinction-crisis >>> >>> Congressional Research Service, U.S. Tree Planting for Carbon >>> Sequestration, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40562.pdf >>> >>> Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Planting trees to >>> mitigate climate change: Policy incentives could lead to increased carbon >>> sequestration, https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/61873 >>> >>> YOUNG TREES ARE BETTER! >>> >>> World Resources Institute, Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than >>> Previously Thought, >>> https://www.wri.org/insights/young-forests-capture-carbon-quicker-previously-thought >>> >>> NO! OLD TREES ARE BETTER! >>> >>> Pacific Forest Trust, E&E: Old trees store more carbon, more quickly, >>> than younger trees, >>> https://www.pacificforest.org/ee-old-trees-store-more-carbon-more-quickly-than-younger-trees/ >>> Most other sources say that younger trees store more carbon per year. See >>> also Figure 1 caption. >>> >>> 100 YEARS TO STORE 10 YEARS OF EMISSIONS (I say 100 years to sequester >>> all anthropogenic emissions) >>> >>> Frontiers in Forest and Global Change, Forests and Decarbonization – >>> Roles of Natural and Planted Forests, >>> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00058/ The >>> authors do not consider growing field crop indoors; irrigating deserts; or >>> burying deadwood anaerobically in abandoned coal mines, OR cold fusion. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. If reforestation cannot be done quickly enough to forestall global >>> warming, some experts say that we can reduce global warming by painting >>> roofs white, or using white shingles. One expert said that will not work >>> because the light reflected from the roof bounces off of particles in the >>> air and ends up heating the air just as much, although he granted that it >>> does keep the house cooler. He missed an important point. In the first >>> world, air conditioning is widely used, so keeping the house cooler would >>> reduce energy consumption significantly. >>> >>> Global warming can also be forestalled by putting gigantic mylar >>> sunshades in low earth orbit. This would be millions of times cheaper than >>> moving cities or building seawalls. They will eventually erode or fall out >>> of orbit but by that time we should have the problem fixed. The mass of >>> mylar is not as great as you might think. You have to intercept 2% to 4% of >>> sunlight. It would be a bad idea to do this permanently. It might change >>> the ecosystem. However, sunshades the last 50 years while we remediate >>> global warming would be okay I think. >>> >>> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160425-how-a-giant-space-umbrella-could-stop-global-warming >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. Dave Nagel has been talking about some of the proposed methods to >>> remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it. These involve >>> large machines and chemical processes. I think this is a bad idea. I >>> strongly favor growing trees instead. For the following reasons: >>> >>> CO2 removal also removes the oxygen. We need the oxygen. Someone >>> computed that if we were to burn all the remaining coal, oxygen would be >>> severely depleted. Photosynthesis separates and releases the oxygen. I do >>> not know whether there are any proposed mechanical or chemical methods of >>> separating oxygen but I am sure photosynthesis works well. >>> >>> Any method that depends upon machines would require massive amounts of >>> equipment that would have to be sustained for 100 to 200 years. Whereas, as >>> I described, planting trees would require only a modest amount of >>> equipment, mainly desalination plants that would no longer be needed after >>> fifty years, because natural rainfall would increase. Cold fusion energy is >>> much cheaper than any other source but even cold fusion costs something. >>> Whereas solar energy used to grow trees costs nothing. >>> >>> CO2 removal has no benefit other than avoiding global warming. It has no >>> ancillary profits. Whereas growing trees produces enormous profits as I >>> described. People like trees. People would like to see deserts the size of >>> the United States converted back into verdant land. The market value of >>> that land would be approximately $23 trillion: >>> >>> >>> https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/land0820.pdf >>> >>> The cost of producing this land would be a tiny fraction of that. It >>> should be done even if we did not have a problem with carbon in the >>> atmosphere. As it happens this method not only removes carbon but it also >>> produces fantastic economic benefits. >>> >>>
