UMBRELLAS TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING!
Link
TUNNELS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE!
WASHINGTON — Crazy-sounding ideas for saving the planet are getting a serious look from top scientists, a sign of their fears about global warming and the desire for an insurance policy in case things get worse.
How crazy?
There's the man-made "volcano" that shoots gigatons of sulfur high into the air. The space "sun shade" made of trillions of little reflectors between Earth and sun, slightly lowering the planet's temperature.
The forest of ugly artificial "trees" that suck carbon dioxide out of the air. And the "Geritol solution" in which iron dust is dumped into the ocean.
• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.
"Of course it's desperation," said Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider. "It's planetary methadone for our planetary heroin addiction. It does come out of the pessimism of any realist that says this planet can't be trusted to do the right thing."
NASA is putting the finishing touches on a report summing up some of these ideas and has spent $75,000 to map out rough details of the sun shade concept.
Advertisements
RelatedStories
Pan-European Weather Alert Web Site Launched Man-Made Solutions to Global Warming Pose Danger, Experts Say U.S. Government: This Winter Was Warmest on Record Worldwide U.S. Automakers Ask Congress for Help in Dealing With Global Warming British Government Submits Drastic Emissions-Cutting Legislation Scientists: Gore Goes Too Far in 'An Inconvenient Truth' Video
Extreme Science One of the premier climate modeling centers in the United States, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has spent the last six weeks running computer simulations of the man-made volcano scenario and will soon turn its attention to the space umbrella idea.
And last month, billionaire Richard Branson offered a $25 million prize to the first feasible technology to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the air.
Simon "Pete" Worden, who heads NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., says some of these proposals, which represent a field called geoengineering, have been characterized as anywhere from "great" to "idiotic."
As if to distance NASA from the issue a bit, Worden said the agency's report won't do much more than explain the range of possibilities.
Scientists in the recent past have been reluctant to consider such concepts.
Many fear there will be unintended side effects; others worry such schemes might prevent the type of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are the only real way to fight global warming.
These approaches are not an alternative to cutting pollution, said University of Calgary professor David Keith, a top geoengineering researcher.
Last month, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the nation's largest science conference that more research must be done in this field, but no action should be taken yet.
Here is a look at some of the ideas:
___
The Geritol solution
A private company is already carrying out this plan. Some scientists call it promising, while others worry about the ecological fallout.
Planktos Inc. of Foster City, Calif., last week launched its ship, the Weatherbird II, on a trip to the Pacific Ocean to dump 50 tons of iron dust. The iron should grow plankton, part of an algae bloom that will drink up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The idea of seeding the ocean with iron to beef up a natural plankton and algae system has been tried on a small scale several times since 1990. It has both succeeded and failed.
Planktos chief executive officer Russ George said his ship will try it on a larger scale, dumping a slurry of water and red iron dust from a hose into the sea.
"It makes a 25-foot swath of bright red for a very short period of time," George said.
The concept gained some credibility when it was mentioned in the 2001 report by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which cited it as a possible way to attack carbon emissions.
Small experiments "showed unequivocally that there was a biological response to the addition of the iron," the climate report said.
Plankton used the iron to photosynthesize, extract greenhouse gases from the air, and grow rapidly. It forms a thick green soup of all sorts of carbon dioxide-sucking algae, which sea life feast on, and the carbon drops into the ocean.
However, the international climate report also cautioned about "the ecological consequences of large-scale fertilization of the ocean."
Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said large-scale ocean seeding could change the crucial temperature difference between the sea surface and deeper waters and have a dramatic effect on marine life.
Cicerone, a climate scientist who is president of the National Academy of Sciences and advocate for more geoengineering research, called the Geritol solution promising. However, he noted that such actions by a company, or country, can have worldwide effects.
George, Planktos' CEO, said his company consulted with governments around the world and is only following previous scientific research. He said his firm will be dropping the iron in open international seas so he needs no permits.
Most important, he said, is that it's such a small amount of iron compared to the ocean volume that it poses no threat.
He said it's unfair to lump his plan in with geoengineering, saying his company is just trying to restore the ocean to "a more ecologically normal and balanced state."
"We're a green solution," George said.
Planktos officials say that for every ton of iron used, 100,000 tons of carbon will be pulled into the ocean. Eventually, if this first large-scale test works, George hopes to remove 3 billion tons of carbon from the Earth's atmosphere, half of what's needed. Some scientists say that's overstated.
Planktos' efforts are financed by companies and individuals who buy carbon credits to offset their use of fossil fuels.
___
Man-made volcano
When Mount Pinatubo erupted 16 years ago in the Philippines, it cooled the Earth for about a year because the sulfate particles in the upper atmosphere reflected some sunlight.
Several leading scientists, from Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen to the late nuclear cold warrior Edward Teller, have proposed doing the same artificially to offset global warming.
Using jet engines, cannons or balloons to get sulfates in the air, humans could reduce the solar heat, and only increase current sulfur pollution by a small percentage, said Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
"It's an issue of the lesser of two evils," he said.
Scientists at the Center for Atmospheric Research put the idea into a computer climate model. The results aren't particularly cheap or promising, said NCAR scientist Caspar Ammann. It would take tens of thousands of tons of sulfate to be injected into the air each month, he said.
"From a practical point of view, it's completely ridiculous," Amman said. "Instead of investing so much into this, it would be much easier to cut down on the initial problem."
Both this technique and the solar umbrella, while reducing heating, wouldn't reduce carbon dioxide. So they wouldn't counter a dramatic increase in the acidity of the world's oceans, which happens with global warming, scientists said. It harms sea life, especially coral reefs.
Despite that, Calgary's David Keith is working on tweaking the concept. He wants to find a more efficient chemical to inject into the atmosphere in case of emergency.
___
Solar umbrella
For far-out concepts, it's hard to beat Roger Angel's.
Last fall, the University of Arizona astronomer proposed what he called a "sun shade." It would be a cloud of small Frisbee-like spaceships that go between Earth and the sun and act as an umbrella, reducing heat from the sun.
"It really is just like turning down the knob by 2 percent of what's coming from the sun," he said.
The science for the ships, the rocketry to launch them, and the materials to make the shade are all doable, Angel said.
These nearly flat discs would each weigh less than an ounce and measure about a yard wide with three tab-like "ears" that are controllers sticking out just a few inches.
About 800,000 of these would be stacked into each rocket launch. It would take 16 trillion of them — that's a million million — so there would be 20 million launches of rockets. All told, Angel figures 20 million tons of material to make the discs that together form the solar umbrella.
And then there's the cost: at least $4 trillion over 30 years, probably more.
"I compare it with sending men to Mars.I think they're both projects on the same scale," Angel said. "Given the danger to Earth, I think this project might warrant some fraction of the consideration of sending people to Mars."
___
Artificial trees
Scientifically, it's known as "air capture." But the instruments being used have been dubbed "artificial trees" — even though these devices are about as treelike as a radiator on a stick.
They are designed to mimic the role of trees in using carbon dioxide, but early renderings show them looking more like the creation of a tinkering engineer with lots of steel.
Nearly a decade ago, Columbia University professor Klaus Lackner hit on an idea for his then-middle school daughter's science fair project: Create air filters that grab carbon dioxide from the air using chemical absorbers and then compress the carbon dioxide into a liquid or compressed gas that can be shipped elsewhere.
When his daughter was able to do it on a tiny scale, Lackner decided to look at doing it globally.
Newly inspired by the $25 million prize offered by Richard Branson, Lackner has fine-tuned the idea. He wants to develop a large filter that would absorb carbon dioxide from the air.
Another chemical reaction would take the carbon from the absorbent material, and then a third process would change that greenhouse gas into a form that could be disposed of.
It would take wind and a lot of energy to power the air capture devices. They would stand tall like cell phone towers on steroids, reaching about 200 feet high with various-sized square filters at the top. Lackner envisions perhaps placing 100,000 of them near wind energy turbines.
Even if each filter was only the size of a television, it could remove about 25 tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is about how much one American produces annually, Lackner said. The captured carbon dioxide would be changed into a liquid or gas that can be piped away from the air capture devices.
Disposal might be the biggest cost, Lackner said.
Disposal of carbon dioxide, including that from fossil fuel plant emissions, is a major issue of scientific and technological research called sequestration. The idea is to bury it underground, often in old oil wells or deep below the sea floor.
The Bush Administration, which doesn't like many geoengineering ideas, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on carbon sequestration, but mostly for power-plant emissions.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 — Blog Index
And then there's the cost: at least $4 trillion over 30 years, probably more."
Silly Umbrellas cost way more than my tunnels which will cost about 20 billion dollars! Plus they will generate electricity and pay for themselves over a little time!
Link
PATENT PENDING ON IMPROVED
GULF STREAM TURBINE
Accurate Control of Depths and Easier Installations and Recoveries
On May 4, 2006, a patent application was submitted to the U.S. Patent Office for two important improvements for the Gulf Stream Turbines. The first of these improvements adds a second depth control system that is activated by the hydrostatic pressures going either above or below preset limits. This system adjusts the lifting forces as required to keep the machines operating within any range of depths. This system also will simplify the installation process by permitting an entire string of Gulf Stream Turbines to be submerged simultaneously. The new patent application also includes a ballast-water purging system that permits the Gulf Stream Turbines to be quickly raised to the surface – both individually or in strings that contain many.
Precise Depth Control
In the preceding side view of the Gulf Stream Turbine, the center of buoyancy (the center of gravity of the displaced water) is represented by the red dot and the adjustable centers of gravity by the two blue dots and the connecting blue line. Depending on how the ballast water is distributed between the buoyancy tank’s front and rear compartments, the structure’s center of gravity can be located at either blue dot or anywhere between them. Extending from the center of buoyancy (the red dot) are two angled lines (257 and 258) that radiate downward from that center of buoyancy and pass through the two blue dots. Because a free-floating submerged object will always float with its center of gravity directly under its center buoyancy, if the center of gravity were moved forward to the front blue dot, the downward angled line (257) would become vertical and cause the structure’s front end move lower and its rear end to move higher, giving the hydrofoils a negative angle of attack that would produce a downward force. Conversely, if the center of gravity were moved aft to the rear blue dot, the second downward angled line (258) would become vertical. This would cause the structure’s front end to move higher and its tail end to move lower, giving the attached hydrofoils a positive angle of attack to produce a lifting force.
New Depth-Control System Complements the Low-Hitch-Point System
The forces produced by moving of the Gulf Stream Turbine’s center of gravity longitudinally by transferring the ballast water between the buoyancy tank’s end compartments will be superimposed upon those other forces that are produced by the structure’s anchor line’s (3) attachment point (21) being located below its center of drag (22, the black dot). A dark green line extending upward and to the right from the anchor line’s hitch point (21), continuing at the same angle as the anchor line (3). A yellowish green line extends downward from the center of drag (the black dot) to meet the darker green line at a right angle. The length of this yellowish-green line is the length of the “lever arm” through which the changing tensions on the anchor line, caused by the changes in the horizontal drag, will place rotational forces on the structure. If the height of the anchor line’s hitch point (21) were properly adjusted, this leverage system will use those same horizontal drag forces that produce the downward vector forces to rotate the entire structure to change the hydrofoil’s lifting forces to balance those same downward forces. With this low-hitch point system, changes in the downward vector forces produced by changes in either the current’s velocity or in the demands on the generators, will instantly adjust the hydrofoils’ lifting forces to keep the generating units operating at approximately the same depth. The new depth control system, controlled by the hydrostatic pressures, will make any additional adjustments in the lifting forces that may be required to keep the Gulf Stream Turbines operating at precisely the proper depths.
System Permits Simultaneous Submersions of Gulf Stream Turbines
In addition to accurately controlling the Gulf Stream Turbines’ operating depths, the new pressure-activated-depth-control system will also make it possible for the simultaneous submerging of any number of Gulf Stream Turbines that are linked together into strings. While floating on the surface, the submersible generating plants can be formed into staggered lines, each machine connected to its two neighbors by the electricity collecting cable. Before starting the submersion process, all of the switches will be in the off position so that there will be no electricity flowing either to or from the grid. Because the asynchronous generators will not be receiving any 60-Hz current from the grid to magnetize their stators, the generators will be producing no electricity and their rotors will be spinning freely, producing little drag and little downward vector force. When the ballast water is added to all of the buoyancy tanks, their rear compartments will be loaded with more water than their front compartments. This heavier loading at the rear compartments will place the centers of gravities for the structures at those locations that are represented by the blue dot (222) in Fig. 2. Having the centers of gravity at the rear of the buoyancy tanks will cause the Gulf Stream Turbines’ rear ends to float lower than their front ends to float higher to maximize the hydrofoils’ lifting forces to keep the ballasted Gulf Stream Turbines at the surface.
All of the Gulf Stream Turbines in the string can then be submerged simultaneously by simply closing those switches that magnetize the generators’ stators and that connect the generators’ output to the grid – as well as activate the new pressure-activated control system. The instant that the Gulf Stream Turbines begin to produce electricity, there will be an increase in the horizontal drag that will produce an equally abrupt increase in the downward vector forces, which will immediately pull all the Gulf Stream Turbines beneath the surface. The machines will then descend quickly to that depth where the downward vector forces will be balanced by those greater than normal lifting forces produced by the heavy loading of the rear compartments. All of the pressure-activated depth-control systems in all the Gulf Stream Turbines will continue to continue transferring more ballast water from the buoyancy tanks’ rear compartments to the front compartments. The transfer pumps will continue operating the movements of the centers of gravity will cause the nose ends of all of the Gulf Stream Turbines to drop enough so that their hydrofoils’ lifting forces are in perfect balance with the downward vector forces, at the desired operating depths.
How the New Pressure-Controlled System Works
Because no description of this new version of the invention is yet available on the U.S. Patent Office’s web site, this section describes its operation in some detail. The buoyancy tank is divided into compartments 68, 77, 101, 80, and 69. Vent holes 255 are located at the top of the bulkheads 360, which will allow air to pass between the compartments to equalize air pressures. There is a ballast water transfer system 305 that can transfer ballast between the buoyancy tank’s front and rear compartments. This water transfer system consists of a first pump 250, a first pipe 306 and a first special check valve 253, capable of transferring ballast water from the front compartment 68 to the rear compartment 69. The second part of this transfer system consists of a second pump 251, a second pipe 307 and a second special check valve 254 that is capable of transferring ballast water from the rear compartment 69 to the front compartment 68. The two pumps 250 and 251 are controlled by a pressure switch 259 that is activated by the ambient hydrostatic water pressures going either above or below those preset limits that are determined by the desired water depths.
The special check valves 253 and 254 will not only not allow water to flow in the wrong reverse directions through the pipes 305 and 307, they also will not allow water to flow through the pipes in the right direction – unless the pipes’ water pressure is above a minimum. This is to prevent the water from siphoning between the end compartments due to differences in their water levels. Each special check valve is extremely simple and failure proof, consisting of a heavy ball 275 that rests upon the valve’s intake port 276 to prevent low-pressure water from flowing from 278, through the valve to 282. However, when the pump starts running, the greater pressure will lift the heavy ball off the valve’s water inlet port 276 to allow the water to pass through the special check valve to 282.
The Ballast Water Purging System
The first version of the ballast water purging system (shown in Fig. 10) is designed to facilitate the recovery of individual Gulf Stream Turbines. This system can be modified to permit the easy and fast recovery of entire strings of these submersible machines – just with just a flip of a switch. This modified version will also permit the recovery of individual machines, following virtually the same procedure that was described for the first version of the water purging system. .
It was previously stated that there are vent holes 255 located near the tops of the bulkheads 360 to equalize the air pressures in the buoyancy tank’s compartments. There is a hose-connection and valve combination 262 located on the top of the buoyancy tank through which the air inside the tank can be pressurized to a pressure that is greater than the hydrostatic pressure at the operating depth. Each of the compartments has a drain hole 287 that is connected to a separate drainpipe 124 that goes to a separate special valve 264 that permits only the passage of a liquid.
Two versions of these special valves are shown in the following drawings. The drawings Figs 13a and 13b are reproduced from the patent application. Fig. 13b shows how the buoyant ball 265 will prevent air from flowing through the valve’s outlet 276 when there is no water in the valve’s casing 264 to support the ball. The drawings on the right show a simpler version in which the buoyant ball is located inside a cage that is positioned over the compartments’ drain holes 278. These fluid-only valves are to conserve the pressurized air within the buoyancy tank to push the ballast water from all the other compartments.
From these special valves, the exiting water flows through conventional valves 123 to a common pipe 308, through a conventional valve 312 (see Fig. 10), through a conventional check valve 294, to the buoyancy tank’s nose, where the water is ejected forcibly downward. The conventional valves 123 prevent the ballast water from siphoning between the compartments. They can also be used to set different flow rates to raise the structure’s front end more than its rear end. Valves 123 should remain closed, except or when the ballast water is being purged. When bringing a submersible generating plant to the surface, the conventional valve 312 in the line 266 should stay closed until after the conventional valves 312 have been opened the desired amounts to allow the divers some time to open the conventional valves 123 before opening the valve 312 to start the machine’s rapid ascent. The check valve 294 is to prevent water from flowing backwards through the pipes of the purging system to flood the compartments, in the event that the buoyancy tank’s interior air pressures should be allowed to drop while a Gulf Stream Turbine is the water with valves 123 open.
Raising a Single Gulf Stream Turbine to the Surface
The first thing that must be done, when bringing a single Gulf Stream Turbine to the surface, is to turn off the waterproof switch 7. The electricity extension cable 4 can then be disconnected from the electricity linking cable 43 at the junction box 6. The electrically collecting cable 5 is then disconnected from the underside of the anchor line 3. Because the generators will no longer be producing electricity, the reductions in the horizontal drag and in the resulting downward vector forces will tend to cause the Gulf Stream Turbine to move nearer to the surface. However, the reductions in the horizontal drag will also reduce the pull on the anchor line, which will rotate the structure vertically to lower its nose and raise the tail. That will reduce the hydrofoils’ lifting force, which will tend to cause the Gulf Stream Turbine to move lower. .
With the anchor line 3 disconnected from the electricity collecting cable 5 and the electrical extension cable 4 disconnected from linking cable 43, the structure will be ready to be raised. With the conventional valve 312 still closed, divers will open the valves 123, opening those from the forward compartments more than those from the rear. The divers will then open the conventional valve 312 to start the Gulf Stream Turbine’s ascent.
Opening the conventional valves 123 more from the front compartment than those from the rear compartment will cause the buoyancy at the structure’s nose end to increase faster than at its rear end. This faster increasing buoyancy at its nose – combined with the reaction from the ballast water being forcibly ejected downward – will lift the structure’s front end faster than its rear end, which will – in turn – increase the angle of attack of the attached hydrofoils to increase their lifting force. As these forces are driving the Gulf Stream Turbine toward the surface with increasing speed, the widening spread between the slower dropping pressures inside the tank and the faster dropping hydrostatic pressures outside, will be rapidly increasing the rate of the water’s discharge. After the Gulf Stream Turbine bursts to the surface, its buoyancy tank will continue to float higher and higher, as the pressurized air inside the tank forces out the remaining water. After a float has been attached to support the anchor-line’s end, the anchor line can be detached from the Gulf Stream Turbine, which can then be removed from the water.
Raising a String of Turbines Without Disconnecting the Electric Cables.
The preceding drawings show a modified purging system that will permit the simultaneous raising of an entire string of Gulf Stream Turbines while still connected to the electricity collecting cable. The conventional valves 123 in the first version have been replaced by special check valve 453, which can be identical to the special check vales 253 and 254 that are in the ballast water transfer system 305. The special valves 264, which prevent the loss of air pressure, remain. The conventional valve 312 is replaced with an electrically controlled valve 412. Valve 412 can be operated either manually or electrically from a distant location. Fig. 14a shows the special valve 264, special check valve 453, and the electrically control valve 412 when the generating structure is at its operating depth. Note that the valve 412 is closed. Fig. 14b shows the valve system with electrically controlled valve 412 open and the ballast water flowing out through all the valves, driven by the pressurized air in the buoyancy tank. The water entering the special check valve 453 has more than enough pressure to lift the heavy ball 475 off the intake port 476 to allow the water to flow from the valve’s intake port to its outlet 477. Fig. 14c shows the special check valve and the special valve after the ballast water has been purged from the compartment. Because the special valve 264 no longer contains water, the buoyant ball 265 drops to cover the special valve’s outlet 279, cutting off the outflow of pressurized air through the valve’s outlet 279. Because there is no water passing through the pipe 295, the heavy ball 475 drops down to again cover the valve inlet 476. The simultaneous opening of all of the electrically controlled valves 412 on all the generating structures in a string of machines will cause them all to ascend together while their anchor lines remain connected to the electricity collecting cable 5, and while the electricity extension cables 4 are still connected to the linking cables 43. Just as it is for the conventional valves 123 described for the first version of the water purging system, valves 482 can also be adjusted manually to permit the valves draining the forward compartments 68 being opened the most and with the valves 482 for the compartments 77, 101, 80, and 69 to be opened by decreasing amounts.
Various Ways of Using this Version of the Water Purging System
Because the electrically operated valve 412 in the second version of the purging system can be controlled electrically from a remote location, or manually at the underwater work site, the second version of the water purging system can be used exactly like the first version, to remove individual machines from a string without interfering with the other turbine’s ability to generate electricity. In both cases, divers must be transported in some type of submersible vehicle to the underwater work site, where they will detach the electricity collecting cable 5 from the anchor line 3, and detach the electrical extension cable 4 from the linking cable 43.
This second version’s electrically controlled valves will also permit an entire string of Gulf Stream Turbines to be brought to the surface without being disconnected from the electrical collecting cable and the electrical extension cable. Although this would provide an extremely easy way to recover all the machines in a string, it will result in all of them floating at the surface, not producing power, and with their buoyancy tanks empty.
A third method for recovering the machines would be to reverse of the installation process. This would require a means of overriding the depth control system so that its pumps can continue to transfer the ballast water from the buoyancy tank’s front compartments to the rear compartments – regardless of the depth. The movement of the center of gravity to the rear of the structure will maximize the hydrofoils’ lifting force, which will cause the Gulf Stream Turbines to move closer to the surface. When the switches are thrown to disconnect the power to and from the grid, the resulting decline in the downward vector forces will cause the still fully ballasted machines to rise to the surface, where they will float low in the water. Machines to be removed from the string can then be disconnected from the electrical collecting cable. After their buoyancy tanks are purged, the machines can be removed and replaced. Then, just as it was with the original submersions, the switches can be thrown to activate the depth control system and to magnetize the stators so that the generators can again produce power. The string of Gulf Stream Turbines would again descend to their proper depths.
I wonder how much CO2 and other GGs will be released to manufacture and launch these frisbees. Shoot, we don't even need the discs - the particulate matter from 20 million rocket launches will accomplish the same thing - or, completely negate any possible positive effects of the umbrella. I think I'll put this one in the "idiotic" category.
OTOH, if the discs were solar collectors, and we could beam the energy down to earth... ;-)
Viewing: 1 - 8
Page: 1 — Blog Index