Obama looks at climate engineering

http://digg.com/environment/Obama_looks_at_climate_engineering

I would think that space solar power would be much cheaper than trying to re-engineer the Earth's climate.

Space solar power would permit complete elimination of all carbon emissions. In that scenario, natural processes would be sufficient to reduce atmospheric CO2 content, and restore the atmospheric heat balance to normal.

SPace solar power still has a ways to go. However, such a multbillion dollareffort certainly would lock in programs for decades.
They are also looking at artificial volcanoes...Well, perhaps they should start with the real volcanoes
Here is an interesting site to check out the active volcanoes...http://www.geocodezip.com/v2_activeVolcanos.asp
Looks like Planetary engineering will become popular again.
David

Obama looks at climate engineering

http://digg. com/environment/ Obama_looks_ at_climate_ engineering

I would think that space solar power would be much cheaper than trying to re-engineer the Earth's climate.

Space solar power would permit complete elimination of all carbon emissions. In that scenario, natural processes would be sufficient to reduce atmospheric CO2 content, and restore the atmospheric heat balance to normal.

> Obama looks at climate engineering
>
> http://digg.com/environment/Obama_looks_at_climate_engineering
>
> I would think that space solar power would be much cheaper than trying to re-engineer the Earth's climate.
>
> Space solar power would permit complete elimination of all carbon emissions. In that scenario, natural processes would be sufficient to reduce atmospheric CO2 content, and restore the atmospheric heat balance to normal.

It can do better than replace all the fossil fuels. By 2050 we can
replace fossil fuels (including oil) with SBSP. That takes about 30
TW and by that date production would be a TW or two per year. Raise
the production rate to 5 or 6 TW/year.

In ten years there could be 60 TW dedicated to pulling CO2 out of the
air, converting it to synthetic oil and pumping it back into old oil
fields--where we know it will stay for millions of years. It takes
600 TW years to pull 1000 billion tons out of the atmosphere. That
reduces the level 100ppm which takes the level back to 1960 from the
present value.

But the key is reducing the cost to GEO to $100/kg or less. There may
be other ways, but nobody has yet found a technical problem with the
"pop up and push" proposal.

Keith Henson

PS If anyone is interested, I found a way to avoid using reaction
mass to compensate for light pressure..

I looks like between powersats and "artificial trees" you
could eliminate all the carbon emissions associated with
producing electricity, and even produce synthetic
hydrocarbons. Burning these synthetic hydrocarbons
(SHC's?) would produce carbon dioxide, but since you took
that CO2 out of the air to begin with, the cycle would be
carbon-neutral.

In fact, there could probably be some subsidy for
companies to convert 2% or so of the carbon they recover
into synthetic coal, and bury it in old coal mines.

Same thing I was suggesting, only you suggested it before
I did, and with more information to back it up.

I don't mind that you did it first and did it better;
that just means it's more likely to be a good idea.